Partitioning of turbomachine faults

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 8862433
  • Patent Number
    8,862,433
  • Date Filed
    Tuesday, May 18, 2010
    14 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, October 14, 2014
    10 years ago
Abstract
An example method of partitioning turbomachine faults includes using a modeling computer to model a system, to establish a modeled gas path parameter, and to establish a modeled subsystem parameter. The method then determines a gas path condition representing a difference between an actual gas path parameter and the modeled gas path parameter. The method also determines a subsystem condition representing a difference between an actual subsystem parameter and the modeled subsystem parameter. The method diagnoses a sensor failure based on the gas path condition and the subsystem condition.
Description
BACKGROUND

This disclosure relates generally to partitioning faults. More particularly, this disclosure relates to diagnosing operational faults detected within a turbomachine as a module performance change, an actuator fault, or a sensor fault.


Turbomachines (e.g., gas turbine engines) are known. A typical turbomachine includes multiple modules or sections, such as a fan module, a compression module, a combustor module, a turbine module, etc. Measuring parameters of the turbomachine facilitates identifying operational faults. For example, measuring the temperature and pressures of the modules can indicate changes in the performance of the module and help in identifying faults related to module performance. Another operational fault relates to actuators of the turbomachines. As known, the actuators manipulate the positions of various components that are essential for proper operation of the turbomachinery. An example actuator fault includes an actuator that is stuck in a closed position, which can negatively affect performance of the turbomachine.


Turbomachines include sensors that measure parameters along the gas paths of the turbomachine. Example gas path measurements include the rotational speeds of turbomachine spools, the temperature of gas exhausted from the turbomachine, etc. Other sensors of the turbomachine measure parameters within subsystems of the turbomachine. Example subsystem measurements include turbine case cooling temperatures, air bleed flow, variable stator vanes measurements, etc. Still other sensors measure power conditions of the turbomachine. If the turbomachine is a gas turbine engine, some sensors may measure flight conditions. Examples of these measurements include Mach numbers, altitudes, ambient temperatures, power requirements, etc. Failure of the sensors may result in inaccurate measurements. Sensor failure is another type of operational fault.


SUMMARY

An example method of partitioning turbomachine faults includes using a modeling computer to model a system, to establish a modeled gas path parameter, and to establish a modeled subsystem parameter. The method then determines a gas path condition representing a difference between an actual gas path parameter and the modeled gas path parameter. The method also determines a subsystem condition representing a difference between an actual subsystem parameter and the modeled subsystem parameter. The method diagnoses a sensor failure based on the gas path condition and the subsystem condition.


Another example method of partitioning gas turbine engine faults includes establishing a model of a gas turbine engine, using the model to determine a modeled gas path parameter, and using the model to determine a modeled subsystem parameter. The method identifies a fault in the gas turbine engine based on a comparison of the modeled gas path parameter to a measurement of an actual gas path parameter of the gas turbine engine, and based on a comparison of the modeled subsystem parameter to an actual subsystem parameter from the gas turbine engine.


An example arrangement for partitioning gas turbine engine faults includes a modeling computer configured to establish a model of a gas turbine engine. The modeling computer determines a modeled gas path parameter and a modeled subsystem parameter. A controller module is configured to identify a fault in the gas turbine engine based on comparison of the modeled gas path parameter to a measurement of an actual gas path parameter received from the gas turbine engine, and a comparison of the modeled subsystem parameter to an actual subsystem parameter received from a gas turbine engine.


These and other features of the disclosed examples can be best understood from the following specification and drawings, the following of which is a brief description:





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 shows a sectional view of an example gas turbine engine.



FIG. 2 shows a highly schematic view of an arrangement configured to partition faults within the gas turbine engine of FIG. 1.



FIGS. 3A and 3B show a flow of an example method for partitioning faults utilizing the FIG. 1 arrangement.



FIG. 4 shows a schematic method of providing model driven gas path parameters for the FIGS. 3A and 3B method.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION


FIG. 1 schematically illustrates an example gas turbine engine 10, which is a type of turbomachine. The example gas turbine engine 10 includes (in serial flow communication) a fan section 14, a low pressure compressor 18, a high pressure compressor 22, a combustor 26, a high pressure turbine 30, and a low pressure turbine 34. The gas turbine engine 10 is circumferentially disposed about an engine centerline X.


During operation, air is pulled into the gas turbine engine 10 by the fan section 14. Some of the air is pressurized by the compressors 18 and 22, mixed with fuel, and burned within the combustor 26. The turbines 30 and 34 extract energy from the hot combustion gases flowing from the combustor 26.


In a two spool design, the high pressure turbine 30 utilizes the extracted energy from the hot combustion gases to power the high pressure compressor 22 through a high speed shaft 38, and the low pressure turbine 34 utilizes the extracted energy from the hot combustion gases to power the low pressure compressor and the fan section 14 through a low speed shaft 42.


The examples described in this disclosure are not limited to the two spool engine architecture described, however, and may be used in other architectures, such as single spool axial design, a three spool axial design, and still other architectures. Further, although the examples described herein are described with regard to the gas turbine engine 10, those having skill in this art and the benefit of this disclosure will understand that other examples include other types of turbomachines.


Referring now to FIG. 2 with continuing reference to FIG. 1, in an example fault partitioning arrangement 46, the sections of the engine 10 correspond generally to engine modules 46. Some of the engine modules 46 include subsystem actuators 54. The example engine 10 also includes subsystem actuators 54 that are not located within the engine modules 46. Some of the engine modules 46 include subsystem sensors 76. The example engine 10 also includes subsystem sensors 76 that are not located within the engine modules 46.


In this example, the fault partitioning arrangement 46 includes a modeling computer 62 configured to generate a physics-based model 64 of the gas turbine engine 10. The example modeling computer 62 includes a memory module 66, a controller module 70, and a display 74. In one example, an engine simulation program, such as MATLAB, stored in the memory module 66 and executed with the controller module 70 is used to generate the model 64. Other examples utilize other types of software to generate the model 64.


Many types of modeling computers 62 can be used to implement various functions described herein. In terms of hardware architecture, modeling computer 62 can additionally include one or more input and/or output (I/O) device interface(s) that are communicatively coupled via a local interface. The local interface can include, for example, but is not limited to, one or more buses and/or other wired or wireless connections. The local interface may have additional elements, which are omitted for simplicity, such as additional controllers, buffers (caches), drivers, repeaters, and receivers to enable communications. Further, the local interface may include address, control, and/or data connections to enable appropriate communications among the aforementioned components.


The example controller module 70 comprises a processor for executing software, particularly software stored in the memory module 66. The processor can be a custom made or commercially available processor, a central processing unit (CPU), an auxiliary processor among several processors associated with the computing device, a semiconductor based microprocessor (in the form of a microchip or chip set) or generally any device for executing software instructions.


The memory module 66 can include any one or combination of volatile memory elements (e.g., random access memory (RAM, such as DRAM, SRAM, SDRAM, VRAM, etc.)) and/or nonvolatile memory elements (e.g., ROM, hard drive, tape, CD-ROM, Flash, etc.). Moreover, the memory module 66 may incorporate electronic, magnetic, optical, and/or other types of storage media.


As mentioned previously, the model generating software in the memory module 66 may include one or more additional or separate programs, each of which includes an ordered listing of executable instructions for implementing logical functions. A system component embodied as software may also be construed as a source program, executable program (object code), script, or any other entity comprising a set of instructions to be performed. When constructed as a source program, the program is translated via a compiler, assembler, interpreter, or the like, which may or may not be included within the memory module 66.


The Input/Output devices that may be coupled to system I/O Interface(s) may include input devices, for example but not limited to, a keyboard, mouse, scanner, microphone, camera, proximity device, etc. Further, the Input/Output devices may also include output devices, for example but not limited to, a printer, display, etc. Finally, the Input/Output devices may further include devices that communicate both as inputs and outputs, for instance but not limited to, a modulator/demodulator (modem; for accessing another device, system, or network), a radio frequency (RF) or other transceiver, a telephonic interface, a bridge, a router, etc.


The example modeling computer 62 is configured to receive measurements from a plurality of sensors 76 and other devices within the engine 10. Example measurements received from the sensors 76 include measurements from the engine modules 46, the positions of the subsystem actuators 54, measurements from the subsystem sensors 58, etc.


The measurements received by the modeling computer 62 generally fall into three categories: engine inputs (U), gas path parameters (Y), and engine subsystem parameters (Z). Example engine inputs include mach numbers, altitudes, total ambient temperatures, engine power requirements, etc. Example gas path parameters include measurements collected along the engine's gas path, such as low spool speeds, high spool speeds, exhaust gas temperatures, etc. Example subsystem parameter measurements include turbine case cooling measurements, bleed measurements, variable stator vane measurements, etc.


In this example, the modeling computer 62 is configured to generate modeled gas path parameters (ŷ) based on the engine inputs received from the engine 10. The example modeling computer 62 is further configured to generate modeled subsystem parameters ({circumflex over (z)}) based on the engine inputs received from the engine 10.


Once generated, the modeling computer 62 compares the modeled gas path parameter (ŷ) to an actual gas path parameter (y) measured from the engine 10 and determines a difference between the two. Similarly, the modeling computer 62 compares modeled subsystem parameter ({circumflex over (z)}) generated by the modeling computer 62 to an actual subsystem parameter (z) measured from the engine 10.


Referring to FIGS. 3A and 3B with continuing reference to FIG. 2, an example diagnosis method 100 uses the differences to partition faults into three categories of faults: faults of the subsystem sensors 58, faults of the subsystem actuators 54, and faults in the performance of engine modules 46.


Example failures of the subsystem sensors 58 include a sensor failing to properly measure feedback of the subsystem parameter values of the engine 10. A sensor measuring turbine case cooling positions may fail during operation of the engine, for example.


Example failures of the subsystem actuators 54 include a subsystem actuator of the engine 10 that is stuck at a particular position or not operating as controlled. For example, a bleed 2.5 actuator may not completely close or completely open when such actions are initiated.


Example fault associated with module performance includes one of the engine modules 46 operating at a reduced efficiency. For example, the high pressure compressor 18 has a particular flow capacity and efficiency that experiences a change in performance due to contamination or fouling in the high pressure compressor.


At a step 104, the diagnosis method 100 models the engine 10, a type of system, using the modeling computer 62. The diagnosis method 100 determines the difference (Δy) between the modeled gas path condition (ŷ) and the actual gas path condition (y) at a step 108. The diagnosis method 100 determines a difference between the modeled subsystem parameter ({circumflex over (z)}) and the actual subsystem parameter (z) at a step 112.


At a step 116, the diagnosis method 100 determines whether the gas path difference (Δy) determined in the step 108 is less than or equal to an established gas path threshold value (α). The method at the step 116 also determines if the subsystem difference (Δz) is less than or equal to an established subsystem threshold value (β). In one example, a threshold value for n1 is Δy>α2% RPM, a threshold value for EGT is y>α50° C., a threshold value for TCC is Δz>5%←β, and a threshold value for B25 bleed is Δz>3%


If the gas path difference (Δy) is less than or equal to the established gas path threshold value, and if the subsystem difference (Δz) is less than or equal to the established subsystem threshold value, the diagnosis method 100 moves to a step 118 and determines that there is no fault capable of partitioning. Otherwise, the diagnosis method 100 moves to a step 120.


At the step 120, the diagnosis method 100 determines if the gas path difference (Δy) is less than or equal to the established gas path threshold value (α). If yes, the diagnosis method 100 can deduce at a step 124 that the subsystem difference is greater than an established subsystem parameter (based on the step 116). The diagnosis method 100 then diagnosis a sensor failure at a step 130.


In this example, recall that the failure diagnosed at step 130 refers to a condition where a sensor measuring the subsystem parameter values (z) has failed during operation of the engine 10. During this type of failure, there is no significant disagreement between the measured gas path parameters (y) and model-assumed gas path parameters (ŷ). This is because the gas path parameter measurements are based on the position of the actuator and not on the sensor measurements of feedback engine sub-system parameters (z). As shown in Equation (1), the gas path parameters delta is below the threshold value when a sensor failure is diagnosed at the step 130.

Δy≦α  (1)


There is also considerable disagreement between the measured sub-system parameters (z) and modeled sub-system parameters ({circumflex over (z)}) when a sensor failure is diagnosed at the step 130. This is because the measured sub-system parameters (z) come directly from the sensor 26, which in this case has failed. As a result, engine sub-system parameters deltas (Δz) are above a certain threshold (provided β>0) as shown in Equation (2).

Δz>β  (2)


If the gas path difference (Δy) is not less than or equal to the established gas path threshold value (α) at the step 120, the diagnosis method 100 then determines if the subsystem difference (Δz) established in the step 112 is greater than the subsystem threshold value (β) at a step 132. If yes, the diagnosis method determines the difference (Δyz) between the actual gas path parameter (y) and the model driven parameter (ŷ) at a step 136.


The diagnosis method 100 then determines if the difference (Δŷz) in the step 136 is less than or equal to an established model driven gas path threshold value at a step 138. If yes, the diagnosis method 100 diagnoses an actuator failure at a step 140. A user is then able to focus a repair or replacement procedure to the particular actuator within the engine 10, for example.


If the difference (Δyz) in the step 138 is not less than or equal to the established model driven gas path threshold value, the diagnosis method 100 determines, at a step 142, that there is no fault capable of partitioning.


In this example, the actuator failure at the step 140 represents a condition where engine sub-system actuator is stuck at a certain position or not operating as controlled (e.g., a bleed 2.5 actuator not completely closed or not completely open). During this type of a failure there will be considerable disagreement between the measured gas-path parameters (y) and modeled gas-path parameters (ŷ). This is because the measured gas-path parameters are directly related to the position of the actuator, which in this case is the cause for failure. The gas path parameters deltas are above a certain threshold when the actuator failure is diagnosed the step 140 as shown in Equation (3).

Δy>α  (3)


Also during this type of failure, there will be considerable disagreement between the actual subsystem parameters (z) and modeled subsystem parameters ({circumflex over (z)}) as shown in Equation (4). This is because, unlike a sensor failure, an actuator failure will affect the measured sub-system parameters.

Δz>β  (4)


Referring again to the step 132, if the subsystem parameter difference (Δz) is not greater than the established subsystem parameter threshold value, the diagnosis method 100 determines the difference (Δyz) between the actual gas path parameter (y) and the modeled gas path parameter (ŷz) at a step 144. The diagnosis method 100 then determines if the difference (Δyz) is greater than an established model driven gas path threshold value at a step 146. If yes, the diagnosis method 100 diagnoses an module performance change failure at a step 150. The user is then able to focus a repair or replacement procedure on that module within the engine 10, for example.


If the difference in the step 146 is not less than or equal to the established model driven gas path threshold value, the diagnosis method 100 determines, at a step 156, that there is no fault capable of partitioning.


In this example, the module performance change failure diagnosed in the step 150 refers to a condition where the engine module 46 is operating at reduced efficiency (e.g., high pressure flow capacities and efficiencies changing due to contamination or fouling in HPC). During this type of a failure there will be considerable disagreement between the measured gas-path parameters (y) and modeled gas-path parameters (ŷ) because the measured gas-path parameters are directly related to the performance of engine modules 46. As shown in Equation (5), the gas path parameters deltas are above a certain threshold (α>0) when the module performance change failure is diagnosed.

Δy>α  (5)


The model driven gas path parameter (ŷz) at the step 144 is determined by driving the engine model 64 to have the same sub-system parameter setting as the actual engine 10. For example, the engine model 64 is driven to generate model subsystem parameters that are the same as the system parameter.


