Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Component level diagnosability of discrete event systems based on observations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Diagnosability of a discrete event system is usually dealt at the system level entailing synchronous composition of component automata leading to state explosion problem. However, many of the systems are modular in nature allowing localized detection and isolation of faults. Moreover, developments in sensor technology allow direct detection of faults based on sensor output which are denoted as observations in this paper. Combining modularity and observations, we propose a new concept of O-diagnosability based on observations at the subsystem or component level to make the diagnosability verification less complex. The concepts of monolithic (system) O-diagnosability and CO-diagnosability (system to component) are introduced and necessary and sufficient conditions for O-diagnosability are derived. Theoretical results on the relation between monolithic O-diagnosability and CO-diagnosability support the system level diagnosability verification through component level analysis in a progressive way. Computational complexity for the proposed diagnosability verification is shown to be of the order of n2 where n is the largest number of diagnoser states of a component of the system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Console L, Picardi C, Ribaudo M (2002) Process algebras for system diagnosis. Artif Intell 142(1):19–51

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Contant O, Lafortune S, Teneketzis D (2004) Diagnosis of intermittent faults. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 14(2):171–202

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Debouk R, Lafortune S, Teneketzis D (2000) Coordinated decentralized protocols for failure diagnosis of discrete events systems. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 10:33–86

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Zad SH, Kwong RH, Wonham WM (2003) Fault diagnosis in discrete-event systems: framework and model reduction. IEEE Trans Autom Control 48(7):1199–1212

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Jiang S, Kumar R (2002) Failure diagnosis of discrete event systems with linear-time temporal logic fault specifications. In: Proceedings of the 2002 American control conference, Anchorage, AK, USA, vol 1, pp 128–133

  6. Lafortune S, Teneketzis D, Sampath M, Sengupta R, Sinnamohideen K (2001) Failure diagnosis of dynamic systems: an approach based on discrete event systems. In: Proceedings of the 2001 American control conference, Arlington, VA, USA pp 2058–2071

  7. Lamperti G, Zanella M (2003) Diagnosis of active systems: principles and techniques, vol 741. Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science

  8. Lin F (1994) Diagnosability of discrete event systems and its applications. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 4(2):197–212

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Pencole Y, Cordier MO, Roze L (2002) A decentralized model-based diagnostic tool for complex systems. Int J Artif Intell Tools 11(3):327–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sampath M (2001) A hybrid approach to failure diagnosis of industrial systems. In: Proc. 2001 American control conference-ACC’01, Arlington, VA, USA, vol 3, pp 2077–2082

  11. Sampath M, Sengupta R, Lafortune S, Sinnamohideen K, Teneketzis DC (1995) Diagnosability of discrete event systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 40:1555–1575

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Sampath M, Sengupta R, Lafortune S, Sinnamohideen K, Teneketzis DC (1996) Failure diagnosis using discrete event models. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 4(2):105–124

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Sampath M, Lafortune S, Teneketzis D (1998) Active diagnosis of discrete event systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 43(7):908–929

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Yoo S, Lafortune S (2002) Polynomial-time verification of diagnosability of partially observed discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 47(9):1491–1495

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Calderaro V, Hadjicostis CN, Piccolo A, Siano P (2011) Failure identification in smart grids based on petri net modeling. IEEE Trans Industr Electron 58(10):4613–4623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lin Z, Wen F, Chung CY, Wong KP (2006) A survey on the applications of Petri net theory in power systems. In: 2006 IEEE power engineering society general meeting, Montreal, p 7

  17. Jiang S, Huang Z, Chandra V, Kumar R (2001) A polynomial algorithm for testing diagnosability of discrete-event systems. IEEE Trans Autom Control 46(8):1318–1321

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Pencole Y (2000) Decentralized diagnoser approach: application to telecommunication networks. In: Provan G Darwiche A (eds) Proc. of the 11th international workshop on principles of diagnosis—DX’00, Morelia, Mexico, pp 185–192

  19. Pencole Y (2004) Diagnosability analysis of distributed discrete event systems. In: Proc. international workshop on principles of diagnosis (DX’04), pp 173–178

  20. Debouk R, Malik R, Brandin B (2002) A modular architecture for diagnosis of discrete event systems. In: Proceedings of the 41st IEEE conference on decision and control, 2002, Las Vegas, NV, USA, vol 1, pp 417–422. https://doi.org/10.1109/CDC.2002.1184530

  21. Su R, Wonham WM, Kurien J, Koutsoukos X (2002) Distributed diagnosis for qualitative systems. In: Proc. 2002 IFAC international workshop on discrete event systems—WODES’02, Zaragoza, Spain, pp 169–174

  22. Debouk R (2003) Diagnosis of discrete event systems: a modular approach. In: IEEE International conference on systems, man and cybernetics, Washington, vol 1, pp 306–311. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSMC.2003.1243833

  23. Contant O, Lafortune S, Teneketzis D (2006) Diagnosability of discrete event systems with modular architecture. Discrete Event Dyn Syst 16(1):9–37

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Reshmila S, Devanathan R (2015) Modeling a system using observations in discrete event system for failure diagnosis. In: IEEE recent advances in intelligent computational systems (RAICS), Trivandrum, pp 280–284

  25. Reshmila S, Devanathan R (2016) Diagnosis of power system failures using observer based discrete event system. In: IEEE 1st international conference on control, measurement and instrumentation (CMI), Kolkata, pp 131–135

  26. Reshmila S, Devanathan R (2015) Robust diagnosis of power system failures using discrete event system approach. In: TENCON 2015—2015 IEEE region 10 conference, Macao, pp 1–6

  27. Reshmila S, Devanathan R (2016) Modeling and robust diagnosis of power system protection failures using observations in discrete event system. In: 2016 Indian control conference (ICC), Hyderabad, pp 170–175

  28. Reshmila S, Rajagopalan D (2019) Diagnosability of a class of discrete event systems based on observations. Control Theory Technol 17:265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11768-019-7298-3

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Cassandras CG, Lafortune S (2008) Introduction to discrete event systems, 2nd edn. Springer, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sree Narayana Gurukulam College of Engineering, Perumbavoor, Kerala, India

    S. Reshmila

  2. Hindustan Institute of technology and Science, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India

    R. Devanathan

Authors
  1. S. Reshmila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Devanathan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Reshmila.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reshmila, S., Devanathan, R. Component level diagnosability of discrete event systems based on observations. Innovations Syst Softw Eng 19, 303–317 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-022-00502-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11334-022-00502-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation