Review pubs.acs.

org/IECR

Review of Recent Research on Data-Based Process Monitoring

Zhiqiang Ge,*, Zhihuan Song, and Furong Gao

State Key Laboratory of Industrial Control Technology, Institute of Industrial Process Control, Department of Control Science and Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Peoples Republic of China Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong ABSTRACT: Data-based process monitoring has become a key technology in process industries for safety, quality, and operation eciency enhancement. This paper provides a timely update review on this topic. First, the natures of dierent industrial processes are revealed with their data characteristics analyzed. Second, detailed terminologies of the data-based process monitoring method are illustrated. Third, based on each of the main data characteristics that exhibits in the process, a corresponding problem is dened and illustrated, with review conducted with detailed discussions on connection and comparison of dierent monitoring methods. Finally, the relevant research perspectives and several promising issues are highlighted for future work.

1. INTRODUCTION In modern industries, process safety and product quality are two important issues of interest. Process monitoring is a widely adopted tool for process safety and quality enhancement. In many occasions, process monitoring is also simply termed as fault detection and diagnosis, although the terminology of process monitoring is much more common in practice. Generally, process monitoring can be divided into three categories: model-based methods, knowledge-based methods, and data-based methods. Among these three types of methods, the model-based method is the most traditional one; it has initially been used for fault detection and diagnosis in aerospace, engine, and power systems. Compared to other two methods, the model-based method is based on exact process models, for example, the rst-principle of physical/ chemical relationships between dierent variables. As a result, they tend to give more accurate results than other two methods as long as the system model is reliable. However, as modern industrial processes become more and more complicated, the characterization of rst-principle models also becomes much more dicult, costly, and sometime it is even impossible to build such models. On the other hand, knowledge-based methods are based on the available knowledge of the process behavior and the experience of expert plant operators. The monitoring results provided by these methods tend to be more intuitive. However, the creation of the process knowledge base is always a timeconsuming and dicult operation requiring the long-term accumulation of expert knowledge and experiences. Although there are limitations of the model-based and knowledge-based methods, they are still popular in particular areas, especially those in which process models can be easily obtained or the process knowledge has been readily accumulated. Compared to the aforementioned two types of process monitoring methods, data-based process monitoring methods have no requirement of the process model and the associated expert knowledge. It has become more and more popular in recent years, especially in those complex industrial processes/ systems whose models and expert knowledge are dicult to
2013 American Chemical Society

build and obtain in practice. Because of the wide utilization of the distributed control system (DCS) in modern industrial processes, large amounts of data have been recorded and collected. Those data contain the most process information and therefore can be used for modeling, monitoring, and control. Besides, in the past years, a signicant progress has been made in the data-mining and processing area, which can provide new technologies for the utilization of process monitoring. More detailed descriptions and discussions of dierent types of process monitoring methods can refer to the three parts review papers by Venkatasubramanian et al.,13 which were published in 2003. Previously, three books have been published on the topic of data-based methods for process monitoring and control: (1) Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery for Process Monitoring and Control, by Wang;4 (2) Data-Driven Techniques for Fault Detection and Diagnosis in Chemical Processes; by Russell et al.;5and (3) Fault Detection and Diagnosis in Industrial Systems, by Chiang et al.6 While Wang introduced some data-mining technologies into process monitoring and control, Russell et al.5 is mainly concerned with the traditional Multivariate Statistical Process Control (MSPC) methods for process monitoring. Later, Chiang et al.6 extended data-based process monitoring to incorporate model-based and knowledge-based methods. More recently, Qin7 summarized the previous works on the topic of MSPC, such as fault detection, reconstruction, and diagnosis. MacGregor et al.8 gave an overview of the important concepts behind latent variable models for process analysis, monitoring, and control. Kano9 provided a recent development and application of data-based process monitoring, control, and quality improvement methods in steel industries. Yao and Gao10 gave a recent survey on multistage/multiphase statistical modeling methods for batch processes. Zhang and Zhang11 also reviewed recent developments of multivariate statistical techniques for industrial process monitoring, fault diagnosis, and quality prediction.
Published: February 17, 2013
3543
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research However, it should be noted that the traditional multivariate statistical-based method has several inherent limitations. For example, the calculations of monitoring statistics and their control limits of the principal component analysis (PCA) and partial least-squares (PLS) methods are made under the assumption that the process data are Gaussian-distributed. Also, they require the process variables to be linearly correlated, and the process is operated under a single stationary condition. In practice, however, most of these assumptions can be easily violated. Therefore, in past years, various improvements of the traditional MSPC-based process monitoring methods have been made, and many other data-based methods have also been introduced for process monitoring, such as independent component analysis (ICA), Gaussian mixture models (GMMs), articial neural networks (ANN), support vector machines (SVM), and support vector data description (SVDD), among others. Nevertheless, a systematic review on these recently developed data-based process monitoring has not been reported yet. The motivation of this survey paper is to provide such an overview of data-based process monitoring methods that have been developed in past years, especially since 2003. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2, the data characteristics in the process industry are explored and analyzed. A systematical illustration of the data-based process monitoring terminology is provided in section 3, which is followed by a detailed review of recent developments of databased process monitoring methods in section 4, performing through various aspects, e.g., non-Gaussian monitoring, handling nonlinear process data, monitoring for time-varying industrial processes, etc. In section 5, detailed research perspectives and some additional promising issues are demonstrated. Finally, conclusions of this survey paper are made.

Review

Figure 1. Illustration of a typical continuous process.

chemistry industries are all of this type. Similarly, a representative batch process is shown in Figure 2, which is a typical injection molding machine in the plastic engineering area.

2. INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES AND DATA CHARACTERISTICS In this section, two types of industrial processes are introduced, followed by detailed analyses of dierent data characteristics in these processes. 2.1. Industrial Processes. 2.1.1. Continuous Processes. Continuous process is a traditional type of industrial processes, which has been widely used in sectors of chemical, petrochemical, and metallurgical engineering. As its name suggests, the continuous process is always operated through a continuous way. That is, after the process has been started up, it is operated around the optimal state most of the time and produces constant outputs. The systematic owchart of a typical continuous process is shown in Figure 1, which is a distillation process. Actually, in the initial stage of data-based process monitoring, most application studies were carried out in the continuous process (for example, the continuous process was the initial research objective of the MSPC method). 2.1.2. Batch Processes. A batch process is a type of process that has nite operation durations, and the production strictly follows the recipe of the process specication. Compared to the continuous process, the setpoint of the batch process always changes, which means the process is often operated under dierent process conditions. Therefore, while the continuous process can hardly produce dierent types of products in the same process, various grades of products can be manufactured in a single batch process. Many processes in the specialty chemistry, plastic engineering, food engineering, and bio3544

Figure 2. Simplied schematic of the injection molding machine.

In contrast to the continuous process, any process that is not operated through a continuous way can be termed as the batch process. Here, all terminologies of the batch, semibatch, or discontinuous processes are called batch processes. In terms of data-based process monitoring, the batch process modeling should deal with an additional dimension of the data variation, namely, the batch-to-batch variation. To this end, batch process monitoring is sometimes considered to be more complicated than the continuous process monitoring approach. However, in the remainder of this paper, most of the demonstrated terminologies and methodologies can be used for both types of processes. 2.2. Data Characteristics in the Process Industry. In this subsection, the main critical data characteristics in the process industrial are analyzed, given as follows. 2.2.1. High Dimensionality. Modern industrial processes always consist of various components, parts, or operation equipments, and each of these parts may has a signicant number of measured variables. As a result, the entire process may generate a large number of high-dimensional data samples.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Review

Figure 3. Comparison of Gaussian and non-Gaussian process variables.

How to handle these high-dimensional process datasets is a challenge for data-based modeling approaches. Fortunately, we do not have to generate the monitoring chart for each process variable, which is totally cumbersome and inecient. Instead, by using multivariate data analysis and processing approaches, such as PCA and PLS, the dimensionality of the process dataset can be signicantly reduced, while the main data information still remains. Besides, the problem of colinearity can also be solved simultaneously, since both PCA and PLS result in uncorrelated latent variables from the original dataset. Therefore, based on the reduced variable space, process monitoring can be carried out more easily, and, in most cases, the data visualization also becomes available. 2.2.2. Non-Gaussian Distribution. It is mentioned that the traditional MSPC method such as PCA-based process monitoring approach has inherently assumed that the process data follow Gaussian distribution, because of the calculation of the monitoring statistics and their control limits. In practice, however, this assumption can hardly be satised. Actually, most process variables do not exactly follow the Gaussian distribution, which may due to the non-Gaussian noise, feedback control systems, dierent data transformations, etc. Figure 3 show comparative results of a standard Gaussian distribution variable and a non-Gaussian distribution variable. For a Gaussian process variable, the rst- and second-order statistics can suciently describe it. However, higher-order statistics should be incorporated to depict the non-Gaussian process variable. Detailed monitoring methods for those processes which have non-Gaussian variables are discussed in section 4.1. 2.2.3. Nonlinear Relationships. Nonlinear relationships among dierent process variables are very common in the process industry, as well as between the process variables and the quality variables. A typical linear correlation and a nonlinear correlation between two variables are shown together in Figure 4. While the linear relationship of the data can be easily captured by the traditional MSPC method, the data nonlinearity is dicult to model. Dierent processes may have quite dierent nonlinear relationships among process variables. Therefore, it is dicult to construct a unied nonlinear model for process monitoring. In the past years, dierent types of nonlinear models have been developed, with their corresponding statistics constructed for process monitoring. Detailed
3545

Figure 4. Linear and nonlinear relationships between two process variables.

reviews of nonlinear process monitoring methods are provided in section 4.2. 2.2.4. Time-Varying and Multimode Behaviors. Because of the uctuations of process raw materials, slowing shift of the setpoints, aging of the main components of the process, seasoning eects, among others, the operating condition of industrial processes may changes frequently. In batch processes, particularly, the change of production grades is subjected to the demand of the market. As a result, the condition of the batch process may be often switched among dierent operation modes. For those processes that are slow-varying or have multiple operating conditions, it is dicult to apply the traditional MSPC methods, since they are based on the assumption that the process has only one stable operating region. Therefore, problems will arise when those techniques are applied to varying processes. To improve the monitoring performance for those processes, dierent methods have been proposed in the past years, detailed reviews of which will be illustrated in section 4.3. 2.2.5. Data Autocorrelations. In practice, some process variables may show dynamic behaviors, that is, dierent sampling points of each variable are autocorrelated with each other. This time-series correlation of the variable may due to the inherent of the process, feedback control systems, time correlation of process noises, etc. To eliminate the dynamic eect of the process data, a simple way is to use a big sampling interval, thereby weakening the correlation between dierent
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research sampling data. However, this method may lose signicant data information, and the relationships among dierent process variables may also be distorted. Particularly, when the fault only inuences the dynamic change of the process variables, the monitoring performance will be seriously deteriorated if the dynamic relationships have not incorporated for modeling. Similarly, various research studies have been carried out in the past years, we will give a thorough review on this topic in section 4.4. 2.2.6. Three-Way Dimensional Data in Batch Processes. In batch processes, the dataset is often expressed as a threedimensional manner, with an additional batch direction. Usually, this three-way dataset is unfolded into a twodimensional dataset, based on which a monitoring model is then developed. A typical three-way dataset of the batch process and the widely used batchwise unfolding method is given in Figure 5. For process monitoring, the traditional PCA

Review

operation region of the monitoring model may be distorted if the missing data of some important process variables have not been well-xed. Various methods for dealing with missing data have been developed.12,13 Outliers are another type of the data abnormality, which are also very common in practice. Actually, outlier detection is a part of the data preprocessing procedure, which remains very critical for data-based process modeling. Sometimes, several outliers or even a single outlier may have great negative eect on the statistical data-based model. In past years, much work has been done on the outlier detection issue, including several reviews.1416 Besides, the process data may also show multiscale characteristic, inconsistent sample rates, measurement delay, etc. All of them should be considered when constructing the data-based monitoring model. Furthermore, it should be noticed that the process may simultaneously exhibit several data characteristics that have been mentioned above.

Figure 5. Three-way batch process dataset and the traditional batchwise unfolding method.

and PLS models have been extended to their multiway counterparts: multiway PCA (MPCA) and multiway PLS (PLS). Since 1990s, research works on these multiway modelbased batch process monitoring approaches have been widely acknowledged and extended to other more complicated situations, e.g., nonlinear batch process, dynamic batch process, etc. The state-of-the-art of batch process monitoring will be demonstrated in section 4.5. 2.2.7. Other Data Characteristics. Except for the mentioned data characteristics above, there are also other data characteristics that may signicantly inuence the performance of the monitoring method. For example, due to the malfunction of a hardware sensor, maintenance of a part of the process, real-time database failure, among others, there is a certain probability that some of the sensors will occasionally fail to provide measurements. In such missing data situations, the normal
3546

3. DATA-BASED PROCESS MONITORING METHODOLOGY In this section, detailed illustrations of methodology issues and implementation procedures of the typical data-based process monitoring method are provided. Those methodologies and implementation procedures are general and thus can be used for both of the continuous and batch processes, as well as in dierent application areas. An overview of the data-based process monitoring methodology is presented in Figure 6. 3.1. Data Inspection and Selection. This is an initial step for data-based process monitoring, the aim of which is to get an overview of the process data and select the most appropriate data for modeling. Typically, in this step, the process data structure is examined, dierent data characteristics are analyzed, the operating region of the current process is identied, and the modeling and evaluation datasets are determined. For continuous processes, it is important to identify the parts of process data that are collected under the stationary condition. This is because in most time the continuous process runs under a stable operating condition. In contrast, the situation is dierent for batch processes, since they usually have no steady states. As a result, the modeling dataset should be determined by selecting the most representative batches in the process. Generally speaking, data inspection and selection is an important step for data-based process monitoring, because the following steps are all based on this step. If an inappropriate dataset has been selected for model construction that cannot well represent the operating conditions of the industrial process, then the monitoring system may result in various false alarms or miss detecting the process fault. 3.2. Data Preprocessing. Data preprocessing is also a critical step for data-based process monitoring. The aim of this step is to transform the original data to more appropriate manner, which can be eciently used for modeling. By taking the traditional PCA method for example, dierent data samples are always normalized to zero means and unit variance. In this way, the scales of dierent process variables can be eliminated, therefore, the PCA model will not be inclined to any one of the process variables. For dierent purposes, there are also other data-scaling and transformation methods. For example, to handle the three-way batch process dataset, it is always unfolded through the batch direction. In order to remove the mean trajectory of dierent batches, a batch normalization procedure is typically carried out for the unfolded twodimensional dataset. Besides, we may also have to handle
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Review

Figure 6. Data-based process monitoring methodology.

missing data, outliers, and gross errors in the dataset, all of which are very common in practice. 3.3. Model Selection, Training, and Validation. Based on the data characteristic analysis and evaluation results, we can determine the complexity of the process monitoring model, e.g. ,which type of model is used for modeling, how complex of the model structure should be, and so on. For example, if the data relationship is linear and most process variables are Gaussiandistributed, we can simply select the PCA or PLS model: If some of the process variables are non-Gaussian, then a form of non-Gaussian modeling approach should be employed, such as ICA. Or if the relationships between dierent process variables are nonlinear, some nonlinear modeling methods such as ANN and SVM can be incorporated. Since the model can be considered as the driving force for databased process monitoring, selection of the optimal model type is of critical importance. Until now, however, there has been no theoretical criterion for model selection. Instead, the model is often selected by experience or determined through an ad hoc manner. Once the type of the model has been selected, the next step is to train the model based on the process data, and evaluate it for its eciency. In this stage, dierent models have their own training algorithms. Before putting the model for online
3547

utilization, the performance should be evaluated. Therefore, the process dataset is often divided into two parts: a training dataset and a testing dataset. However, in some particular situations, the industrial process may not be able to provide sucient data for model training and evaluation. In this case, it is useful to apply the cross-validation technique or resort to some resampling methods, such as bagging17 and boosting.18 3.4. Online Process Monitoring. After the data-based model has been built, appropriate statistics are constructed for online monitoring. For example, two monitoring statistics (T2 and SPE) are typically constructed in the traditional PCA-based monitoring method. Besides, when a possible fault has been detected in the process, the next step is to diagnosis it (try to determine the root cause of this fault), reconstruct its direction and magnitude, and identify the fault type. Detailed descriptions of these issues are given as follows. 3.4.1. Fault Detection. Fault detection is an initial step for process monitoring, based on which we can judge if an abnormal event happens in process or not. If the values of the monitoring statistics have exceeded their corresponding control limits, a fault alarm should be triggered. In order to guarantee the reliability of the process system, reducing both the false alarm rate and the missing alarm rate has always been the rst objective of the fault detection approaches. 3.4.2. Fault Diagnosis. After a fault has been detected in the process, we may want to know which part or which component
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research of the process is abnormal. This leads to the fault diagnosis method, which can provide the root cause of the detected fault. Typically, the diagnosis result can be located to a small part of the process or even to an exact sensor/actuator. However, dierent process variables are always correlated, and the fault may inuence various variables and propagate to other parts of the process. Hence, how to provide an accurate fault diagnosis results is still a challenge in the process monitoring area. Actually, the task of fault diagnosis is extremely easy in an era when the process monitoring is mainly carried out by single variable monitoring charts. That is, each process variable has its own monitoring chart, and the up/low control limit has been well-dened. Therefore, as long as the control limits have been violated, the fault can be easily detected and diagnosed. However, if the number of process variables is very large, the single variable monitoring approach will become cumbersome, and also the correlations between process variables cannot be captured. That is why single-variable monitoring should be updated to the widely used multivariate variable monitoring method today. However, while fault detection becomes much easier for multivariate variable monitoring, the fault diagnosis becomes much more dicult. Hence, to some extent, fault detection and fault diagnosis are paradoxical to each other. 3.4.3. Fault Reconstruction. After detection of a process fault, the aim of fault reconstruction is to explore its direction and magnitude. When a fault has been reconstructed, the normal value of the faulty data sample can be recovered. Also, we can examine the detailed information of the fault, which is very helpful for the following fault isolation and process recovery steps. Besides, the fault reconstruction is quite important especially when this faulty variable is used for some other purposes, such as process control, soft sensor modeling, quality prediction, and so on. Without fault reconstruction, the results could be distorted and even cause another fault in the process. 3.4.4. Fault Identication. Typically, the industrial process always has various types of faults. Therefore, when a fault has been detected from the process, we may want to know which type it belongs to. The information of the fault type is very useful, because it can help the operator to quickly understand the fault and nd the appropriate maintenance strategy to get the process back into the normal condition as soon as possible. Generally, the fault identication issue can be regarded as a pattern match and recognition problem. Therefore, dierent data-based pattern analysis methods can be used for the fault identication purpose. 3.5. Fault Isolation and Process Recovery. After the detailed information of the detected fault has been explored, it should be further isolated from other parts of the process. It is important that the process should not be signicantly impacted when the fault is isolated. Then, an experienced operator tries to repair it, and resume the process as operating in the normal condition. 3.6. Model Maintenance. Conventionally, when the process monitoring model has been built, it remains xed in the process. However, because of the slow drift and other changes of the process data, the monitoring performance of the model may be degraded; as a result, a signicant number of fault alarms may occur in the process. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the feasibility and eciency of the process monitoring model periodically. In the past years, dierent types of model maintenance methods have been developed, such as recursive/adaptive modeling methods, moving-window
3548

Review

approaches, multimodels methods, and so on. Detailed explorations of the monitoring method for time-varying processes are provided in section 4.3. 3.7. Other related methodologies. Furthermore, there are other related methodologies, which may also play important roles in data-based process monitoring. Some of these related methodologies are listed as follows: (i) variable selection; (ii) sensor network design; (iii) data clustering and analysis; (iv) fault mode analysis; and (v) fault propagation path tracking.

4. STATE-OF-THE-ART OF DATA-BASED PROCESS MONITORING In this section, the state-of-the art of data-based process monitoring is examined through several dierent viewpoints. 4.1. Non-Gaussian Process Monitoring. 4.1.1. Problem Statement. In practice, as we know, not all of the process variables are Gaussian-distributed; some of them may follow dierent types of non-Gaussian distributions. In this case, the traditional PCA- and PLS-based monitoring methods may not function very well. When constructing T2 and SPE statistics for process monitoring, the calculation of their control limits should be made under the assumption that the latent variables are Gaussian-distributed. Otherwise, the control limits may be inaccurate, thus unable to represent the boundary of normal operation region of the process. Therefore, when the data are not Gaussian-distributed, the monitoring results based on PCA/PLS may be misleading or cause false alarms. To improve the monitoring performance of those non-Gaussian processes, several types of methods have been developed in the past years, such as independent component analysis, Gaussian mixture models, support vector data description, etc., detailed reviews of which are given as follows. 4.1.2. Independent Component Analysis (ICA). Independent component analysis (ICA) is an emerging technique for nding independent latent components from the measured process variables. What distinguished ICA from PCA is that it looks for components that are both statistically independent and non-Gaussian. While PCA can only impose independence up to second-order statistics information, ICA involves higherorder statistics of the data. Therefore, ICA may reveal more meaningful information in the non-Gaussian data than PCA. For the process monitoring purpose, ICA was rst introduced by Li and Wang19 and Kano et al.20 Later, Kano et al.21 developed a unied framework for MSPC, which combined PCA-based SPC and ICA-based SPC. Lee et al.22 also developed a process monitoring method based on the ICA method, in which three statistics have been used for process monitoring. Dierent from the single independent componentbased monitoring approach, the information of various independent components have been integrated into the three statistics. More recently, the ICA-based process monitoring method has been modied and improved, such as Lee et al.,23 Zhang and Zhang,24,25 and Wang and Shi.26 A two-step ICAPCA based monitoring approach has been proposed both fault detection and identication by Ge and Song,27 and then was adopted for time-varying and batch process monitoring.28,29 Other applications of the ICA-based process monitoring methods include those devised by Albazzaz and Wang,30 Zhang and Qin,31 Kim and Yoo,32 Tian et al.,33 Huang and Chiu,34 Ge et al.,35 Hsu et al.,36 Stefatos and Ben Hamza,37 and Odiowei and Cao,38 among others. Although the ICA model has been successfully introduced for process monitoring, there are several shortcomings that may
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research make this method cumbersome for practice utilization. First, because of the random initialization of most ICA algorithms, the extracted components may be dierent from each running time, which will lead to various monitoring results. Therefore, the monitoring performance of the ICA-based method is unstable, which could cause confusion for the process engineer. Second, the number selection of retained independent components is still an open question. Although several methods have been developed for several selecteed independent components, they have their own advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, it is quite dicult to set a critical rule for selection of the independent components in the ICA method. Third, how to measure the importance of each independent component for the process monitoring purpose is also a dicult task so far. Besides, the control limit of the ICA-based monitoring statistic is dicult to determine, becase of the nonGaussian distribution of the extracted independent components. 4.1.3. Gaussian Mixture Models. Another commonly used method for non-Gaussian process monitoring is known as the Gaussian mixture model (GMM). The main idea of this method is due to the assumption that the dataset of a complex industrial process can be described by several local linear models. To learn the GMM model, the ExpectationMaximization (EM) algorithm is often employed to determine the multiple parameters in the GMM model. In order to reduce the dimensionality of the process data, the GMM model is sometimes combined with the traditional PCA model, which leads to a mixture form of the PCA model. Chen and Liu proposed a mixture PCA model-based method for process monitoring and extracting fuzzy rules from the process data.39,40 Choi et al.41 proposed a Gaussian mixture model via PCA and discriminant analysis, based on which both fault detection and identication can be eciently carried out. Later, a Maximum-Likelihood PCA modeling framework was proposed for non-Gaussian process monitoring,42 and has been extended to a more general form, which is called as maximum-likelihood mixture factor analysis model.43 Other applications of the GMM models for process monitoring have been reported in works by Thissen et al.,44 Yu and Qin,45 Chen and Zhang,46 Wen et al.,47 etc. 4.1.4. Support Vector Data Description. Recently, a wellknown one-class classication methodsupport vector data descriptionhas been introduced for process monitoring. The goal of SVDD is to dene a boundary around normal samples with a volume as small as possible. By introducing kernel functions, SVDD can adapt to the real shape of samples and nd exible boundary for process monitoring. In this method, there is no restriction that the process data should be assumed to be Gaussian. Therefore, SVDD has been considered as a promising method for non-Gaussian process monitoring. Liu et al.48 and Ge et al.49 used the SVDD model to determine the control limit of the independent components generated from ICA. Compared to the traditional ICA-based process monitoring, which typically incorporated a kernel density estimation procedure, the SVDD-based method is more computationally e cient, which relies on a quadratic programming cost function. Cho50 dealt with the data description and noise ltering issues based on the SVDD model and applied it for fault detection. Ge et al.51 further proposed an SVDD-based reconstruction algorithm for sensor fault identication and isolation. Compared to the reconstruction based methods that been developed upon the PCA
3549

Review

model,5256 the SVDD based method can eciently handle the non-Gaussian process fault. More recently, the SVDD-based monitoring method has been extended in dynamic and batch processes.57,58 4.1.5. Discussions, Connections, and Comparisons. In addition to the above three types of non-Gaussian process monitoring methods, other methods that are also able to handle the non-Gaussian data information have been developed (e.g., nonparametric probability density estimation methods,5961 kernel-based methods such as support vector machine, multiscale statistical modeling methods,62 and so on). Although those methods have been developed separately, they are actually highly related to each other. For example, when we use the ICA model for non-Gaussian process monitoring, the control limit of the monitoring statistic is usually determined by some kind of nonparametric probability estimation approach (e.g., histogram, kernel density estimation, etc.). Kernel-based methods such as support vector machine, SVDD, and kernel density estimation can share a common kernel function when they are used for non-Gaussian process modeling, monitoring, or control limit calculation. Particularly, the SVDD method can be considered a special form of support vector machine, which is also known as one-class support vector machine. Compared to the commonly used support vector machine, the main feature of the SVDD method lies in its one-class classication property, which means only two classes of the data are focused in this method, corresponding to the normal and abnormal data patterns. When a large number of process variables are incorporated for process monitoring, the ICA model can be combined with the GMM model, which is used for dimensionality reduction of the process variables. In this case, the construction of the GMM model becomes much easier. However, with the additional dimensionality reduction step, fault diagnosis may become much more dicult. Besides, in order to facilitate the calculation of the control limit for the ICA-based process monitoring method, SVDD has been combined with ICA. After the independent components have been extracted from the non-Gaussian process data, they are modeled by the SVDD method, providing easier control limit determination and more-accurate monitoring results. Based on the current research status, it has been shown that ICA, GMM and SVDD are three of the most widely used and promising methods for non-Gaussian process monitoring. Detailed comparative advantages and disadvantages of these three dierent methods are listed in Table 1. However, with more and more combinations and the emergence of dierent non-Gaussian data modeling techniques, it can be expected, in the near future, that the monitoring performance could be further improved, including fault detection speed, fault classication rate, fault diagnosis accuracy, etc. 4.2. Nonlinear Process Monitoring. 4.2.1. Problem Statement. Traditionally, it has been assumed that the relationships among dierent process variables are linearly correlated with each other. Actually, this assumption is valid in quite a large number of industrial processes. This is because many industrial processes focus on producing a stable production, which often operated under a small region of steady condition. Therefore, even if the relationships among process variables are nonlinear, they can be linearized around this steady condition. However, with the rapid development of modern process industry, some of them may be operated under various conditions, and the relationships among dierent process variables also become more complicated. In this case,
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Table 1. Comparisons of the Three Non-Gaussian Process Monitoring Methods
method ICA advantages (1) simple model structure, easy to understand (2) able to extract high-order data information (3) provide latent variables that are independent to each other (1) simple model structure, easy to understand (2) be able to monitoring processes with multiple operating conditions (3) can also handle the nonlinearity of the process (1) the developed model can be directly used for process monitoring (2) can handle both of the linear and nonlinear process data (3) has no assumption of the data distribution disadvantages (1) dicult to determine the control limit (2) the monitoring result may be unstable (3) dicult to select the number of independent components (1) dicult to determine the number of local models (2) model training is complicated

Review

GMM

(3) may not be able to model all types of non-gaussian data (1) the kernel parameter of the model should be tuned (2) the tighter control limit of SVDD may cause more false alarms (3) process analyses and interpretations become more dicult

SVDD

the linear modeling approach may not function very well. Compared to the linear process, it is more dicult to detect the fault in nonlinear processes. The fault behavior may become more complex and sometimes even be smeared in the process. Because of the dierent types of nonlinear relationships among process variables, it is dicult to construct a unied nonlinear model for process monitoring. As a result, there is no method that performs well in all industrial processes. One method can obtain good monitoring performance in one process may not function well in another process. In past years, process monitoring for nonlinear processes has become a hot research aspect in this area. Thus, dierent types of nonlinear models have been developed, with their corresponding process monitoring schemes. Detailed reviews of these methods are provided as follows. 4.2.2. Principal Curves and Neural Networks. In order to generalize the traditional PCA method for nonlinear process monitoring, Kramer63 developed a nonlinear PCA method based on the autoassociative neural network. Based on this method, a nonlinear dimensionality reduction can be carried out. Dong and McAvoy64 proposed a nonlinear PCA by combining the principal curve and the neural network. In this method, a ve-layer neural network has been designed, which is also known as the double three-layer neural network. The scores of the nonlinear principal components were calculated by the principal curve. To determine whether the linear or nonlinear method should be used for process monitoring, Kruger et al.65 proposed a nonlinearity measure for principal component. A hybrid neural network model has been developed for rule generation of the process, and it was also used for fault detection and diagnosis.66 To enhance the process monitoring performance, the ensemble learning method has been combined with neural network and used for online monitoring of process mean and variance shifts.67 For fault diagnosis of the Tennessee-Eastman benchmark process, a hierarchical neural network based on fuzzy clustering method has been designed.68 Other nonlinear process monitoring
3550

methods related to principal curves and neural networks have also been developed recently.6973 4.2.3. Kernel-Based Methods. Recently, the kernel learning method has been introduced in this area, and it also has been combined with some traditional methods such as PCA and PLS for nonlinear process monitoring. For example, a nonlinear process monitoring method based on kernel PCA (KPCA) has been proposed.74,75 By introducing a kernel function, the nonlinear mapping and the inner product computation can be avoided. Similar to the conventional PCA method, two monitoring statistics have been constructed to monitor the systematic part and the noisy part separately. An improved KPCA monitoring method has been developed, which is combined with the technique of local approach.76 In this method, the nonlinear and non-Gaussian data characteristics can be handled simultaneously. Alcala and Qin77 developed a reconstruction-based contribution approach based upon the KPCA model. Cheng et al.78 used the adaptive KPCA model to monitor the small disturbance of the nonlinear process. Similarly, the kernel learning methods have also been combined with both PLS and ICA for nonlinear process monitoring.7981 Zhang82 improved the kernel ICA model and combined with SVM for fault detection and diagnosis of nonlinear processes. A multiscale kernel PLS model has also been developed for fault diagnosis of nonlinear processes.83 Besides, several developed kernel methods have been extended for monitoring of batch processes.33,84 Other related kernel-based methods that have been developed for nonlinear process monitoring include those reported by Ge and Song,85,86,87 Bouhouche et al.,88 Saravanan et al.,89 etc. 4.2.4. Linear Approximation Approaches. Another type of nonlinear process monitoring method is based on linear approximation approaches. In this method, the nonlinear space is approximated by several local linear models. A detailed illustration of the nonlinear generalization of the principal component analysis model is given in Kerschen and Golinval,90 which discussed the model structures from global to local approaches. More recently, a linear subspace method has been proposed for nonlinear process monitoring.91 The rst step of this method is to divide the nonlinear process into several linear subspaces, which is based on the PCA decomposition. Because of the uncorrelated nature of principal components, a linear subspace is constructed through each one of the principal component directions. As a result, a good property of the diversity of linear subspaces has been obtained, which is important to the linear approximation approach. For nonlinear fault detection and diagnosis, the linear subspace method has been integrated with Bayesian inference. Compared to the neural network and kernel-based methods, the linear approximation approach is much easier to implement. However, the nonlinear modeling eciency of this method may be limited in specic cases. Furthermore, the linear subspace method has been extended to the two-dimensional case,92 in order to handle the multimode problem in the nonlinear process. 4.2.5. Discussions, Connections, and Comparisons. Furthermore, there are also other alternative nonlinear process monitoring methods that have been developed in the past years. For example, Cheng and Chiu93 proposed a just-in-time learning-based PCA model for nonlinear process monitoring, Maulud et al.94 developed a multiscale orthogonal nonlinear strategy, and Wang et al.95 combined the neural network-based nonlinear PCA model with the local approach for fault
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Table 2. Comparisons of the Three Nonlinear Process Monitoring Methods
method principal curves and neural networks advantages (1) the nonlinear principal components can be directly obtained (2) theoretically, it is able to model any kind of nonlinearity in the process disadvantages (1) dicult to learn the model

Review

(2) the number of principal components should be determined before modeling (3) once the structure of the neural network changes, it should be retrained (1) appropriate kernel parameter tuning is always needed (2) the kernel selection is dicult (3) process analyses and interpretations become more dicult

kernel-based methods

(1) model training becomes easier, since the nonlinear optimization problem is eliminated (2) by introducing dierent kernel functions, various of nonlinearity can be modeled

linear approximation approaches

(1) easy to implement in practice (2) process analysis and data interpretation are much easier than the other two methods

(1) dicult to determine the number of local linear models (2) may not be able to model all types of nonlinearities in the process

detection and diagnosis in nonlinear processes. Besides, the Gaussian mixture models that are reviewed in section 4.1.3 can also be used for nonlinear process monitoring. In fact, the GMM model can be considered as a particular form of the linear approximation approach. Each single Gaussian component can be considered as a linear model in the GMM method; as a result, the combination of the various Gaussian components can be used for approximation of the nonlinear process. Compared to a nonlinear modeling method such as a neural network, with a kernel-based model, the implementation of the linear approximation method is much easier. While the nonlinear modeling method needs to determine several key parameters, the determination of the linear approximation method seems much more straightforward. Therefore, compared to the nonlinear method, modeling interpretation will be much easier for the linear approximation method. However, it should be noted that the nonlinear modeling method can be used in a much wider application eld than the linear approximation method. This is because it is more exible for the nonlinear modeling function to match dierent nonlinear relationships of the industrial process. Detailed comparisons of advantages and disadvantages of the three main types of nonlinear process monitoring methods are listed in Table 2. Note that, although dierent types of nonlinear models have been developed for process monitoring, linear models still play a critical role for both academics and industrial engineers. Since several industrial processes are designed for the production of a product about a xed set of conditions and there is only limited variation about these conditions, in this case, linear models will perform very well. This is why the linear monitoring methods such as PCA and PLS are still very popular today. However, with the increase requirements of multiple products and operation conditions, the variations of the industrial process become more and more signicant, and the relationships among dierent process variables become much more complicated as well. In this situation, it is quite necessary to incorporate the nonlinear modeling method, which will not only improve the modeling accuracy of the variable relationships, but also to make the monitoring performance better for the industrial processes. 4.3. Time-Varying and Multimode Process Monitoring. 4.3.1. Problem Statement. While the traditional PCA/
3551