Referring to FIG. 4 with continuing reference to FIGS. 2-3, a collection method 160 is used to gather the variables utilized in the example method 100. A portion of the method 164 shows the measured gas path parameters (y) and the measured sub-system parameters (z) obtained from the actual engine measurements compared to the modeled values. Another portion of the method 168 shows the model when driven with the measured subsystem parameters (z) compared to the modeled values.


In the method 160, the model-driven gas path parameter delta is represented as (ŷz). In the method 160, the model-driven sub-system parameters ({circumflex over (z)}) are the same as the measured sub-system parameters (z). As a result, the model-assumed deltas of the sub-system parameters are zero (Δz=0). The model-driven gas path parameters deltas (Δyz) are utilized in portions of the method 100.


The model driven gas path parameters (ŷz) are estimates of gas-path parameters (y) using a schedule that is based on engine inputs (u) and engine subsystem parameters (z). As shown in Equation (6), the model driven gas path parameter deltas (Δyz) represent the deviation of measured gas path parameters (y) from the model-driven estimates of gas-path parameters (ŷz).

Δyz=|y−ŷz|  (6)


In this example, a failed actuator is the cause for the difference in the model-assumed gas path parameters (ŷ) and model-driven gas path parameters (ŷz). Thus, if the method 100 diagnoses an actuator failure at the step 150, the model-driven gas-path parameters (ŷz) and the model-assumed gas-path parameters (ŷ) are both below the threshold (provided γ>0) as shown in Equation (7).

Δyz≦γ  (7)


In this example, a module performance change failure is indicated when the deltas of model-driven gas-path parameters (Δyz) are above some threshold (provided γ>0) as shown in Equation (8) after driving the model with the measured subsystem parameters (z).

Δyz>γ  (8)


Table 1 shows the diagnosis logic for the example method 100.















Condition 1
Condition 2
Condition 3
Diagnosis







Δy ≦ α
Δz > β

Sensor Failure


Δy > α
Δz > β
Δyz ≦ γ
Actuator Failure


Δy > α
Δz ≦ β
Δyz > γ
Module Performance





Change









Features of the disclosed example include identifying faults within a particular area of an engine based on data analysis rather than physical examination of the engine.


The preceding description is exemplary rather than limiting in nature. Variations and modifications to the disclosed examples may become apparent to those skilled in the art that do not necessarily depart from the essence of this disclosure. Thus, the scope of legal protection given to this disclosure can only be determined by studying the following claims.

