Você está na página 1de 14

A Guide to Fault Detection and Diagnosis

Overview and Basic Terminology Technical

This guide to fault detection and fault diagnosis is a work in progress. It
will evolve over time, especially based on input from the LinkedIn
group Fault Detection and Diagnosis.

Fault detection and diagnosis is a key component of many operations

management automation systems.

A fault is another word for a problem. A root cause fault is a

fundamental, underlying problem that may lead to other problems and
observable symptoms. (It might not be directly observable). A root cause
is also generally associated with procedures for repair.
A "fault" or "problem does not have to be the result of a complete failure Subtopics:
of a piece of equipment, or even involve specific hardware. For instance,
a problem might be defined as non-optimal operation or off-spec
product. In a process plant, root causes of non-optimal operation might
be hardware failures, but problems might also be caused by poor choice
of operating targets, poor feedstock quality, poor controller tuning, partial
loss of catalyst activity, buildup of coke, low steam system pressure,
sensor calibration errors, or human error. A fault may be considered a
binary variable (OK vs. failed), or there may be a numerical extent,
such as the amount of a leak or a measure of inefficiency.

A symptom is an observed event or variable value, needed to detect and

isolate faults. If a symptom is the response to a question or an on-
demand data request (when actively testing a system instead of just
passively monitoring it), it is referred to as a test or test result.

Fault detection is recognizing that a problem has occurred, even if you

don't yet know the root cause. Faults may be detected by a variety of
quantitative or qualitative means. This includes many of the multivariable,
model-based approaches discussed later. It also includes simple,
traditional techniques for single variables, such as alarms based on high,
low, or deviation limits for process variables or rates of change; Statistical
Process Control (SPC) measures; and summary alarms generated by
packaged subsystems.

Fault diagnosis is pinpointing one or more root causes of problems, to the point where
corrective action can be taken. This is also referred to as fault isolation, especially when
emphasizing the distinction from fault detection. In common, casual usage, "fault diagnosis"
often includes fault detection, so fault isolation emphasizes the distinction.

Other elements of Operations Management Automation related to diagnosis include the

associated system and user interfaces, and workflow (procedural) support to for the overall
process. Workflow steps that might be manual or automated include notifications, online
instructions, escalation procedures if problems are ignored, fault mitigation actions (what to do
while waiting for repairs), direct corrective actions, and steps to return to normal once repairs
are complete.

Automated fault detection and diagnosis depends heavily on input from sensors or derived
measures of performance. In many applications, such as those in the process industries,
sensor failures are among the most common equipment failures. So a major focus in those
industries has to be on recognizing sensor problems as well as process
problems. Distinguishing between sensor problems and process problems is a major issue in
these applications. Our usage of the term "sensors" includes process monitoring
instrumentation for flow, level, pressure, temperature, power, and so on. In other fields such as
network & systems management, it can include other measures such as error rates, CPU
utilization, queue lengths, dropped calls, and so on.

In the following material, we focus mainly on online monitoring systems, based on sensor or
other automated inputs, but possibly including on some manual input from end users such as
plant operators. However, we also consider a broader viewpoint of diagnosis not just as a
technology, but also as part of the business process of fault management. Also, diagnosis as a
decision support activity rather than a fully automated operation is common in the management
of large, complex operations such as those found in the process industries and network &
systems management. It is also a natural fit for operations such as call centers for customer
support, where a significant amount of diagnosis is done. In those cases, there may be support
from a workflow engine as well as the types of tools traditionally associated with fault detection
and diagnosis

Fault Management - the overall processes and life cycle of a

Fault management, Abnormal Condition Management (ACM), or the term trademarked by
Honeywell (and hence avoided by other vendors): Abnormal Situation Management (ASM), all
refer to overall processes associated with managing faults, from detection steps through return
to normal service. Please go to the following page for a discussion of this big picture:

Fault Management - the overall processes and life cycle of a fault

An overview of different approaches to fault detection and

There are many different approaches to fault detection and isolation. Because each has their
strengths and weaknesses, most practical applications combine multiple approaches. In this
section, we highlight some of the major differentiating factors between the different techniques.

Model based reasoning

One of the major distinctions in approaches to fault detection & diagnosis is whether or not
explicit models are used, and what type of models are used. When models of the observed
system are used as a basis for fault detection and diagnosis, this is often referred to as "model
based reasoning". Please go to the page

Model Based Reasoning for fault detection and diagnosis

Causal models.

