Abstract
An essential requirement in any data analysis is to have a response variable representing the aim of the analysis. Much academic work is based on laboratory or simulated data, where the experiment is controlled, and the ground truth clearly defined. This is seldom the reality for equipment performance in an industrial environment and it is common to find issues with the response variable in industry situations. We discuss this matter using a case study where the problem is to detect an asset event (failure) using data available but for which no ground truth is available from historical records. Our data frame contains measurements of 14 sensors recorded every minute from a process control system and 4 current motors on the asset of interest over a three year period. In this situation the ``how to'' label the event of interest is of fundamental importance. Different labelling strategies will generate different models with direct impact on the in-service fault detection efficacy of the resulting model. We discuss a data-driven approach to label a binary response variable (fault/anomaly detection) and compare it to a rule-based approach. Labelling of the time series was performed using dynamic time warping followed by agglomerative hierarchical clustering to group events with similar event dynamics. Both data sets have significant imbalance with 1,200,000 non-event data but only 150 events in the rule-based data set and 64 events in the data-driven data set. We study the performance of the models based on these two different labelling strategies, treating each data set independently. We describe decisions made in window-size selection, managing imbalance, hyper-parameter tuning, training and test selection, and use two models, logistic regression and random forest for event detection. We estimate useful models for both data sets. By useful, we understand that we could detect events for the first four months in the test set. However as the months progressed the performance of both models deteriorated, with an increasing number of false positives, reflecting possible changes in dynamics of the system. This work raises questions such as ``what are we detecting?'' and ``is there a right way to label?'' and presents a data driven approach to support labelling of historical events in process plant data for event detection in the absence of ground truth data.
Highlights
The drive for data-driven algorithms and models to support predictive maintenance programs continues apace — a recent review of the literature on this topic is Carvalho et al (2019)
In this paper we look at one such system on a real industry case study and discuss two methods of labelling the response variable, one using a rule-based method and the other using a data-driven approach
After we separate the training and test sets, we verified a total of 81 events in the training set and 69 events in the test set for the rule-based response variable, while there are 29-31 events in the training set and 31-33 events in the test set for the data-driven based response variable
Summary
The drive for data-driven algorithms and models to support predictive maintenance programs continues apace — a recent review of the literature on this topic is Carvalho et al (2019). International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management, ISSN2153-2648, 2022 000. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROGNOSTICS AND HEALTH MANAGEMENT sociated with the assumed response variable (event of interest). When it comes to equipment performance, identifying an ‘event’ such as process upsets and equipment failures, such identification usually involves a human in the loop. This is often an operator or maintainer who records the time of the event and provides a label. We discuss in our work the strategy to label a binary response variable to handle a fault detection scenario (a single type of fault)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: International Journal of Prognostics and Health Management
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.