Claims
  • 1. A method of partitioning turbomachine faults, comprising: using a modeling computer to model a system and to establish a modeled gas path parameter and a modeled subsystem parameter;determining a gas path condition representing a difference between an actual gas path parameter and the modeled gas path parameter;determining a subsystem condition representing a difference between an actual subsystem parameter and the modeled subsystem parameter;diagnosing a sensor failure based on the gas path condition and the subsystem condition;adjusting the modeled subsystem parameter to match the actual subsystem parameter;determining a model-driven gas path parameter based on the modeled subsystem parameter; anddiagnosing an actuator failure or a module performance change based on a comparison of the modeled gas path parameter and the model-driven gas path parameter.
  • 2. The method of claim 1, wherein a sensor failure is diagnosed when the gas path condition is less than or equal to an established first gas path threshold value and the subsystem condition is greater than a subsystem threshold value.
  • 3. The method of claim 1, wherein an actuator failure is diagnosed when the gas path condition is greater than a first gas path threshold value, the subsystem condition is greater than a subsystem threshold value, and the model-driven gas path parameter is less than or equal to a second path threshold value.
  • 4. The method of claim 1, wherein a module performance change failure is diagnosed when the gas path condition is greater than a first gas path threshold value, the subsystem condition is less than or equal to a subsystem threshold value, and the model-driven gas path parameter is greater than a second gas path threshold value.
  • 5. The method of claim 1, including utilizing a physics-based system model to establish the modeled gas path parameter and the modeled subsystem parameter.
  • 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the actual gas path parameter comprises a measurement collected along a gas path of a turbomachine.
  • 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the modeled gas path parameter and the modeled subsystem parameter are calculated using a model that is exclusively adjusted using gas turbine engine input variables.
  • 8. A method of partitioning gas turbine engine faults, comprising: establishing, using a modeling computer, a model of a gas turbine engine;using the model to determine, using the modeling computer, a modeled gas path parameter and a modeled subsystem parameter;identifying, using the modeling computer, a fault in the gas turbine engine based on a comparison of the modeled gas path parameter to a measurement of an actual gas path parameter of the gas turbine engine and a comparison of the modeled subsystem parameter to an actual subsystem parameter from the gas turbine engine;adjusting, using the modeling computer, the modeled subsystem parameter to match the actual subsystem parameter;determining, using the modeling computer, a modeled-driven gas path parameter based on the modeled subsystem parameter; anddiagnosing, using the modeling computer, an actuator failure or a module performance change based on a comparison of the modeled gas path parameter and the model-driven gas path parameter.
  • 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the fault comprises a sensor failure.
  • 10. The method of claim 8, wherein an actuator failure is diagnosed when the gas path condition is greater than a first gas path threshold value, the subsystem condition is greater than a subsystem threshold value, and the model-driven gas path parameter is less than or equal to a second path threshold value.
  • 11. The method of claim 8, wherein a module performance change is diagnosed when the gas path condition is greater than a first gas path threshold value, the subsystem condition is less than or equal to a subsystem threshold value, and the model-driven gas path parameter is greater than a second gas path threshold value.
  • 12. A turbomachine fault partitioning arrangement, comprising: a modeling computer configured to establish a model of a turbomachine, the modeling computer further configured to determine a modeled gas path parameter and a modeled subsystem parameter;a controller module configured to identify a fault of the turbomachine based on a first comparison of the modeled gas path parameter to a measurement of an actual gas path parameter, and a second comparison of the modeled subsystem parameter to an actual subsystem parameter; anda controller is further configured to adjust the modeled subsystem parameter to match the actual subsystem parameter, to determine a modeled-driven gas path parameter based on the modeled subsystem parameter, and to diagnose an actuator failure or a module performance change based on a comparison of the modeled gas path parameter and the model-driven gas path parameter.