An important special case of model-based reasoning uses causal models. Causal models
capture cause/effect information. For a review of causal models, please go to the page:

Causal Models

In physical systems, causality in reality is associated with some time delay or lags between
cause and effect. This has to happen because mass or energy has to move, overcoming
resistance by inertial, thermal inertia, inductance, or other physical phenomena. This is
discussed on the page
Causal time delays and lags .

Fault signatures, pattern recognition, and classifiers

Pattern recognition is a general approach that directly uses the observed symptoms of a
problem and compares them to a set of known symptoms for each possible problem, looking
for the best match. We can represent the pattern, or fault signature, as a vector (1
dimensional array) of symptoms for each defined fault. Please go to the following page:

Fault signatures, pattern recognition, and classifiers

Neural networks

Neural networks are nonlinear, multivariable models built from a set of input/output data. They
can be used as event detectors, detecting events and trends. They can also be used as
diagnostic models in model-based reasoning, or used directly as classifiers for recognizing fault
signatures. For more information, please see Neural Networks for fault detection and
diagnosis .

Procedural/workflow approaches - modeling the decision process rather

than the observed system

Some fault detection and diagnosis is handled by creating procedures for making decisions
based on the observed data. This is direct modeling of the decision process rather than
modeling the system being diagnosed. Please go to the following page:

Procedural/workflow approaches - modeling the decision process rather than the observed

Event-oriented fault detection, diagnosis, and correlation

An event represents a change of state of a monitored object. Alarms are examples of events.
Diagnostics involving events can be significantly different than diagnostics involving a fixed set
of variables. Please go to the following page for a discussion of event-oriented diagnostics and
event correlation:

Event-oriented fault detection, diagnosis, and correlation

Passive system monitoring vs. active testing

In the case of online monitoring systems, many diagnostic techniques assume routine scanning
of every variable of interest. But many times, it is preferable to request non-routine
tests. Diagnosis for maintenance purposes is based on testing. For a discussion on passive
monitoring vs. testing strategies, please see the following page:

Passive system monitoring vs. active testing

Rule-based approaches and implementations

Rule-based systems in most cases just implement other approaches discussed above, more as
a program control mechanism than a separate diagnostic technique. For a discussion on rule-
based implementations, please see the following page:

Rule-based approaches and implementations

Hybrid approaches

Pattern recognition by itself does not require a model. However, input for construction of the
signatures for the known failures may be based on models; for instance, as residuals from
models of normal behavior. This general technique applies to static or dynamic models.

For dynamic models, the patterns can be based on predicted measurement values vs.
observed values in a Kalman filter, for example.Smartsignal offers products based on an
empirical process model of normal operation used for fault detection, combined with other
techniques for fault isolation.

Pattern recognition can also be combined with models of abnormal behavior. For instance, in
the case of the SMARTS InCharge product, the modeling was in terms of a fault propagation
model (qualitative cause/effect model of abnormal behavior). But as part of the development
process, this model was then used to automatically construct fault signatures - a form of
compiled knowledge. At run time, diagnosis was based on matching observed data to the
nearest fault signature. So the product at run time had the characteristics of a pattern matching

In some cases, a qualitative model really just exists inside the application developers
head. That person directly constructs the signatures based on their knowledge. So, the overall
methodology is often a combination of pattern recognition with a model-based method.

Some tools such as GDA, are flexible enough to support multiple approaches to fault detection
and diagnosis, and also support the upfront filtering and event generation as well.

The summary paper Experiences Using Knowledge-Based Reasoning in Online Control

Systems reported on the results of numerous online fault detection and diagnosis
systems. One conclusion was that most applications required a mix of techniques for success.

Examples of hybrid approaches for pipeline monitoring

An example of a hybrid approach that directly uses pattern recognition on the residuals from
static numerical models of a liquid pipeline is given in the neural nets section of this site.

The concept paper Pipeline Diagnosis Emphasizing Leak Detection: An Approach And
Demonstration outlines an approach to pipeline leak detection that combines causal models of
abnormal behavior with both static (algebraic) models and dynamic models.

Some issues in evaluating techniques and implementing them

All solutions installed as software will have issues such as the user interfaces for end users and
application developers, system integration, reliability, building generic libraries describing
commonly repeated components, easy modification for maintenance, computing speed and
storage requirements, and so on. But there are some unique issues associated with fault
detection and diagnosis.