PLS method assumed that the industrial process operated under a single steady condition, the operation condition of modern industrial processes may be varying from time to time, or switched from one operation condition to another. In fact, because of uctuations in raw materials, set-point changes, aging of equipments, and seasoning eects, the operation conditions of industrial processes change frequently in practice. Besides, with the great market competition from the outside, high-quality and various types of products are strongly desired in the process industry. In this situation, the application of a stable monitoring approach to those processes may cause false alarms, even when the process is operated under another steady-state nominal operating mode. In order to keep the industrial process under control, the monitoring method should be updated according to the change of the operation condition. On the other hand, when the process consists of several dierent operation conditions, the multimode process monitoring method should be developed. In the past years, to solve the time-varying and multimode problems, dierent methods have been developed, such as adaptive learning techniques, multimodel approaches, soft modeling methods, among others. Detailed reviews of these methods are provided as follows. 4.3.2. Adaptive/Recursive Methods. When the process is slow-varying, many adaptive and recursive monitoring approaches have been developed. For example, Dayal and MacGregor96 proposed a recursive exponentially weighted PLS method for adaptive control and prediction in industrial processes, Qin97 developed a recursive PLS method for adaptive process monitoring, Li et al.98 presented an adaptive monitoring strategy, which incorporated a recursive PCA (RPCA) to update the monitoring model. Wang et al.99 also built a recursive PLS model for adaptive monitoring of complex industrial processes. Later, a fast moving window PCA approach was developed for improve the monitoring eciency of time-varying processes.100 In this method, an N-step-ahead horizon strategy was proposed to avoid fault accommodation in adaptive process monitoring. Jin et al.101 proposed a robust recursive PCA model for monitoring time-varying processes. To monitor nonlinear time-varying processes, a moving window approach was developed when the kernel PCA model was used.102 Also, to improve the monitoring performance for time-varying processes, several ecient techniques have been illustrated, such as those reported by Elshenawy et al.103 and Jeng.104 Other adaptive, recursive or moving window
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Table 3. Comparisons of the Various Time-Varying and Multimode Process Monitoring Methods
method adaptive/recursive methods advantages (1) can track the slow-varying process vary well (2) stable model structure multimodel methods (1) only needs oine modeling (2) each model works well in its specic operating condition disadvantages

Review

(1) model updating is carried out blindly, which may accommodated to fault data (2) may not function well for abrupt changes (1) various models should be constructed (2) need to select the exact model for online monitoring (3) the transition may not be well-modeled

soft modeling methods

(1) only needs oine modeling (2) only incorporates one model (3) easy for statistical analysis and interpretation (4) be able to model the transition

(1) the modeling complexity is high if the process has a large number of training data samples (2) it is dicult to determine the number of local models, unless we have already known the number of operation modes in the process.

local-learning methods

(1) exible modeling for any type of time-varying and multimode processes (2) new changes of the process can be easily incorporated

(1) a high real-time modeling performance is demanded (2) it is dicult to dene a unied similarity index for pattern matching of the process data (3) the modeling eciency may be degraded when the number of resemble data samples is limited.

robust modeling methods

(1) only a single oine model should be developed (2) the model structure is exible

(1) in some processes, it is dicult to identify the variables which are related to the operation change of the process

research works related to time-varying process monitoring include the works of Choi et al.,105 Yoo et al.,106 Xiao and Yang.107 4.3.3. Multimodel Methods. For those industrial processes that have multiple modes, and where the operation condition is always switched from one operation mode to another, dierent multimodel methods have been developed for process monitoring. Sometimes, this type of method is also called the model library based approach, in which a predened model that matching their corresponding operation modes of the process. A real-time monitoring approach has been developed for multimode processes by Hwang and Han,108 and Zhao et al.109 developed a multiple PCA model-based method for monitoring processes with multiple operation modes. Based on the dened PCA similarity factor, Singhai and Seborg110 evaluated a pattern matching method in the Tennessee Eastman benchmark process, which can also be regarded as a multimodel approach. Yoo et al.111 designed a multimodel statistical process monitoring and fault diagnosis method for a sequencing batch reactor. A similar pattern matching method has been developed for process analysis, monitoring, and quality evaluation in batch processes.112 4.3.4. Soft Modeling Methods. For some multimode processes, the transition period between two dierent operation modes should also be modeled and well-monitored. However, the traditional multimodel method may ignore the data information in the transition period of two operation modes, since most of them are based on the hard partition of process conditions. To improve the monitoring performance for those particular multimode processes, several multimodel alike methods have also been developed. In contrast to the hard multimodel methods, most of the developed methods are based on probabilistic models, which are named as soft modeling methods in the present paper. For example, the methods which are based on the Maximum-Likelihood PCA and FA models
3552

can be eciently used for monitoring multimode processes.42,43 Yu and Qin45 developed a multimode process monitoring method based on the GMM model, Ge and Song113 improved the conventional probabilistic PCA model and extended it to the mixture form for multimode process monitoring. Besides, the Bayesian inference and combination strategy has also been introduced to connect various monitoring models developed in dierent operation modes of the process.114 4.3.5. Local-Learning and Robust Methods. Another type of monitoring method for time-varying and multimode processes is known as the local-learning method. In this method, both of the modeling construction and process monitoring are conducted online. Therefore, each time a data sample is available, the rst step of the local-learning method is to search some similar data samples in the historical database. Then, based on the obtained similar dataset, an online model is intended to be developed for online process monitoring of that particular data sample. After that, the model is discarded and the procedures are repeated for the next data sample. A typical local-learning method is known as a just-in-time learning-based model, which has been used for nonlinear process monitoring.93 However, utilization of this method for time-varying process monitoring is also straightforward. Later, the similar local-learning idea was adopted by Ge and Song28 for online monitoring of nonlinear time-varying and multimode processes, which was known as the adaptive local model approach. Besides, several robust modeling strategies have also been developed for monitoring multimode processes. For example, Kano et al.115 developed an external analysis-based method, and combined with ICA for process monitoring. Similarly, Ge et al.116 proposed a robust online multimode process monitoring method, which was based the nonlinear extension of the external analysis method. In this method, the operation mode information is related to the external variables, and other process variables are referred as main variables. By constructing
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research a relationship between these two types of variables, the inuence of the operation mode change can be eciently removed from the main process data information. As a result, a robust process monitoring can then be developed, which is not sensitive to the operation mode change of the process anymore. 4.3.6. Discussions, Connections, and Comparisons. Timevarying and multimode process monitoring methods are both motivated for industrial processes in which multiple operation conditions are involved. While the time-varying process monitoring method focuses on those processes whose operation condition changes frequently, e.g., from time to time, the multimode process monitoring method usually handle those processes that have several stable operation conditions, and switches from one to another. Generally, the adaptive and recursive modeling method, such as adaptive PCA/PLS, recursive PCA/PLS methods are mainly used for time-varying process monitoring purpose, while the multimodel and soft modeling methods are mainly focused on monitoring multimode industrial processes. However, there are also research works that applying adaptive and recursive models for multimode process monitoring. In this case, false alarms will be inevitable during the model updating in the switching process of two adjacent operation conditions. Compared to the multimodel monitoring method, the soft modeling method is able to incorporate the transition period of two operation modes. In some situations, when the transition period of two operation modes is signicant, the soft modeling method is much more appropriate than the multimodel based monitoring method. It is worth to note that the GMM model, which has been used for non-Gaussian and nonlinear process monitoring, can also be used for multimode process monitoring, which is classied in the soft modeling method. In this method, each Gaussian component corresponds to one operation condition of the process. When combined with other data modeling methods, various types of GMM-type monitoring methods have been constructed in past years. In contrast, the local-learning and robust methods are comparatively new. While the local-learning method can be used for both time-varying and multimode process monitoring, the robust method is particularly designed for multimode processes. Under both the local-learning and robust modeling frameworks, various data modeling methods can be incorporated, based on which dierent time-varying or multimode process monitoring methods can be formulated. For the robust monitoring method, it is worth to point out that this method is able to dierentiate new operation modes and the fault conditions of the process, as long as the external variables are correctly separated from the process variables. Table 3 shows the detailed comparisons of advantages and disadvantages of various time-varying and multimode process monitoring methods. 4.4. Dynamic Process Monitoring. 4.4.1. Problem Statement. Because of the feedback control systems, which are widely used in modern industrial processes, the inuence of random noises and process disturbances, the dynamic data behavior is often presented in both input and output variables of the process. However, most of the traditional data-based monitoring methods are based on the assumption that the process data sample is sampling independent to each other. Actually, subjected to the dynamic data behavior, the data sample obtained at the present time may be correlated with those sampled before and after the present time. For dierent industrial processes and operation conditions, the dynamic
3553

Review

steps may be dierent from each other. If the dynamic information of the process data is not incorporated into the monitoring model, we may obtain a misleading result. Thus, changes of dynamic relationships among process variables cannot be eciently explored, which may cause a severe malfunction to the process. Besides, because of the dynamic relationships, the fault may also be distorted or smeared by random noises and other disturbances. Sometimes, even if the fault can be detected, the fault behavior has been changed signicantly and it may also cause a large detection delay to the monitoring system. In order to improve the monitoring performance in dynamic industrial processes, signicant research eorts have been made in the past years, detailed reviews of which are demonstrated as follows. 4.4.2. Dynamic MSPC Methods. A dynamic from the PCA model was developed early by Ku et al.117 for disturbance rejection and isolation in the industrial process. The rst step of this method is to augment the modeling dataset by incorporating several time-lagged data samples of each variable. By constructing the PCA model upon this augmented data matrix, the autocorrelation of the process data can be extracted. Actually, before the work of dynamic PCA, a similar form of the dynamic PCA/PLS model has already been formulated in batch processes, which is known as multiway PCA or multiway PLS. We will make a detailed discussion in section 4.5. Chen and Liu118 developed and compared two dynamic MSPC methods for online batch process monitoring, which are based on PCA and PLS, respectively. Choi and Lee119 extended the dynamic PCA idea to the kernel PCA model and proposed a nonlinear dynamic process monitoring method. Jia et al.84 applied the dynamic kernel PCA model for online batch process monitoring purposes. Based on two-dimensional dynamic kernel PCA and two-dimensional dynamic kernel Hebbian algorithm, Zhang et al.120 proposed a statistical analysis and adaptive technique for dynamic process monitoring. Similarly, several other dynamic forms of the PLS model have also been developed for fault diagnosis. (See, e.g., the work of Lee et al.121 and Lu and Wang.122) More recently, the idea of the conventional dynamic MSPC method has been extended to the ICA model. For example, Stefatos and Ben Hamza37 have developed a fault detection and diagnosis based on the dynamic ICA model; Hsu et al.36 also proposed a dynamic ICA-based process monitoring method. 4.4.3. Time-Series Analysis Methods. Although the dynamic MSPC method has been widely used for process monitoring of dynamic processes, Kruger et al.123 demonstrated that the traditional dynamic PCA method may not be able to model the dynamic information of the process data. Furthermore, it will even introduce some additional dynamic behavior into the process dataset, which is harmful to the process monitoring algorithm. Instead, by incorporating the autoregressive model, Kruger et al.123 proposed a dynamic process monitoring method called improved PCA, based on which the autocorrelation of the process data has been successfully extracted. Later, Choi et al.124 proposed a new dynamic monitoring model based on a multivariate autoregressive model and multiway PCA for monitoring dynamic batch processes. The results of case studies indicated that the new methods have provided better monitoring performance than the traditional methods. 4.4.4. State-Space Model-Based Methods. Another main type of dynamic process monitoring methods is referred as the state-space model based methods, which is often combined
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research Table 4. Comparisons of the Three Dynamic Process Monitoring Methods
method dynamic MSPC method advantages (1) easy to implement in practice (2) many existing models can be directly applied (1) the autocorrelation of each process variable can be wellcaptured (2) the model is easy to learn disadvantages