  • 13. The turbomachine fault partitioning arrangement of claim 12, wherein fault comprises a sensor failure.
  • 14. The turbomachine fault partitioning arrangement of claim 12, wherein the actual gas path parameter and the actual subsystem parameters are received from at least one sensor of the gas turbine engine.
  • 15. The method of claim 12, wherein the controller module is configured to diagnose an actuator failure when the gas path condition is greater than a first gas path threshold value, the subsystem condition is greater than a subsystem threshold value, and the model-driven gas path parameter is less than or equal to a second path threshold value.
US Referenced Citations (92)
Number Name Date Kind
4642782 Kemper et al. Feb 1987 A
4649515 Thompson et al. Mar 1987 A
4905162 Hartzband et al. Feb 1990 A
4970657 Wolf Nov 1990 A
5080496 Keim et al. Jan 1992 A
5105372 Provost et al. Apr 1992 A
5179625 Hisano Jan 1993 A
5233512 Gutz et al. Aug 1993 A
5279107 Meisner et al. Jan 1994 A
5293323 Doskocil et al. Mar 1994 A
5447059 Miller et al. Sep 1995 A
5489829 Umida Feb 1996 A
5566092 Wang et al. Oct 1996 A
5631831 Bird et al. May 1997 A
5689066 Stevenson Nov 1997 A
5726891 Sisson et al. Mar 1998 A
5949678 Wold et al. Sep 1999 A
5951611 La Pierre Sep 1999 A
6073262 Larkin et al. Jun 2000 A
6098011 Scott Aug 2000 A
6128555 Hanson et al. Oct 2000 A
6181975 Gross et al. Jan 2001 B1
6282884 Adibhatla et al. Sep 2001 B1
6292723 Brogan et al. Sep 2001 B1
6304833 Ferkinhoff et al. Oct 2001 B1
6389887 Dusserre-Telmon et al. May 2002 B1
6408259 Goebel et al. Jun 2002 B1
6408290 Thiesson et al. Jun 2002 B1
6415276 Heger et al. Jul 2002 B1
6456928 Johnson Sep 2002 B1
6456991 Srinivasa et al. Sep 2002 B1
6459963 Bennett et al. Oct 2002 B1
6463380 Ablett et al. Oct 2002 B1
6466858 Adibhatla et al. Oct 2002 B1
6502085 Adibhatla et al. Dec 2002 B1
6532412 Adibhatla et al. Mar 2003 B2
6539337 Provan et al. Mar 2003 B1
6539783 Adibhatla Apr 2003 B1
6564109 Ashby et al. May 2003 B1
6598195 Adibhatla et al. Jul 2003 B1
6606580 Zedda et al. Aug 2003 B1
6662089 Felke et al. Dec 2003 B2
6745157 Weiss et al. Jun 2004 B1
6760689 Follin et al. Jul 2004 B2
6768982 Collins et al. Jul 2004 B1
6782376 Sato et al. Aug 2004 B2
6804612 Chow et al. Oct 2004 B2
6807537 Thiesson et al. Oct 2004 B1
6813615 Colasanti et al. Nov 2004 B1
6823253 Brunell Nov 2004 B2
6823675 Brunell et al. Nov 2004 B2
6895298 Page May 2005 B2
6909960 Volponi et al. Jun 2005 B2
6917839 Bickford Jul 2005 B2
6944566 Chen et al. Sep 2005 B2
6950812 Suermondt et al. Sep 2005 B2
6952688 Goldman et al. Oct 2005 B1
6962043 Venkateswaran et al. Nov 2005 B2
7020595 Adibhatla et al. Mar 2006 B1
7031878 Cuddihy et al. Apr 2006 B2
7136809 Volponi Nov 2006 B2
7140186 Venkateswaran et al. Nov 2006 B2
7216071 Volponi May 2007 B2
7280941 Bonanni et al. Oct 2007 B2
7337086 Guralnik et al. Feb 2008 B2
7441448 Volponi Oct 2008 B2
7761223 Wang et al. Jul 2010 B2
7864687 Qian et al. Jan 2011 B2
20010042229 James Nov 2001 A1
20020040278 Anuzis et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020066054 Jaw et al. May 2002 A1
20020092344 Ward et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020129799 Wang et al. Sep 2002 A1
20020193891 Ushiku Dec 2002 A1
20030065483 Ting et al. Apr 2003 A1
20040088100 Volponi May 2004 A1
20040123600 Brunell et al. Jul 2004 A1
20040153815 Volponi Aug 2004 A1
20040225587 Messmer et al. Nov 2004 A1
20050096873 Klein May 2005 A1
20050114090 Black et al. May 2005 A1
20050154509 Schubert et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050222747 Vhora et al. Oct 2005 A1
20070118271 Wiseman et al. May 2007 A1
20080097662 Volponi Apr 2008 A1
20080120074 Volponi May 2008 A1
20080154473 Volponi et al. Jun 2008 A1
20080155964 Kilkenny Jul 2008 A1
20080177505 Volponi Jul 2008 A1
20100023238 Adibhatla Jan 2010 A1
20120065785 Bartshe et al. Mar 2012 A1
20120148382 Kruger et al. Jun 2012 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (9)
Number Date Country
0858017 Aug 1998 EP
1114991 Jul 2001 EP
1204076 Aug 2002 EP
2149824 Feb 2010 EP
2149832 Feb 2010 EP
2175336 Apr 2010 EP
WO9741494 Nov 1997 WO
WO0148571 Jul 2001 WO
0246848 Jun 2002 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (3)
Entry
Rolf Iserman, Model-Based Fault Detection and Diagnosis, (2004).
European Search Report, EP Application No. 11166633, mailed Sep. 20, 2011.
European Examination Report for European Application No. 11166633.5 dated Jun. 27, 2013.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20110286831 A1 Nov 2011 US