Single fault assumption vs. multiple faults in practice

In large complex operations (such as the control centers for refineries, or for network
management), there are usually multiple outstanding problems. This presents a problem for
many diagnostic techniques. If it werent for some of the partial workarounds discussed next,
fault isolation techniques based on a single-fault assumption would be essentially useless in
large-scale applications such as process monitoring and network management. Please go the
following page:
Diagnosis of multiple faults

Robustness: tuning to balance sensitivity vs. false positives

Fault detection and diagnosis generally involves some "tuning". A system might be tuned to be
very sensitive to detecting or recognizing particular problems. But then it is also likely to declare
problems when none exist. There is a tradeoff in sensitivity vs. false alarms. This is a
generalization of the problem encountered when setting simple alarm thresholds. If alarm
threshold limits are set too close to normal operations, problems will be caught before they
become large. But, minor transient fluctuations will then result in false alarms.


For systems using sensor data, noise is almost always an issue. The primary purpose of
filtering is to reduce noise by combining multiple values of variables sampled over time so that
at least some of the noise is canceled out. For a discussion, on reducing the impact of high
frequency noise and spikes for single variables, please go to the following section:


Robustness for sensor or model errors

A major consideration when evaluating diagnostic techniques is robustness in the presence of

errors in the sensors or the model. Any system that completely believes any symptom or test
input will be sensitive to errors in that input. Similarly, any system that completely believes its
own models will be sensitive to errors in that model. The result in either case can be conflicting
data and incorrect conclusions. The errors might just be due to transient errors in timing, but
could be longer lasting.

In some sense, most diagnostic systems make approximations, such as finding the nearest
fault signature, recognizing that there will be errors. Another way of looking at this is that most
systems combine evidence. There will be some form of weighted averaging of the inputs when
they are in conflict.

Event orientation and scalable architecture for large systems

Many model-based techniques require complex matrix calculations. This does not scale well for
large systems. One approach is simply to break up the large diagnostic system into a set of
smaller, independent ones. This results in diagnostic systems that might not account for all
possible interactions in a complex system. However, as long as there are enough sensors, this
might not be much of a problem.

Another fundamental approach for large-scale systems is to focus on abnormal events, and
reason over the events rather than all the underlying data at once. There is a separate event
generation step that converts raw data such as temperature values into an event such as a
high temperature alarm. SPC (Statistical Process Control) calculations can be used to generate
events as well. Event generation could also be based on calculations using complex models of
normal operation, signaling deviation of the data from expected behavior. In this way, models
of normal behavior can be used to generate events for use in models of abnormal
behavior. This combines the sensitivity of normal models for problem detection with fault
isolation capabilities of models of abnormal operations.

In the process industries, events such as simple alarms have always been generated. In recent
years, alarm management systems have also looked at the implications of combinations of
alarms. In network management, significant effort was put into formulating and standardizing
the roles of agents that typically generated events, and managers that processed and
correlated the events. Each piece of equipment has an agent. Histories of numerical data used
to generate events are mainly maintained locally by each agent. Fault diagnosis is a byproduct
of event correlation in the manager processes. Further hierarchical levels resulted in
manager of managers systems. All of this was an attempt to deal with large numbers of
events and problems. Examples of event-oriented systems are described in the section on
the Integrity/Optegrity event-oriented technology. Another example of an event-oriented system
was the SMARTS InCharge event correlator used in network management (This was bought by
EMC and incorporated into their products.).

Event generation is only required in certain diagnostic techniques. There is a loss of

information in converting what is commonly numerical information into crisp events that are
simply present or absent. But just dealing with events results in simpler diagnostic calculations,
so the tradeoff is often made to manage larger systems.

Treatment and propagation of unknown sensor values

Sooner or later, any (hardware) sensor will fail. After failure, its value must be treated as
unknown until the sensor is repaired. Sensor values may also become unknown due to wire
breaks, power loss, or network problems. The fault detection and diagnosis system must deal
with this gracefully, providing the best results possible. It also should not make default
assumptions. For instance, the lack of a high temperature event should not be taken to imply
that the temperature is OK when the sensor value used to generate that event is
unknown. While prior estimates of fault probabilities may be useful in the absence of other
information, prior estimates of sensor values can lead to incorrect conclusions.