Review

(1) dicult to determine the dynamic step (2) may not eciently model the dynamic behavior of the data (1) dicult to determine the dynamic step (2) cross-correlation among dierent process variables may not be modeled very well (1) it is dicult to determine the number of state for the model (2) model training may be more complex compared to other two types of methods

time-series analysis method

state-space model-based method

(1) both of autocorrelation and cross-correlation of the data can be modeled (2) subspace identication algorithms provide strong technique supports

with subspace identication algorithms. The main advantage of this method is that autocorrelation and cross-correlation among the process data can be modeled simultaneously. Xie et al.125 investigated dierent dynamic process monitoring methods, including the dynamic PCA method, the autoregressive modelbased method, and the subspace identication-based method. As a result, the subspace identication-based method turned out to be the most promising method for dynamic process monitoring.126 Yao and Gao127 extended the subspace identication model to the batch process and proposed a two-dimensional dynamic monitoring method. More recently, the state-space model has also been incorporated with the ICA model for nonlinear dynamic process monitoring,38 and combined with the local approach for fault detection of nonGaussian dynamic systems.57 4.4.5. Discussions, Connections, and Comparisons. In past years, several other methods also have been developed for dynamic process monitoring. For example, Chen and Liao128 combined a neural network with the PCA model for dynamic process fault monitoring; Alabi et al.129 proposed an online dynamic process monitoring method by using wavelet-based generic dissimilarity measurement; Hu and Yuan130 provided a dynamic multiway neighborhood preserving embedding method for statistical monitoring of fed-batch processes; and Odiowei and Cao131 designed a nonlinear dynamic process monitoring approach based on canonical variate analysis and kernel density estimations. Among all of the developed dynamic process monitoring methods, the dynamic MSPC-type methods such as dynamic PCA and dynamic ICA may be the simplest ones. By extending the process data matrix with more correlated data samples, the dynamic MSPC model can be easily formulated. One critical issue of this method is the determination of the dynamic step of the data matrix, which, in some cases, may signicantly inuence the monitoring result. Although there are several methods that have already been developed for selection of the dynamic step, it is still an open question that requires more investigation in future work. Compared to the time-series analysis method, the main feature of the state-space modeling method is that it can simultaneously model autocorrelations and cross-correlations among dierent process variables. When the dynamic feature of the process is complicated and crossly reected in dierent variables, the state-space modeling method is particularly useful. Similarly, both of the time-series analysis method and the state-space modeling method can be combined with traditional MSPC method. As a result, various types of time-series analysis and state-space MSPC monitoring models
3554

can be constructed, which may receive unexpected eects in particular industrial processes. Detailed analyses of advantages and disadvantages of dierent dynamic process monitoring methods are given in Table 4. 4.5. Batch Process Monitoring. 4.5.1. Problem Statement. Dierent from the continuous process, batch processes are always more complicated, because of frequent startups and shutdowns, nonstationary operation conditions, nonlinear and dynamic data behaviors, and many batch processes are also operated under multiphases or have various operation stages. Therefore, it seems more dicult to carry out the monitoring tasks in batch processes. Since the pioneer works of Nomikos and MacGregor in 1990s,132,133 batch process monitoring has become a hot research spot, and will still play an important role in batch process engineering areas, such as pharmaceutical engineering, food engineering, biological engineering, etc. The following subsections give a detailed review of batch process monitoring methods that have been developed up to date. 4.5.2. Multiway Monitoring Methods. Multiway PCA and multiway PLS are two of the most traditional batch process monitoring methods, which have still been widely used and researched in both industry and academy. Chen and Liu118 incorporate the dynamic monitoring algorithm upon the multiway PCA and multiway PLS methods, Kourti134 provided a detailed statistical analysis and monitoring result discussions on startups and grade transitions for the continuous process which are very similar to the case in batch processes, Chen and Chen135 developed a novel technique for online batch process monitoring, which is based on the wavelet-based multihidden Markov model tree (MHMT) and multiway PCA method. For those batch processes which have non-Gaussian data information, the multiway modeling method has been extended to the ICA model. For example, multiway independent component analysis method has been proposed for batch process monitoring,136 Albazzaz and Wang30 also incorporated the ICA model for batch process monitoring. Besides, the multiway PCA and multiway ICA methods have both been extended to their nonlinear cases, precisely, the multiway kernel PCA and multiway kernel ICA methods have been developed for nonlinear batch process monitoring. However, it is worth to notice that the traditional batchwise unfolded PCA and PLS methods also have the ability to capture the nonlinearity and time varying nature of batch processes. This is because they have dierent loadings for each variable at every time point throughout the batch. As a result, they can eectively provide locally linear models at every time point throughout the batch,
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

Review

Figure 7. Systematic view of dierent data-based process monitoring methods.

which can be considered as a particular form of the nonlinear monitoring model. To study and evaluate of dierent multiway batch process monitoring methods, several research works have been carried out. For example, Ramaker et al.137 studied the fault detection properties of global, local, and time evolving models for batch process monitoring. Ferreira et al.138 studied various multiway multivariate techniques for data modeling through an industrial fermentation process. A critical evaluation of dierent batch process monitoring approaches was provided by Sprang et al.139 Besides, Camacho et al.140 gave a detailed analysis and exploration of dierent statistical data-based methods for batch process monitoring. 4.5.3. Phase-Based Methods. Recently, a multiphase behavior has been recognized in many batch processes. During the past several years, various multiphase batch process monitoring have been proposed. Undey and Cinar141 illustrated the multistage and multiphase statistical monitoring methods in batch processes. Muthuswamy and Srinivasan142 developed a phase-based supervisory control algorithm for a fermentation batch process. Lu et al.143 proposed a novel sub-PCA modeling method for multiphase batch process monitoring, based on which the batch process can be automatically determined into dierent phases. Zhao et al.144 studied an adaptive monitoring method for batch processes under the limited modeling data case. Camacho et al.145 presented a multiphase data analysis framework for batch processes. Zhao et al.146 proposed a subspace separation algorithm for multiphase batch process monitoring, based on which both quality analysis performance
3555

and process comprehension have been improved. More investigation of the phase-based method for batch process monitoring can be found in the recent survey paper.10 4.5.4. Two-Dimensional Dynamic Monitoring Methods. To handle the dynamic data behavior, the batch process has an additional dynamic dimension, which is through the batch direction. Therefore, a two-dimensional dynamic PCA method has been proposed for batch process monitoring, which can eciently model the dynamic data information through both of the two dimensionalities.147 Yao and Gao148 developed a score space-based two-dimensional dynamic PCA method for batch process monitoring. Later, the subspace identication scheme was employed for two-dimensional dynamic modeling of the batch process,127 and the traditional two-dimensional dynamic PCA model was also extended to multiphase batch processes.149 More recently, the non-Gaussian data information of the batch process has been incorporated into the twodimensional dynamic monitoring method, which is based on the mixture Gaussian model.46 4.5.5. Discussions, Connections, and Comparisons. Compared to the continuous process, the batch process is inherently nonlinear, time-varying, and often has a strong dynamic data behavior. Although the mutliway method has the ability to handle these data characteristics, it may not always perform very well, especially when the batch process has several distinct phases. Furthermore, dierent phases may have dierent data behaviors, e.g., dierent nonlinear relationships, dierent dynamic steps, and dierent data distributions. In this case, those dierent phases should be considered separately, for
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research example, by using dierent models, dierent monitoring schemes, dierent dynamic steps, etc. Also, the transition period between two adjacent phases in the batch process should be paid particular attention, which may have signicant eect on the monitoring performance of the entire batch process. Compared to various phases, the data obtained from the transition period may have more signicant nonlinear and dynamic behaviors, thus should be modeled separately. If we put the multimode problem and the multiphase problem together, it can be easily found that they are quite similar. Therefore, those monitoring methods which have been developed in multimode continuous processes may be made useful in multiphase batch processes. Also, various dynamic monitoring methods that have been developed for continuous processes may be migrated in batch processes. Particularly, they can be combined with two-dimensional dynamic monitoring methods, in order to further enhance the monitoring performance for the batch process. So far, ongoing research studies for all of the above three types of batch process monitoring methods have being carried out. More recent related works include those by Gunther et al.,150 Faggian et al.,151 Berber et al.,152 Alvarez et al.,153 Chen and Jiang,154 He and Wang,155 Ge and Song,156 and so on. To examine the advantages and disadvantages of dierent types of batch process monitoring methods, please refer to the recent critical evaluation and survey papers.10,137,139 4.6. Summary. After specically reviewing the data-based process monitoring method thought dierent fundamental problems, a summarized overview of various data-based process monitoring methods and some additional comments are provided in this subsection. Generally, a complex industrial process always has various data characteristics, such as non-Gaussian data distribution, nonlinear variable relationships, dynamic data correlations, and the operating condition of the process may also changes. So far, as have been demonstrated, separated research works have been carried out for solving those specic problems in both of the continuous and batch processes. However, a good process monitoring system should be able to deal with various data behaviors simultaneously. During the past years, many research works have already been carried out for dealing with two or more main characteristics of the process data. For example, to monitor the non-Gaussian process under nonlinear variable relationships, the ICA model has been incorporated with the kernel method. Also, the non-Gaussian process monitoring approaches have been extended to their adaptive or multimodel forms, based on which the time-varying data characteristic of the process can be modeled simultaneously. In order to deal with the nonlinear variable relationship in time-varying processes, the kernel PCA model has been incorporated with the moving window approach, and several Gaussian mixture models have also been developed. Besides, there are also several other works that have been developed for dealing with nonlinear, non-Gaussian and time-varying data behaviors simultaneously. Therefore, although we have divided the data-based process monitoring methods into dierent categories according to various fundamental problems, many of them are intercrossed in dierent categories. Besides, for batch process monitoring, four dierent categories of data-based monitoring methods have also been overlapped and combined with multiway modeling approaches. A systematic overview of dierent databased process monitoring methods is illustrated in Figure 7.
3556

Review

5. RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES Over the last 20 years, data-based process monitoring has been receiving continuous attention from both academy researchers and practicing engineers. Based on the literature survey given in section 4, some research perspectives can be revealed and several promising issues are also discussed in this section. 5.1. Monitoring of Complex Dynamic Processes. Compared to other three fundamental problems, there are much less works on the dynamic process monitoring issue, especially combined with other data characteristics, e.g., dynamic non-Gaussian processes, nonlinear dynamic processes, time-varying dynamic processes, etc. Since the dynamic data behavior is very common in practice, and also important to the process control system, it should be well-considered in the process monitoring system. Although there are several methods that have been proposed to monitor complex dynamic processes, such as for the dynamic non-Gaussian process, more research investigations need to be carried out on this topic. Besides, the incorporation of some new nonlinear dynamic modeling approaches may be of particular interest for process monitoring. When the process exhibits several dierent data behaviors, the fault diagnosis and identication will become much more dicult, because the root cause of the fault is dicult to locate, and a more-complex fault propagation network may be caused. Therefore, for those complex dynamic processes, fault diagnosis and identication should be carefully carried out. It will be greatly helpful if some prior process knowledge and experiences of operation experts can be incorporated for utilization. For batch processes, dynamic data behavior is also an important issue. So far, the multiway modeling method has been extended to dynamic forms, and several two-dimensional dynamic monitoring schemes have also been constructed. However, most of them have not considered more-complex data characteristics, for example, how to handle the nonGaussian data behavior in dynamic batch processes? How to develop a nonlinear dynamic monitoring model for multiphase batch processes? How to extend the existing dynamic model to the multimodel form? Generally speaking, compared to the continuous process, dynamic monitoring in batch processes is more dicult, which on the other hand, also provides great opportunities for future research. 5.2. Plantwide Process Monitoring. With the increasing development of modern industry, more and more operation units and equipments have been incorporated into the process. As a result, a large-scale type of processes has been generated, which are known as plantwide processes. Compared to the traditional process, monitoring of those plantwide processes is much more dicult, for example, a fault that happens in one unit may be smeared by other equipment. Even if the fault has been successfully detected, it is very dicult to locate its root causes. Therefore, how to develop ecient monitoring methods for plantwide processes is considered to be a challenge in this area. Existing methods for plantwide process monitoring are mainly resorted to the multiblock statistical modeling approaches, such as MacGregor et al.,157 Westerhuis et al.,158 Qin et al.,159 Smilde et al.,160 Choi and Lee,161 Cherry and Qin,162 Kohonen et al.,163 Ge and Song,164 Zhang et al.,81 and so on. However, there are still many issues that remain unexplored, for example: How does one divide the plantwide process into dierent sub-blocks without the process knowledge?
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research How does one eciently combine the monitoring results in dierent sub-blocks? How does one analyze the fault propagation path in plantwide processes? Besides, the relationships among dierent parts of the process also deserve further research. 5.3. Transition Process Monitoring. Typically, transition is a period time that the process changes from one operating condition to another, in which the operating condition is unstable, data may show high nonlinearities and have signicant dynamic eects. Therefore, it is more dicult to monitor these transition processes. In practice, transitions are very common in both continuous and batch processes. In the continuous process, startups of the process equipment, shutdowns of the process system, and transition periods between two operation modes can all be considered as the transition process. In contrast, there are even more transitions in the multiphase batch process, e.g., gradual transitions between two adjacent steady phases. In these phase transition periods, the process dynamic behaviors are more complex than those in steady phases. If the abnormal events in the transition process are not well-monitored, they may greatly aect the process operation safety and the quality of nal products. Recently, several methods have been developed for monitoring transition processes. For example, a dynamic data analysis and statistical process control method has been developed for modeling of startups and grade transitions in batch processes,134 Sundarraman and Srinivasan165 used an enhanced trend analysis method for monitoring transition in chemical plants, Zhao et al.166 developed a stage-based soft-transition multiple PCA modeling for batch process monitoring, Yao and Gao167 also developed a phase-based method for monitoring transitions in the batch process. More-recent developments of transition monitoring methods include Ng and Srinivasan,168 Natarajan and Srinivasan,169 Zhao et al.,170 Zhu et al.,171 and Ge et al.172 However, more ecient transition monitoring strategies are still expected, especially those which can be plugged into the existing monitoring system. 5.4. Probabilistic Process Monitoring. So far, most databased process monitoring methods are resorted to deterministic models, such as PCA, PLS, ICA, and KPCA. In practice, however, almost all process variables are contaminated by random noises. Therefore, most process measurements are inherently random variables, thus perform through a statistical manner, not the deterministic way. As a result, it is required that process monitoring should also be carried out through the statistical manner, and the monitoring decisions are made through a probabilistic way. Recently, the PCA-based monitoring method has been extended to its probabilistic counterpart, which is called probabilistic principal component analysis (PPCA).173 Later, the factor analysis (FA) model has been incorporated for probabilistic monitoring, which has no assumption that dierent process variables should share the same noise variance.174 More recently, both of the PPCA and FA models have been extended to their mixture form for monitoring processes with multiple operation modes.42,43 Compared to the monitoring method based on deterministic models, the main advantages of the probabilistic model-based monitoring method lie in the following several points. First, the combination of a probabilistic model and the Expectation Maximum (EM) algorithm allows us to deal with missing values in the dataset, which is very practical in process data. Second, it
3557

