2.1.1. Data cleaning and outlier removal

An outlier is an anomaly that does not follow the statistical distribution of the bulk of the data and can be heavily influential on the data analysis. On smaller data sets, outliers can be removed simply through visual inspection. For larger data sets, however, this approach would be extremely inefficient so an algorithmic method should be used.

Two methods used for outlier detection are z-score and k-nearest neighbor (kNN). The z-score is a simple method for outlier detection on each individual variable of the dataset. The z-score indicates how far the value of the data point or sample is from its mean for a specific variable. For example, a z-score of 1 means the sample point is 1 standard deviation away from its mean. Typically, z-score values greater than or less than +3 or −3, respectively, are considered outliers. The z-score is expressed mathematically as

(1)$$ z\hbox{-} \mathrm{score}=\frac{x_i-\overline{x}}{\sigma }, $$

where $ \sigma $ and $ \overline{x} $ are the standard deviation and mean of the distribution of variable x, respectively, and $ {x}_i $ is the value of the variable $ x $ for the $ i $-th sample. It should be noted, however, that outlier detection methods based on simple statistical tools, like z-score, generally assume that the variables have normal distributions while neglecting the correlation between variables in a multivariate case.

The kNN is a 1050 algorithm for identifying anomalies in a dataset. The kNN method detects outliers by exploiting the relationship among neighborhoods in data points (Hautamaki et al., Reference Hautamaki, Karkkainen and Franti2004). The farther a data point is beyond its neighbors, the higher chance the data is an outlier. From a 1050 point of view, kNN is a supervised 1050 algorithm. However, when applied to outlier’s detection it takes an unsupervised approach, since the labeling of “outlier” or “not-outlier” in the dataset is entirely based upon threshold values. The $ k $ number of neighbors to be considered is a parameter that needs to be specified.

2.1.2. Sampling

ML applications require datasets to be not only large but also balanced. This means that the number of instances (i.e., data points) for each class (e.g., a particular plant state) must be well distributed across classes (Ling and Li, Reference Ling and Li1998; Mohammed et al., Reference Mohammed, Rawashdeh and Abdullah2020). When this requirement is not met, two approaches can be taken: oversampling and undersampling. In oversampling, data augmentation methods are used to generate new datapoints, thus increasing the number of instances for a given class (Chawla et al., Reference Chawla, Bowyer, Hall and Kegelmeyer2002). In undersampling, not all the available instances for a given class are used to bring the number of instances of all classes to a similar level. In this work, we will focus on applications where large datasets are available and no oversampling is needed. Therefore, attention will be given to the effects of undersampling on data analysis and will be referred to as sampling hereafter. When sampling is needed, the ability of the sampled data to accurately represent the original data is of paramount importance. With this consideration in mind, we can identify three sampling procedures that aim, in some way or another, to provide a useful representation of the original data, but with fewer data points. The first approach is random sampling in which, after segmenting the complete dataset into intervals of equal size, a point is sampled at random from within each interval. The segmentation of the original dataset prevents regions of data from being overrepresented as each segment will have 1 representative point. Taking this idea further, the sampling and average method take the average of all points within each interval, thus including information from all points in each interval. These 2 methods sample equally along the dataset, which is acceptable if the data does not show rapid changes, or all the classes have approximately the same number of datapoints. In some applications, however, a method capable of identifying regions in the dataset where less data are needed (i.e., monotone regions) and regions where more data are needed (i.e., rapidly variable regions) might be preferred. A method based on the condensed Nearest Neighbor (cNN) algorithm is an example of such approach (Hart, Reference Hart1968). In cNN, data points that are similar are identified and classified. Using this information, the algorithm produces a reduced dataset in which the highly variable regions (that contain more classes) are more densely sampled.

2.1.3. Scaling

Most dimensionality reduction and clustering methods are sensitive to the relative magnitude of the variables included in the dataset. For example, in a chemical reactor 1 could have the vessel temperature being measured on the order of $ 1\times {10}^2 $ while the exit concentration is being measured on the order of $ 1\times {10}^{-1} $. Such a difference in the magnitudes of the measured variables will cause the vessel temperature to overpower any appreciable observations associated with the exit concentrations, thus inducing errors in the data analysis. Among scaling methods, two main activities are defined: standardization and normalization. In standardization, a known probability distribution (e.g., a Gaussian distribution) is assumed for the data. The z-score method, previously discussed for outlier detection, falls into this category, as it is based on the probability of a score occurring within the normal distribution of the data. When applied for scaling, z-score enables us to compare two different scores that are from different normal distributions of the data.

