Failure recovery of machines is a great challenge for the plant operator. Usually, a stopped plant is quite costly and has to be put back into operation fast. In that case, experienced personnel are essential. Only their knowledge and broad understanding of the interaction of the various components allows a reliable identification of the underlying problem and enables a successful recovery. Digitization can help to address this problem. Knowledge can be stored and shared digitally across plants, locations and companies. In addition, an ever-increasing amount of machine and process data is digitally available which can further support the problem-solving process. We present a new approach to machine maintenance that relies on machine learning to help identify the underlying technical problem that led to the machines error. In contrast to predictive maintenance, our system is employed reactively and focusses on the identification and classification of singular failures rather than a predictive monitoring of the plants state. To support the operator in fault recovery, we use anomaly detection to identify the deviations in the data of the processes prior to the fault. This allows the system to generate hints as to where to look for the underlying cause of the error and helps the technician make an educated guess. Additionally, an error classification algorithm also allows troubleshooting information to be linked directly to the data. Thereby, when an error reoccurs, the knowledge gained in the first occurrence is immediately made available to the operator through information linked to the error class.

In this article, we present the concept behind our anomaly detection system and the required software architecture to combine the different data sources. Furthermore, we discuss the results from an experiment that simulates an optical part inspection using a camera based system, where we introduce different errors into the process and are able to demonstrate the capability of our system to identify the correct source of the error.

1.
B.
Wang
and
Z.
Mao
, “
Outlier detection based on gaussian process with application to industrial processes
,”
Applied Soft Computing
76
,
505
516
(
2019
).
2.
J. Fausing
Olesen
and
H. R.
Shaker
, “
Predictive maintenance for pump systems and thermal power plants: State-of-the-art review, trends and challenges
,”
Sensors
20
(
2020
), .
3.
Y.
Moon
and
C.
Moodie
,
English (US)“A framework for failure recovery in a manufacturing cell
,”
Archive for Mathematical Logic
4
,
144
156
(
1989
).
4.
V.
Chandola
,
A.
Banerjee
, and
V.
Kumar
, “
Anomaly detection: A survey
,”
ACM Comput. Surv.
41
(
2009
), .
5.
L.
Basora
,
X.
Olive
, and
T.
Dubot
, “
Recent advances in anomaly detection methods applied to aviation
,”
Aerospace
6
(
2019
), .
6.
A.
Patcha
and
J.-M.
Park
, “
An overview of anomaly detection techniques: Existing solutions and latest technological trends
,”
Computer Networks
51
,
3448
3470
(
2007
).
7.
M.
Ahmed
,
A. Naser
Mahmood
, and
J.
Hu
, “
A survey of network anomaly detection techniques
,”
Journal of Network and Computer Applica-tions
60
,
19
31
(
2016
).
8.
V.
Hodge
and
J.
Austin
, “
A survey of outlier detection methodologies
,”
Artificial Intelligence Review
22
,
85
126
(
2004
).
9.
R.
Chalapathy
and
S.
Chawla
, “
Deep learning for anomaly detection: A survey
,”
CoRR
abs/1901.03407 (
2019
), 1901.03407.
10.
J.
Liu
,
J.
Guo
,
P.
Orlik
,
M.
Shibata
,
D.
Nakahara
,
S.
Mii
, and
M.
Takáč
, “
Anomaly detection in manufacturing systems using structured neural networks
,” in
2018 13th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation (WCICA)
(
2018
) pp.
175
180
.
11.
B.
Lindemann
,
F.
Fesenmayr
,
N.
Jazdi
, and
M.
Weyrich
, “
Anomaly detection in discrete manufacturing using self-learning approaches
,”
Procedia CIRP
79
,
313
318
(
2019
),
12th CIRP Conference on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering
, 18-20 July 2018,
Gulf of Naples, Italy
.
12.
D.
Toth
and
T.
Aach
, “
Improved minimum distance classification with gaussian outlier detection for industrial inspection
,” in
Proceedings 11th International Conference on Image Analysis and Processing
(
2001
) pp.
584
588
.
13.
L.
Martí
,
N.
Sanchez-Pi
,
J. M.
Molina
, and
A. C. B.
Garcia
, “
Anomaly detection based on sensor data in petroleum industry applications
,”
Sensors
15
,
2774
2797
(
2015
).
14.
F.
Pittino
,
M.
Puggl
,
T.
Moldaschl
, and
C.
Hirschl
, “
Automatic anomaly detection on in-production manufacturing machines using statistical learning methods
,”
Sensors
20
(
2020
), .
15.
H.
Wang
,
M. J.
Bah
, and
M.
Hammad
, “
Progress in outlier detection techniques: A survey
,”
IEEE Access
7
,
107964
108000
(
2019
).
16.
S.
Prykhodko
,
N.
Prykhodko
,
L.
Makarova
, and
A.
Pukhalevych
, “
Application of the squared mahalanobis distance for detecting outliers in multivariate non-gaussian data
,” in
2018 14th International Conference on Advanced Trends in Radioelecrtronics, Telecommunications and Computer Engineering (TCSET)
(
2018
) pp.
962
965
.
17.
Y.
Yang
,
D.
Li
, and
Y.
Qi
, “
An approach to non-normal process capability analysis using johnson transformation
,” in
2018 IEEE 4th Interna-tional Conference on Control Science and Systems Engineering (ICCSSE)
(
2018
) pp.
495
498
.
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.