Review

is more sophisticated to extend the probabilistic model to its mixture form, thus can be used for modeling complex processes. In addition, the probabilistic model can naturally exploit Bayesian treatment of the model. However, current research works have not suciently considered the nonlinear and dynamic data characteristics, and how to eciently apply these models in batch processes is also underway. Besides, for online process monitoring, we may also want to know how safe or how well the process is operated, to what extent the process is abnormal, and how to provide a probabilistic condence interval is also of great signicance to the process. 5.5. Model Combination and Complementation. In the past years, although dierent data-based process monitoring methods have been developed, each of these methods has its own advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, a method works well under one process condition might not provide a satisfactory monitoring performance under another. In other words, the eciency of each process monitoring method may depend on the data characteristic of specic process and fault. Particularly, for those processes that have wide range of operating conditions, it is a promising idea to combine several monitoring methods together. In this case, the process monitoring performance could be enhanced by taking advantages of various methods, and the shortcoming of each method can also be complemented for each other. Recently, several pieces of research works have already been carried out on this topic. For example, Ng and Srinivasan175 proposed a multiagent-based method for collaborative fault detection and identication in chemical processes. Perk et al.176 also developed an agent-based system for statistical monitoring of complex chemical processes. Nevertheless, more further research eorts are still needed toward this issue, especially on the model combination strategy and local performance analysis for dierent methods. 5.6. Multidata Fusion for Process Monitoring. In most cases, the data-based model only incorporates the routinely measured process variables, such as temperatures, pressures, levels, and so on. However, in modern industrial processes, various new measurement devices have been used, which might provide additional data information of the process. For example, a spectroscopic measurement device can capture detailed chemical information during the reaction process, a camera-based image sensor is able to extract abundant data information for some particular processes, e.g., metallurgic processes. If these new data information can be incorporated, the reliability of the process monitoring system may be improved. Besides, both of the process analysis and the fault interpretation may also become much easier. 5.7. Other Promising Issues. Furthermore, there are also other promising research issues that wroth highlighting for future work. For example, by incorporating some available process knowledge, the performance of both fault detection and fault diagnosis could be improved. Most current data-based process monitoring methods take the assumption that all process variables are sampled under the same rate. However, in many practical industrial processes, various sampling rates are often used for dierent process variables. A commonly used data preprocessing method is to down-sample those variables with higher sampling rates, which will probably waste data information. Therefore, how to carry out process monitoring directly for multisampling rates data is another topic deserving further studies. Meanwhile, how to eciently combine the databased process monitoring system with the traditional control
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research system is also a promising research issue, which will be greatly helpful to both continuous and batch process industries.

Review

6. CONCLUSIONS In this paper, recent developments of data-based process monitoring methods for industrial processes have been reviewed. A detailed illustration of main terminologies of the data-based process monitoring method was provided. Based on evaluations of various data characteristics in typical industrial processes, a timely update review has been carried out through dierent aspects, including non-Gaussian, nonlinear, timevarying and multimode, dynamic, and batch processes. Detailed discussions of connection and comparison among dierent data-based process monitoring methods are demonstrated. Furthermore, several important and promising research perspectives have been highlighted for future work on the topic.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author Notes

*E-mail address: gezhiqiang@zju.edu.cn. The authors declare no competing nancial interest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (61273167), National Project 973 (2012CB720500), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. We would like to sincerely thank the reviewers and the editor for providing useful comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript. REFERENCES
(1) Venkatasubramanian, V.; Rengaswamy, R.; Yin, K.; Kavuri, S. N. A review of process fault and diagnosis, Part I: Quantitative modelbased methods. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2003, 27, 293311. (2) Venkatasubramanian, V.; Rengaswamy, R.; Kavuri, S. N. A review of process fault and diagnosis, Part II: Qualitative models and search strategies. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2003, 27, 313326. (3) Venkatasubramanian, V.; Rengaswamy, R.; Kavuri, S. N.; Yin, K. A review of process fault and diagnosis, Part III: Process history based methods. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2003, 27, 327346. (4) Wang, X. Z. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery for Process Monitoring and Control; Springer: London, 1999; 245 pp (ISBN 1852331372). (5) Russell, E. L.; Chiang, L. H.; Braatz, R. D. Data-driven Techniques for Fault Detection and Diagnosis in Chemical Processes; 2000; 191 pp (ISBN 1852332851). (6) Chiang, L. H.; Russell, E. L.; Braatz, R. D. Fault Detection and Diagnosis in Industrial Systems, 2001; 279 pp (ISBN 1852333278). (7) Qin, S. J. Statistical process monitoring: basics and beyond. J. Chemom. 2003, 17, 480502. (8) MacGregor, J. F.; Yu, H. L.; Munoz, S. G.; Flores-Cerrillo, J. Data-based latent variable methods for process analysis, monitoring and control. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2005, 29, 12171223. (9) Kano, M.; Nakagawa, Y. Data-based process monitoring, process control and quality improvement: recent developments and applications in steel industry. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2008, 32, 1224. (10) Yao, Y.; Gao, F. R. A survey on multistage/multiphase statistical modeling methods for batch processes. Ann. Rev. Control 2009, 33, 172183. (11) Zhang, Y. W.; Zhang, Y. Process monitoring, fault diagnosis and quality prediction methods based on the multivariate statistical techniques. IETE Technical Review 2010, 27, 406420. (12) Schafer, J. L.; Graham, J. W. Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychol. Methods 2002, 7, 147177.
3558

(13) Scheffer, J. Dealing with missing data. Res. Lett. Inform. Math. Sci. 2002, 3, 153160. (14) Hodge, V.; Austin, J. A survey of outlier detection methodologies. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2004, 22, 85126. (15) Stanimirova, I.; Daszykowski, M.; Walczak, B. Dealing with missing values and outliers in principal component analysis. Talanta 2007, 72, 172178. (16) Serneels, S.; Verdonck, T. Principal component analysis for data containing outliers and missing elements. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 2008, 52, 17121727. (17) Breiman, L. Bagging predictors. Mach. Learn. 1996, 24, 123 140. (18) Freund, Y.; Schapire, R. E. A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 1997, 55, 119139. (19) Li, R. F.; Wang, X. Z. Dimension reduction of process dynamic trends using independent component analysis. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2002, 26, 467473. (20) Kano, M.; Tanaka, S.; Hasebe, S.; Hashimoto, I.; Ohno, H. Monitoring independent components for fault detection. AIChE J. 2003, 49, 969976. (21) Kano, M.; Tanaka, S.; Hasebe, S.; Hashimoto, I.; Ohno, H. Combined multivariate statistical process control. In IFAC Symposium on Advanced Control of Chemical Processes (ADCHEM), 2004; pp 303 308. (22) Lee, J. M.; Yoo, C. K.; Lee, I. B. Statistical process monitoring with independent component analysis. J. Process Control 2004, 14, 467485. (23) Lee, J. M.; Qin, S. J.; Lee, I. B. Fault detection and diagnosis based on modified independent comonent analysis. AIChE J. 2006, 52, 35013514. (24) Zhang, Y. W.; Zhang, Y. Complex process monitoring using modified partial least squares method of independent component regression. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2009, 98, 143148. (25) Zhang, Y. W.; Zhang, Y. Fault detection of non-Gaussian processes based on modified independent component analysis. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2010, 65, 46304639. (26) Wang, L.; Shi, H. B. Multivariate statistical process monitoring using an improved independent component analysis. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2010, 88, 403414. (27) Ge, Z. Q.; Song, Z. H. Process monitoring based on independent component analysis-principal component analysis (ICAPCA) and similarity factors. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46, 20542063. (28) Ge, Z. Q.; Song, Z. H. Online monitoring of nonlinear multiple mode processes based on adaptive local model approach. Control Eng. Pract. 2008, 16, 14271437. (29) Zhao, C. H.; Gao, F. R.; Wang, F. L. Nonlinear batch process monitoring using phase-based kernel independent component analysis-principal component analysis. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009, 48, 91639174. (30) Albazzaz, H.; Wang, X. Z. Introduction of dynamics to an approach for batch process monitoring using independent component analysis. Chem. Eng. Commun. 2007, 194, 218233. (31) Zhang, Y. W.; Qin, S. J. Fault Detection of Nonlinear Processes Using Multiway Kernel Independent Analysis. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46, 77807787. (32) Kim, M. H.; Yoo, C. K. Multivariate monitoring for timederivative non-Gaussian batch process. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2008, 25, 947954. (33) Tian, X. M.; Zhang, X. L.; Deng, X. G.; Chen, S. Multiway kernel independent component analysis based on feature samples for batch process monitoring. Neurocomputing 2009, 72, 15841596. (34) Huang, S. P.; Chiu, C. C. Process monitoring with ICA-based signal extraction technique and CART appraoach. Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 2009, 25, 631642. (35) Ge, Z. Q.; Xie, L.; Kruger, U.; Song, Z. H. Local ICA for multivariate statistical fault diagnosis in systems with unknown signal and error distributions. AIChE J. 2012, 58, 23572372.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