Model completeness assumptions and novel faults

It is difficult to model or even imagine every possible fault scenario. A fault that arises that was
not considered during application development is called a novel fault. For a discussion of the
problems this causes, please go to the page:

Model completeness assumptions and novel faults

Explanation facilities and visibility of knowledge

Plant operators and their management, like most people, hate black boxes that tell them what
do, without being able to explain why. In the ideal system, a user should be able to find out why
a particular conclusion was reached at the time it was made (either in announcing a fault or the
recovery from a fault).

A related issue is visibility of all the knowledge that is built into the system. Users need
confidence that all the fault possibilities they know are included, and that there arent errors
built in that could lead to false conclusions. If the knowledge is visible in some fashion and
understandable, people can formally review it, without waiting for faults at run time to see what
happens. If the operation of the diagnostic system is safety-critical, such reviews by people with
a wide variety of backgrounds are extremely important.

Systems based on fault propagation models, logic trees, or procedural methods like decision
trees in a graphical language, can provide good explanations and transparency of the
contained knowledge. (Whether they actually do or not depends on the implementation, but the
capability is there). Pattern matching methods based on explicit listing of fault signatures can
also provide this transparency -- anyone can look at the faults and the associated symptoms
defined in the fault signature. But fault signature matrices get large and harder to understand
as the number of faults and symptoms grows. If an underlying model such as a fault
propagation model is used to construct the signatures, that model may be more modular and
easier to understand.

Methods based on engineering equations are less satisfying, but might be believed because
their basis, assumptions, and limitations can at least be explained. Methods based on black
box techniques such as statistical or neural net classifiers are the worst from the standpoint of
explanation and visibility of knowledge.

Transparency for explanation might not be an issue at all for diagnosis in embedded systems,
and there might not even be a direct human user. But transparency of the model knowledge
can be important even for embedded diagnostic systems, so that effective reviews can be
Neural Nets for Fault Detection and Diagnosis
This page examines Neural Networks, as part of the white paper Diagnosis
A Guide to Fault Detection and Diagnosis. Subtopics:

Neural networks are nonlinear, multivariable models built from a set of

input/output data. They can be used as event detectors, detecting events
and trends. They can also be used as diagnostic models in model-based
reasoning, or used directly as classifiers for recognizing fault signatures.
Since the original "neural net" is a brain, these are sometimes referred to
as Artificial Neural Nets (ANNs).

Overview of Neural Nets

General structure

Neural networks are represented as a set of nodes and connections

between them. The connections have weights associated with them,
representing the strength of those connections. The nodes are loosely
inspired by the biological neurons because they fire by responding to
inputs and transmitting a result to nearby nodes through the
connections. ANNs are organized into layers. At runtime, information is
fed to the input layer -- the set of input nodes for the ANN. Each input
variable directly inputs to one node in the input layer. Those nodes
output to multiple nodes in the next layer. Data is propagated through
successive layers, with the final result available at the output layer. There is one output node
for each output variable. The nodes between the input and output layers are called hidden
nodes. A few neural network architectures feed signals from outputs back to inputs.

Each node does a computation based on its inputs. The output is based on a weighted sum of
the inputs, using the weights specified in the connections. The output calculation also includes
a nonlinear function. The nonlinear function is often a sigmoid -- an S-shaped curve. The
nonlinearity is a key part of the system - otherwise it would just be equivalent to a linear
function that could be directly written as a matrix calculation.

Training phase and runtime phase

There is a "training phase" for developing the ANN model, and a run-time phase for using the
model. In the training phase, a neural network "learns" the model from the data, given pairs of
input & output data arrays (the "training set"). The result is a nonlinear "black box" model. This
is analogous to building a regression model from data. In the run-time phase, we use the
model with a new input data array to predict a new output array. This is analogous to using the
regression model with new inputs.

Roles as function approximators or classifiers

Neural Networks can be used in several major roles: function approximation and classification.
In function approximation, we are developing an approximation to the real mapping of input
data to output data. Think of it as multivariable interpolation. It provides replacements for
models of all types, used for control, simulation, and interpolation, as well as model-based
diagnosis. Nonlinear modeling used this way, in the absence of first principles models, is a
special strength of neural nets.

