A theoretical framework and its practical implications for formulating and implementing model-based monitoring of discrete flow networks are discussed. Possible flows of items are described as discrete-event (DE) traces. Each trace defines the DE sequence(s) that are triggered when an entity follows a given flow-path, visiting tracking locations within the monitored system. To deal with alternative routing, creation of items, flow bifurcations and convergences are allowed. Given the set of possible discrete flows, a possible-behavior model-an interacting set of automata-is constructed, where each automation models the item discrete flow at each tracking location. In this model, which assumes total observability, event labels or symbols contain all the information required to unambiguously distinguish each discrete movement. Within the possible behavior, there is a special sub-behavior whose occurrence is required to be detected. The special behavior may be specified by the occurrence of routing events, such as faults or route violations, for example. These intermittent or non-persistent events may occur repeatedly. An observation mask is then defined, characterizing the observation configuration available for collecting item tracking data. The verification task is to determine whether this observation configuration is capable of detecting the specified special behavior. The assessment is accomplished by evaluating several observability notions, such as detectability and diagnosibility. If the corresponding property is satisfied, associated formal observers are constructed to perform the monitoring task at hand. The synthesis of observation masks may also be conducted to suggest optimal observation configurations (specifying number, type, and tracking locations of observation devices) guaranteeing the detection of special events and to construct associated monitoring agents. The developed framework, modeling methodology, and supporting techniques for defining and implementing discrete flow monitoring of entity movements are presented and illustrated with examples.
[1]
Shahin Hashtrudi Zad.
Fault diagnosis in discrete-event and hybrid systems
,
1999
.
[2]
H. Garcia,et al.
Event diagnosis of discrete-event systems with uniformly and nonuniformly bounded diagnosis delays
,
2004,
Proceedings of the 2004 American Control Conference.
[3]
Stéphane Lafortune,et al.
Active diagnosis of discrete event systems
,
1997,
Proceedings of the 36th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control.
[4]
Christos G. Cassandras,et al.
Introduction to Discrete Event Systems
,
1999,
The Kluwer International Series on Discrete Event Dynamic Systems.
[5]
Shengbing Jiang,et al.
Diagnosis of repeated/intermittent failures in discrete event systems
,
2003,
IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..
[6]
Stéphane Lafortune,et al.
NP-completeness of sensor selection problems arising in partially observed discrete-event systems
,
2002,
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..
[7]
Shengbing Jiang,et al.
Optimal sensor selection for discrete-event systems with partial observation
,
2003,
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..
[8]
Raja Sengupta,et al.
Diagnosability of discrete-event systems
,
1995,
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..
[9]
K. Loparo,et al.
Minimizing the cardinality of an events set for supervisors of discrete-event dynamical systems
,
1996,
IEEE Trans. Autom. Control..
[10]
Stéphane Lafortune,et al.
Failure diagnosis of discrete event systems: the case of intermittent faults
,
2002,
Proceedings of the 41st IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2002..
[11]
Vijay K. Garg,et al.
Modeling and Control of Logical Discrete Event Systems
,
1994
.
[12]
S. E. Aumeier,et al.
Proliferation resistance of advanced sustainable nuclear fuel cycles.
,
2001
.