(36) Hsu, C. C.; Chen, M. C.; Chen, L. S. A novel process monitoring approach with dynamic independent component analysis. Control Eng. Pract. 2010, 18, 242253. (37) Stefatos, G.; Ben Hamza, A. Dynamic independent component analysis approach for fault detection and diagnosis. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 86068617. (38) Odiowei, P. P.; Cao, Y. State-space independent component analysis for nonlinear dynamic process monitoring. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2010, 103, 5965. (39) Chen, J. H.; Liu, J. L. Mixture principal component analysis models for process monitoring. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1999, 38, 1478 1488. (40) Chen, J. H.; Liu, J. L. Using mixture principal component analysis networks to extract fuzzy rules from data. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2000, 39, 23552367. (41) Choi, S. W.; Park, J. H.; Lee, I. B. Process monitoring using a Gaussian mixture model via principal component analysis and discriminant analysis. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2004, 28, 13771387. (42) Choi, S. W.; Martin, E. B.; Morris, A. J. Fault detection based on a maximum-likelihood principal component analysis (PCA) mixture. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2005, 44, 23162327. (43) Ge, Z. Q.; Song, Z. H. Maximum-likelihood mixture factor analysis model and its application for process monitoring. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2010, 102, 5361. (44) Thissen, U.; Swierenga, H.; de Weijer, A. P.; Wehrens, R.; Melssen, W. J.; Buydens, L. M. C. Multivariate statistical process control using mixture modeling. J. Chemom. 2005, 19, 2331. (45) Yu, J.; Qin, S. J. Multimode process monitoring with Bayesian inference-based finite Gaussian mixture models. AIChE J. 2008, 54, 18111829. (46) Chen, T.; Zhang, J. On-line multivariate statistical monitoring of batch processes using Gaussian mixture model. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2010, 34, 500507. (47) Wen, Q. J.; Ge, Z. Q.; Song, Z. H. Data-based linear Gaussian state-space model for dynamic process monitoring. AIChE J. 2012, 58, 37633776. (48) Liu, X. Q.; Xie, L.; Kruger, U.; Littler, T.; Wang, S. Q. Statisticalbased monitoring of multivariate non-Gaussian systems. AIChE J. 2008, 54, 23792391. (49) Ge, Z. Q.; Xie, L.; Song, Z. H. A novel statistical-based monitoring approach for complex multivariate processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009, 48, 48924898. (50) Cho, H. W. Data description and noise filtering based detection with its application and performance comparison. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 434441. (51) Ge, Z. Q.; Xie, L.; Kruger, U.; Lamont, L.; Song, Z. H.; Wang, S. Q. Sensor fault identification and isolation for multivariate nonGaussian processes. J. Process Control 2009, 19, 17071715. (52) Dunia, R.; Qin, S. J. Subspace approach to multidimensional fault identification and reconstruction. AIChE J. 1998, 44, 18131831. (53) Gertler, J.; Li, W. H.; Huang, Y. B.; McAvoy, T. Isolation enhanced principal component analysis. AIChE J. 1999, 45, 323334. (54) Lieftucht, D.; Kruger, U.; Irwin, G. W. Improved reliability in diagnosing faults using multivariate statistics. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2006, 30, 901912. (55) Ge, Z. Q.; Song, Z. H. Robust monitoring and fault reconstruction based on variational inference component analysis. J. Process Control 2011, 21, 462474. (56) Yue, H. H.; Qin, S. J. Reconstruction-based fault identification using a combined index. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2001, 40, 44034414. (57) Ge, Z. Q.; Kruger, U.; Lamont, L.; Xie, L.; Song, Z. H. Fault detection in non-Gaussian vibration systems using dynamic statisticalbased approaches. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2010, 24, 29722984. (58) Ge, Z. Q.; Gao, F. R.; Song, Z. H. Batch process monitoring based on support vector data description method. J. Process Control 2011, 21, 949959. (59) Martin, E. B.; Morris, A. J. Non-Parametric Confidence Bounds for Process Performance Monitoring. J. Process Control 1996, 6, 349 358.
3559

Review

(60) Chen, Q.; Kruger, U.; Leung, A. Y. T. Regularised Kernel Density Estimation for Clustered Process Data. Control Eng. Pract. 2004, 12, 267274. (61) Chen, T.; Sun, Y. Probabilistic contribution analysis for statistical process monitoring: A missing variable approach. Control Eng. Pract. 2009, 17, 469477. (62) Kano, M.; Nagao, K.; Hasebe, H.; Hashimoto, I.; Ohno, H.; Strauss, R.; Bakshi, B. R. Comparison of multivariate statistical process monitoring methods with applications to the Eastman challenge problem. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2002, 26, 161174. (63) Kramer, M. A. Autoassociative neural networks. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1992, 16, 313328. (64) Dong, D.; McAvoy, T. J. Nonlinear principal component analysis-based on principal curves and neural networks. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1996, 20, 6578. (65) Kruger, U.; Antory, D.; Hahn, J.; Irwin, G. W.; McCullough, G. Introduction of a nonlinearity measure for principal component models. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2005, 29, 23552362. (66) Tan, S. C.; Lim, C. P.; Rao, M. V. C. A hybrid neural network model for rule generation and its application to process fault detection and diagnosis. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2007, 20, 203213. (67) Wu, B.; Yu, J. B. A neural network ensemble model for on-line monitoring of process mean and variance shifts in correlated processes. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 40584065. (68) Eslamloueyan, R. Designing a hierarchical neural network based on fuzzy clustering for fault diagnosis of the Tennessee-Eastman process. Appl. Soft Comput. 2011, 11, 14071415. (69) Jia, F.; Martin, E. B.; Morris, A. J. Nonlinear principal component analysis with application to process fault detection. Int. J. Syst. Sci. 2001, 31, 14731487. (70) Karpenko, M.; Sepehri, N.; Scuse, D. Diagnosis of process valve actuator faults using a multilayer neural network. Control Eng. Pract. 2003, 11, 12891299. (71) Antory, D.; Irwin, G. W.; Kruger, U.; McCullough, G. Improved process monitoring using nonlinear principal component models. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2008, 23, 520544. (72) Kim, B.; Kim, J.; Choi, S. Use of neural network to model X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy data for diagnosis of plasma etch equipment. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 1134711351. (73) Silva, R. G. Condition monitoring of the cutting process using a self-organizing spiking neural network map. J. Intell. Manuf. 2010, 21, 823829. (74) Lee, J. M.; Yoo, C. K.; Choi, S. W.; Vanrolleghem, P. A.; Lee, I. B. Nonlinear process monitoring using kernel principal component analysis. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2004, 59, 223234. (75) Cho, J. H.; Lee, J. M.; Choi, S. W.; Lee, D. W.; Lee, I. B. Fault identification for process monitoring using kernel principal component analysis. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2005, 60, 279288. (76) Ge, Z. Q.; Yang, C. J.; Song, Z. H. Improved kernel PCA-based monitoring approach for nonlinear processes. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2009, 64, 22452255. (77) Alcala, C. F.; Qin, S. J. Reconstruction-based contribution for process monitoring with kernel principal component analysis. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 78497857. (78) Cheng, C. Y.; Hsu, C. C.; Chen, M. C. Adaptive kernel principal component analysis (KPCA) for monitoring small disturbances of nonlinear processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 22542262. (79) Lee, D. S.; Lee, M. W.; Woo, H.; Kim, Y. J.; Park, J. M. Multivariate online monitoring of a full-scale biological anaerobic filter process using kernel-based algorithms. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006, 45, 43354344. (80) Lee, J. M.; Qin, S. J.; Lee, I. B. Fault detection of non-linear processes using kernel independent component analysis. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 2007, 85, 526536. (81) Zhang, Y. W.; Zhou, H.; Qin, S. J.; Chai, T. Y. Decentralized fault diagnosis of large-scale processes using multiblock kernel partial least squares. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2010, 6, 310. (82) Zhang, Y. W. Fault detection and diagnosis of nonlinear processes using improved kernel independent component analysis
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

(KICA) and Support vector machine (SVM). Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 69616971. (83) Zhang, Y. W.; Ma, C. Fault diagnosis of nonlinear processes using multiscale KPCA and multiscale KPLS. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2011, 66, 6472. (84) Jia, M. X.; Chu, F.; Wang, F. L.; Wang, W. On-line batch process monitoring using batch dynamic kernel principal component analysis. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2010, 101, 110122. (85) Ge, Z. Q.; Song, Z. H. Nonlinear probabilistic fault detection based on Gaussian process latent variable model. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 47924799. (86) Ge, Z. Q.; Song, Z. H. Kernel Generalization of PPCA for Nonlinear Probabilistic Monitoring. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 1183211836. (87) Ge, Z. Q.; Song, Z. H. A distribution-free method for process monitoring. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 98219829. (88) Bouhouche, S.; Yazid, L. L.; Hocine, S.; Bast, J. Evaluation using online support-vector-machines and fuzzy reasoning. Application to condition monitoring of speeds rolling process. Control Eng. Pract. 2010, 1, 10601068. (89) Saravanan, N.; Siddabattuni, V. N. S. K.; Ramachandran, K. I. Fault diagnosis of spur bevel gear box using artificial neural network (ANN), and proximal support vector machine (PSVM). Appl. Soft Comput. 2010, 10, 344360. (90) Kerschen, G.; Golinval, J. C. Non-linear generalization of principal component analysis: From a global to a local approach. J. Sound Vibrat. 2002, 254, 867876. (91) Ge, Z. Q.; Zhang, M. G.; Song, Z. H. Nonlinear process monitoring based on linear subspace and Bayesian inference. J. Process Control 2010, 20, 676688. (92) Ge, Z. Q.; Gao, F. R.; Song, Z. H. Two-dimensional Bayesian monitoring method for nonlinear multimode processes. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2011, 66, 51735183. (93) Cheng, C.; Chiu, M. S. Nonlinear process monitoring using JITL-PCA. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2005, 76, 113. (94) Maulud, A.; Wang, D.; Romagnoli, J. A. A multi-scale orthogonal nonlinear strategy for multi-variate statistical process monitoring. J. Process Control 2006, 16, 671683. (95) Wang, X.; Kruger, U.; Irwin, G. W.; McCullough, G.; McDowell, N. Nonlinear PCA with the Local Approach for Diesel Engine Fault Detection and Diagnosis. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2008, 16, 122129. (96) Dayal, B. S.; MacGregor, J. F. Recursive exponentially weighted PLS and its applications to adaptive control and prediction. J. Process Control 1997, 7, 169179. (97) Qin, S. J. Recursive PLS algorithms for adaptive data monitoring. Comput. Chem. Eng. 1998, 22, 503514. (98) Li, W.; Yue, H. H.; Valle-Cervantes, S.; Qin, S. J. Recursive PCA for adaptive process monitoring. J. Process Control 2000, 10, 471486. (99) Wang, X.; Kruger, U.; Lennox, B. Recursive Partial Least Squares Algorithms for Monitoring Complex Industrial Processes. Control Eng. Pract. 2003, 11, 613632. (100) Wang, X.; Kruger, U.; Irwin, G. W. Process Monitoring Approach Using Fast Moving Window PCA. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2005, 44, 56915702. (101) Jin, H. D.; Lee, Y. H.; Lee, G.; Han, C. H. Robust recursive principal component analysis modeling for adaptive monitoring. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006, 45, 696703. (102) Liu, X. Q.; Kruger, U.; Littler, T. Moving window kernel PCA for adaptive monitoring of nonlinear processes. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2009, 96, 132143. (103) Elshenawy, L. M.; Yin, S.; Naik, A. S.; Ding, S. X. Efficient recursive principal component analysis algorithms for process monitoring. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 252259. (104) Jeng, J. C. Adaptive process monitoring using efficient recursive PCA and moving window PCA algorithms. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 2010, 41, 475481.
3560