The second major role for neural networks in in classification (pattern matching). For
diagnosis, this means selecting which fault signature is the most likely. Input "features"
(variables) are selected and collected into a vector. Each possible feature pattern belongs to
exactly one of n "classes". For fault detection, a class corresponds to a symptom of a fault. For
diagnosis, a class corresponds to a fault. The neural net has n outputs, corresponding to each
of the n possible classes. In training, 1 is applied to the correct output for the input class, and 0
is applied to the other outputs. At runtime, a new input is presented, and an output near 1
indicates membership in that class.

Types of Neural Networks

There are many variations of neural net architectures. The "backpropagation network (BPN)"
is a widely used "standard" network, named after its original technique for training. It has a
layered structure of nodes and connections. Usually there are 3 layers -- input, hidden, and
output. Information is transmitted via connections with weights. It runs in a "feedforward"
configuration: runtime data propagates from input through to the output with no
feedback. Each layer contains nodes ("neurons") that take a weighted sum of its inputs, and
applies a function to introduce nonlinearity. For BPNs, that nonlinear function generally is
"sigmoidal" (S-shaped). A variation is an "autoassociative net for nonlinear principal
components analysis. It uses a total of 5 layers.

Another useful variation is a "Radial Basis Function Network (RBFN), or the more general
ellipsoidal basis function network. With these approaches, the data points are grouped into
clusters during the training phase. The RBFN has 3 layers. It is a feedforward network. The
middle layer nodes represent multivariable Gaussian functions, each with a mean at a cluster
center. The outputs are based on combining values associated with the cluster centers. It can
be used for classification and for functional approximation. It has the advantage that it contains
its own built-in error analysis to avoid extrapolation errors -- if a data point is far from any of
the cluster centers, it is immediately obvious.

Building applications with Neural Networks

The general approach to applying and using neural networks is:
(1) Choose inputs & outputs
(2) Acquire input/output training data
(3) (Optionally) Preprocess data, including steps such as normalization
(4) Train the network
(5) Validate the network
(6) Apply the network
(7) Periodically retrain for adaptation

When selecting inputs and outputs, there should be a functional relationship between inputs
and outputs.

When acquiring data, the data should cover the space of interest. Neural nets, like other
empirical models, can extrapolate poorly. Extrapolation may be uncovered during the
validation phase. Radial Basis Function nets can detect extrapolation at run time, but
backpropagation nets cannot. The data can be "live" data. Or, it might be acquired by running
a complex simulation. In that case, adding a little noise can be useful to force generalization
and avoid numerical problems.

Optional pre-processing of data

Neural net software may include facilities for various kinds of pre-processing of the data,
including normalizing each variable to fit within a fixed numerical range about an average

Linear techniques such as Principal Components Analysis may be used to preprocess the
data. By using these techniques to build a linear model, the training of the neural net can focus
on training just for the nonlinearities. Other preprocessing includes any needed filtering to
reduce the noise when time-varying data is used.


After acquiring the data, training involves using existing data to estimate weights in the
connections. Training also includes experimenting with the number of nodes, number of
layers, and so on. The quality & quantity of data determine the quality of the results. Large
data sets reduce variance of predictions if a functional relationship exists.

The training is a nonlinear parameter estimation problem. Generally, the goal is some form of
least-squares fit to the training set (minimizing the sum of squares of prediction errors over the
data). The traditional BPN network had a specific training method accomplishing a gradient-
based search. However, standard optimization methods are better both for robustness and
performance. They can take advantage of the years of experience in fine-tuning for solving
nonlinear least squares problems. RBFN use a different technique.


Validation techniques are used during training to help quantify network performance.

The number of parameters to be estimated by the training technique is related to the number
of layers, nodes and connections. The number of adjustable parameters (weights) must be
chosen by the user or by an automated technique. This is analogous to choosing the model
order in control systems design, or the order of a polynomial in curve fitting.