Review

(105) Choi, S. W.; Martin, E. B.; Morris, A. J.; Lee, I. B. Adaptive multivariate statistical process control for monitoring time-varying processes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006, 47, 31083118. (106) Yoo, C. K.; Lee, I. B.; Vanrolleghem, P. A. On-line adaptive and nonlinear process monitoring of a pilot scale sequencing batch reactor. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 2006, 119, 349366. (107) Xiao, B. H.; Yang, Y. P. Variable MWPCA for adaptive process monitoring. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 419427. (108) Hwang, D. H.; Han, C. Real-time monitoring for a process with multiple operating modes. Control Eng. Pract. 1999, 7, 891902. (109) Zhao, S. J.; Zhang, J.; Xu, Y. M. Monitoring of processes with multiple operation modes through multiple principle component analysis models. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2004, 43, 70257035. (110) Singhai, A.; Seborg, D. E. Evaluation of a pattern matching method for the Tennessee Eastman challenge process. J. Process Control 2006, 16, 601613. (111) Yoo, C. K.; Villez, K.; Lee, I. B.; Rosen , C.; Vanrolleghem, P. A. Multi-model statistical process monitoring and diagnosis of a sequencing batch reactor. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2007, 96, 687701. (112) Gunther, J. C.; Baclaski, J.; Seborg, D. E.; Conner, J. S. Pattern matching in batch bioprocesses-comparisons across multiple products and operating conditions. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2009, 33, 8896. (113) Ge, Z. Q.; Song, Z. H. Mixture Bayesian regularization method of PPCA for multimode process monitoring. AIChE J. 2010, 56, 28382849. (114) Ge, Z. Q.; Song, Z. H. Multimode process monitoring based on Bayesian method. J. Chemom. 2009, 23, 636650. (115) Kano, M.; Hasebe, S.; Hashimoto, I.; Ohno, H. Evolution of multivariate statistical process control: Application of independent component analysis and external analysis. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2004, 28, 11571166. (116) Ge, Z. Q.; Yang, C. J.; Song, Z. H.; Wang, H. Q. Robust Online Monitoring for Multimode Processes Based on Nonlinear External Analysis. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 47754783. (117) Ku, W.; Storer, R. H.; Georgakis, C. Disturbance rejection and isolation by dynamic principal component analysis. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1995, 30, 179196. (118) Chen, J.; Liu, K. On-line batch process monitoring using dynamic PCA and dynamic PLS models. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2002, 14, 63 75. (119) Choi, S. W.; Lee, I. B. Nonlinear dynamic process monitoring based on dynamic kernel PCA. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2004, 59, 58975908. (120) Zhang, Y. W.; Li, Z. W.; Zhou, H. Statistical analysis and adaptive technique for dynamic process monitoring. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2010, 88, 13811392. (121) Lee, G.; Han, C. H.; Yoon, F. S. Multiple-fault diagnosis of the Tennessee Eastman process based on system decomposition and dynamic PLS. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2004, 43, 80378048. (122) Lu, N.; Wang, X. Fault diagnosis based on signed digraph combined with dynamic kernel PLS and SVR. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 94479456. (123) Kruger, U.; Zhou, Y. Q.; Irwin, G. W. Improved principal component monitoring of large-scale processes. J. Process Control 2004, 14, 879888. (124) Choi, S. W.; Morris, A. J.; Lee, I. B. Dynamic model-based batch process monitoring. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2008, 63, 622636. (125) Xie, L.; Zhang, J. M.; Wang, S. Q. Investigation of dynamic multivariate chemical process monitoring. Chin. J. Chem. Eng. 2006, 14, 559568. (126) Xie, L.; Kruger, U.; Lieftucht, D.; Littler, T.; Chen, Q.; Wang, S. Q. Statistical monitoring of dynamic multivariate processes part1 modeling autocorrelation and cross-correlation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006, 45, 16591676. (127) Yao, Y.; Gao, F. R. Subspace identification for two-dimensional dynamic batch process statistical monitoring. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2008, 63, 34113418. (128) Chen, J. H.; Liao, C. M. Dynamic process fault monitoring based on neural network and PCA. J. Process Control 2002, 12, 277 289.
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

(129) Alabi, S. I.; Morris, A. J.; Martin, E. B. On-line dynamic process monitoring using wavelet-based generic dissimilarity measure. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2005, 83, 698705. (130) Hu, K. L.; Yuan, J. Q. Statistical monitoring of fed-batch process using dynamic multiway neighborhood preserving embedding. Chem. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2008, 90, 195203. (131) Odiowei, P. P.; Cao, Y. Nonlinear dynamic process monitoring using canonical variate analysis and kernel density estimations. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2010, 6, 3645. (132) Nomikos, P.; MacGregor, J. F. Monitoring batch processes using multiway principal component analysis. AIChE J. 1994, 44, 13611375. (133) Nomikos, P.; MacGregor, J. F. Multi-way partial least square in monitoring batch processes. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1995, 30, 97 108. (134) Kourti, T. Multivariate dynamic data modeling for analysis and statistical process control of batch processes, start-ups and grade transitions. J. Chemom. 2003, 17, 93109. (135) Chen, J. H.; Chen, H. H. On-line batch process monitoring using MHMT-based MPCA. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2006, 61, 32233239. (136) Yoo, C. K.; Lee, J. M.; Vanrolleghem, P. A.; Lee, I. B. On-line monitoring of batch processes using multiway independent component analysis. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2004, 71, 151163. (137) Ramaker, H. J.; van Sprang, E. N. M.; Westerhuis, J. A.; Smilde, A. K. Fault detection properties of global, local and time evolving models for batch process monitoring. J. Process Control 2005, 15, 799 805. (138) Ferreira, A. P.; Lopes, J. A.; Menezes, J. C. Study of the application of multiway multivariate techniques to model data from an industrial fermentation process. Anal. Chim. Acta 2007, 595, 120127. (139) van Sprang, E. N. M.; Ramaker, H. J.; Westerhuis, J. A.; Guiden, S. P.; Smilde, A. K. Critical evaluation of approaches for online batch process monitoring. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2008, 57, 39793991. (140) Camacho, J.; Pico, J.; Ferrer, A. The best approaches in the online monitoring of batch processes based on PCA: Does the modeling structure matter? Anal. Chim. Acta 2009, 642, 5969. (141) Undey, C.; Cinar, A. Statistical monitoring of multistage, multiphase batch processes. IEEE Control Syst. Mag. 2002, 22, 4052. (142) Muthuswamy, K.; Srinivasan, R. Phase-based supervisory control for fermentation process development. J. Process Control 2003, 13, 367382. (143) Lu, N. Y.; Gao, F. R.; Wang, F. L. A sub-PCA modeling and online monitoring strategy for batch processes. AIChE J. 2004, 50, 255259. (144) Zhao, C. H.; Wang, F. L.; Gao, F. R.; Lu, N. Y.; Jia, M. X. Adaptive monitoring method for batch processes based on phase dissimilarity updating with limited modeling data. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46, 49434953. (145) Camacho, J.; Pico, J.; Ferrer, A. Multi-phase analysis framework for handling batch process data. J Chemom. 2008, 22, 632643. (146) Zhao, C. H.; Gao, F. R.; Niu, D. P.; Wang, F. L. Enhanced process comprehension and quality analysis based on subspace separation for multiphase batch processes. AIChE J. 2011, 57, 388 403. (147) Lu, N. Y.; Yao, Y.; Gao, F. R.; Wang, F. L. Two-dimensional dynamic PCA for batch process monitoring. AIChE J. 2005, 51, 3300 3304. (148) Yao, Y.; Gao, F. R. Batch process monitoring in score space of two-dimensional dynamic principal component analysis (PCA). Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007, 46, 80338043. (149) Yao, Y.; Gao, F. R. Multivariate statistical monitoring of multiphase two-dimensional dynamic batch processes. J. Process Control 2009, 19, 17161724. (150) Gunther, J. C.; Conner, J. S.; Seborg, D. E. Process monitoring and quality variable prediction utilizing PLS in industrial fed-batch cell culture. J. Process Control 2009, 19, 914921. (151) Faggian, A.; Facco, P.; Doplicher, F.; Bezzo, F.; Barolo, M. Multivariate statistical real-time monitoring of an industrial fed-batch
3561

Review

process for the production of specialty chemicals. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2009, 87, 325334. (152) Berber, R.; Atasoy, I.; Yuceer, M.; Deniz, G. On-line statistical process monitoring and fault diagnosis in batch bakers yeast fermentation. Chem. Eng. Technol. 2009, 32, 650658. (153) Alvarez, C. R.; Brandolin, A.; Sanchez, M. C. Batch process monitoring in the original measurements space. J. Process Control 2010, 20, 716725. (154) Chen, J. H.; Jiang, Y. C. Development of hidden semi-Markov models for diagnosis of multiphase batch operation. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2011, 66, 10871099. (155) He, Q. P.; Wang, J. Statistics pattern analysis: A new process monitoring framework and its application to semiconductor batch processes. AIChE J. 2011, 57, 107121. (156) Ge, Z. Q.; Song, Z. H. Semiconductor manufacturing process monitoring based on Adaptive sub-statistical PCA. IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf. 2010, 23, 99108. (157) MacGregor, J. F.; Jaeckle, C.; Kiparissides, C.; Kourtoudi, M. Process monitoring and diagnosis by multiblock PLS methods. AIChE J. 1994, 40, 826838. (158) Westerhuis, J. A.; Kourti, T.; MacGregor, J. F. Analysis of multiblock and hierarchical PCA and PLS models. J. Chemom. 1998, 12, 301321. (159) Qin, S. J.; Valle, S.; Piovoso, M. J. On unifying multiblock analysis with application to decentralized process monitoring. J. Chemom. 2001, 15, 715742. (160) Smilde, A. K.; Westerhuis, J. A.; de Jong, S. A framework for sequential multiblock component methods. J. Chemom. 2003, 17, 323337. (161) Choi, S. W.; Lee, I. B. Multiblock PLS-based localized process diagnosis. J. Process Control 2005, 15, 295306. (162) Cherry, G. A.; Qin, S. J. Multiblock principal component analysis based on a combined index for semiconductor fault detection and diagnosis. IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf. 2006, 19, 159172. (163) Kohonen, J.; Reinikainen, S. P.; Aaljoki, K.; Perkio, A.; Vaanaen, T.; Hoskuldsson, A. Muliti-block methods in multivariate process control. J. Chemom. 2008, 22, 281287. (164) Ge, Z. Q.; Song, Z. H. Two-level multiblock statistical monitoring for plant-wide processes. Korea J. Chem. Eng. 2009, 26, 14671475. (165) Sundarraman, A.; Srinivasan, R. Monitoring transitions in chemical plants using enhanced trend analysis. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2003, 27, 14551472. (166) Zhao, C. H.; Wang, F. L.; Lu, N. Y.; Jia, M. X. Stage-based softtrainsition multiple PCA modeling and on-line monitoring strategy for batch processes. J. Process Control 2007, 17, 728741. (167) Yao, Y.; Gao, F. R. Phase and transition based batch process modeling and online monitoring. J. Process Control 2009, 19, 816826. (168) Ng, Y. S.; Srinivasan, R. An adjoined multi-model approach for monitoring batch and transient operations. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2009, 33, 887902. (169) Natarajan, S.; Srinivasan, R. Multi-model based process condition monitoring of offshore oil and gas production process. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2010, 88, 572591. (170) Zhao, C. H.; Yao, Y.; Gao, F. R. Statistical analysis and online monitoring for multimode processes with between-mode transitions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2010, 65, 59615975. (171) Zhu, Z. B.; Song, Z. H. A.; Palazoglu, A. Transition process modeling and monitoring based on dynamic ensemble clustering and multiclass support vector data description. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2011, 50, 1396913983. (172) Ge, Z. Q.; Zhao, L. P.; Yao, Y.; Song, Z. H.; Gao, F. R. Utilizing transition information in online quality prediction of multiphase batch processes. J. Process Control 2012, 22, 599611. (173) Kim, D.; Lee, I. B. Process monitoring based on probabilistic PCA. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2003, 67, 109123. (174) Kim, D. S.; Yoo, C. K.; Kim, Y. I.; Jung, J. K.; Lee, I. B. Calibration, prediction and process monitoring model based on factor
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562

Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research

analysis for incomplete process data. J. Chem. Eng. Jpn. 2005, 38, 10251034. (175) Ng, Y. S.; Srinivasan, R. Multi-agent based collaborative fault detection and identification in chemical processes. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2010, 23, 934949. (176) Perk, S.; Teymour, F.; Cinar, A. Statistical monitoring of complex chemical processes using agent-based systems. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2010, 49, 50805093.

Review

3562

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie302069q | Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2013, 52, 35433562