If there are too many parameters, this is called "overfitting". There is little "generalization"
(nothing is "learned"). In the extreme case, at runtime, the model will exactly match the output
data when fed the same input data as in the training data. But the results for any other data
will be unpredictable. This extreme case is analogous to fitting a quadratic polynomial to 3

If there are too few parameters, this is called "underfitting". In this case, too much information
lost. This is analogous to using a linear curve fit when a quadratic is really needed. One goal
of training is to achieve the right level of generalization. Cross-validiation accomplishes
this. Cross-validation techniques separate the data into "testing" data and "training" data to
choose the architecture. The general process for cross-validation is to:
(1) Pick an architecture (e.g., number of layers, number of hidden nodes)
(2) Evaluate the architecture:
Split data randomly into training and testing subsets
Train the network using only the training data subset - training minimizes the training error
Evaluate network prediction quality only over the testing subset only - "testing error"
Repeat multiple times with different random splits of data, and average the results of the
testing error. (Similar approaches exist to split the data n ways)
(3) Repeat, and choose the architecture with the lowest testing error (Typically, error is at a
minimum somewhere between underfitting and overfitting)
(4) Train with the final architecture, using all the data

Once the structure is fixed and the weights are determined, the net is available for run-time


When planning for adaptive applications that lead to retraining, facilities are needed to
maintain the data sets. This includes recognizing and adding new, novel cases; and forgetting
old cases when newer ones are better. It also includes basic filtering or other signal pre-
processing and rejecting outliers.
Adaptation can allow modeling a system that can change over time. However, there is the
danger that slow degradation will be learned and thought to be normal, so that real problems
will not be detected.

Comparisons with other techniques

Good application areas

Applications especially suitable for neural networks include those where a functional
representation is known to exist between inputs and outputs, but it is difficult or time-
consuming to formulate first principles models. The models should include significant
nonlinearities; otherwise linear modeling techniques could be used. A significant amount of
data must be available for building the models.

Neural nets can model static or dynamic systems. For behavior over time, delayed inputs and
outputs can be used.

Limitations in using neural networks

Why not just always use a neural network for quantitative models or classification? There are
multiple reasons:

Neural networks by themselves dont take advantage of known models. As a result, the
network has to learn more, and may generalize improperly. A model or partial model with a
wider range of validity might be easily available, or generated.
There is a danger of extrapolation outside of training data
Training can be time consuming, and involve a lot of heuristic rules on selecting variables,
choosing the number of nodes, and so on.
It may be difficult or time consuming to "cover" the possible operating regimes
A lot of testing may be required to build confidence in the network
Minor plant changes or operating regime changes may require extensive retraining and
Many operating statuses change, leading to a large number of inputs to the net besides
sensors e.g., controller statuses, or parallel equipment statuses
Lack of ability to explain the results. This is common to all black box techniques, but less of
a problem for systems based on approaches using rules, causal models, or logic diagrams,
In systems where the neural net is used to build a model of normal operation, the neural net
can provide sensitive detection of faults by detecting non-normal operation. However,
alternative technologies are then needed for fault isolation.

Neural networks complement other techniques, and may be used


Neural networks complement traditional modeling, rule-based systems, optimization,

regression, interpolation, and control. The focus is on nonlinear systems, vs. traditional linear
techniques that may be more efficient for linear systems. This is useful because few systems
are truly linear, especially under fault or other extreme conditions. Linearized models used in
traditional methods often apply only within small operating regions.

Neural nets may be combined with engineering models to exploit the strengths of both. First
principles (simulation) models can be incorporated by preprocessing or post-processing. For
instance, neural nets can learn the deviations from a model, or learn the deviations from
estimators such as data reconciliation. Examples of these hybrid approaches are covered
in Neural Nets for Fault Diagnosis Based on Model Errors or Data Reconciliation. Another
approach is to use simulation models to generate training data for data driven techniques like
neural nets. An example of using both simulation models and RBFN neural nets for HVAC
diagnosis is described in NIST Final Report: A New Methodology for Fault Detection
Observers in VAV Systems .

As noted already, in cases where neural nets are used to build a model of normal operation,
these models can provide sensitive detection of faults as deviation from normal
behavior. However, in this case, alternative technologies are then needed for fault
isolation. For example, the fault isolation might be handled by a system based on causal fault
propagation models.

Competitive technologies
The products from Smartsignal include a core technology that could be compared to
RBFNs. Although the technology is quite different, it could be used in similar application areas.

Commercial products and applications

NeuCo, at www.neuco.com, sells products focusing on the electrical power generation industry
that include embedded neural networks. The MaintenanceOpt product uses neural nets for
early fault detection for equipment health monitoring and diagnosis. Deviation from a neural
network model of normal operation triggers events for fault isolation using rules. The neural
network is part of an overall system, not currently sold separately.

Gensym had a product called NeurOn-Line. A brochure is available. It provided for general
real-time use, including BPN, RBFN, and autoassociative networks, with extensive support for
preprocessing available.