In normalization, the assumption of a known probability distribution is removed, and the scaling is performed using estimators from the dataset itself. Methods such as over range, over min, and over mean are included in this category (García et al., Reference García, Luengo and Herrera2015). Over range, normalization is used to scale the data from 0 to 1. Over max or over min normalization is done by dividing the raw data by the maximum or minimum (minimum value must not be 0) values (Pedregosa et al., Reference Pedregosa, Varoquaux, Gramfort, Michel, Thirion, Grisel, Blondel, Prettenhofer, Weiss, Dubourg, Vanderplas, Passos, Cournapeau, Brucher, Perrot and Duchesnay2011). Over the mean normalization scales each variable on a 0 to 1 scale by dividing each value by the mean value of the variable. Finally, over min–max normalization performs a linear transformation on the original data (Han et al., Reference Han, Pei and Kamber2011). For a point $ x $ the scaled value $ {x}_{scaled} $ using a min–max scaler is given by

(2)$$ {x}_{scaled}=\frac{x-{x}_{min}}{x_{max}-{x}_{min}}, $$

where $ {x}_{min} $ and $ {x}_{max} $ are the minimum and maximum values of $ x $ in the dataset.

2.2.1. Matrix factorization

Among matrix factorization methods, one of the most widely used approaches is Principal Component Analysis (PCA). PCA focuses on models with latent variables based on linear-Gaussian distributions in which a set of orthogonal and uncorrelated vectors are found and ordered by the amount of variance explained in their directions (Chiang et al., Reference Chiang, Russell and Braatz2000). The latter is determined by solving the eigenvalue problem given as

(3)$$ S=\frac{1}{n-1}{X}^TX=V\Lambda {V}^T, $$

where $ X\in {\unicode{x211D}}^{n\times m} $ is the matrix containing the observations in the original high-dimensional space, $ S $ is the sample covariance matrix, $ n $ is the number of observations, $ m $ is the number of variables, $ V\in {\unicode{x211D}}^{m\times m} $ is the matrix of loading vectors and $ \varLambda \in {\unicode{x211D}}^{m\times m} $ is the diagonal matrix containing the ordered non-negative real eigenvalues. The vectors corresponding to the largest singular values (the square of the eigenvalues) are typically retained and form a loading matrix, $ P\in {\unicode{x211D}}^{m\times a} $, where $ a $ is the number of singular values to be retained. The projection in the low-dimensional space is obtained as $ T= XP $ (Chiang et al., 2000). Because of the covariance analysis implicit in PCA, the method is limited to use only second-order information from the observed space and cannot incorporate prior knowledge. Several algorithms (kernel PCA (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Yoo, Choi, Vanrolleghem and Lee2004), probabilistic PCA (Kim and Lee, Reference Kim and Lee2003), multilinear PCA (Lu et al., Reference Lu, Plataniotis and Venetsanopoulos2006)) based on PCA have been developed to address these issues. Independent component analysis (ICA) is another matrix factorization technique in which the latent variables are assumed non-Gaussian and mutually independent. The components obtained are not orthogonal, and the observed variables (i.e., the original space) can be obtained as linear combinations of the latent space (i.e., the lower dimensional space). Thus, it requires higher order statistics to recover statistically independent signals from the observation of an unknown linear mixture. Due to these characteristics, ICA becomes useful for cases where PCA applicability is limited and higher order information must be included (Hyvärinen and Oja, Reference Hyvärinen and Oja2000; Cao et al., Reference Cao, Chua, Chong, Lee and Gu2003). Additional discussions on PCA variants can be found elsewhere (Gajjar et al., Reference Gajjar, Kulahci and Palazoglu2018; Lu et al., Reference Lu, Jiang, Gopaluni, Loewen and Braatz2018; Sundaramoorthy et al., Reference Sundaramoorthy, Varanasi, Huang, Ma, Zhang and Dian Wang2021).

2.2.2. Neighbor graphs

Neighbor graphs methods for dimensionality reduction generate a connected graph between the variables in the original high-dimensional space. Then, the algorithm looks for the topological manifold that minimizes the reconstruction error while preserving the relationship among the variables from the high-dimensional space to the low-dimensional embedding (McInnes et al., Reference McInnes, Healy and Melville2018). Two representative methods for the neighbor graphs approach are t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) (Maaten and Hinton, Reference Maaten and Hinton2008) and uniform manifold approximation and projection (UMAP) (McInnes et al., Reference McInnes, Healy and Melville2018). t-SNE works by converting the Euclidean distance between data points into conditional probabilities and tries to minimize the Kullback–Leibler (KL) divergence (Hershey and Olsen, Reference Hershey and Olsen2007) between the joint probabilities of the low-dimensional embedding and high-dimensional data (Joswiak et al., Reference Joswiak, Peng, Castillo and Chiang2019). The algorithm starts by computing the conditional probabilities $ {P}_{ij} $ of x_i “being a good neighbor” of $ {x}_j $, these are all the points from the original dataset $ {x}_1,\dots, {x}_n\in {\unicode{x211D}}^n $. The mathematical quantification of this idea is the probability:

(4)$$ {p}_{j\mid i}=\frac{\mathit{\exp}\left(-{\left|\left|{x}_i-{x}_j\right|\right|}^2/2{\sigma}^2\right)}{\sum_{k\ne i}\mathit{\exp}\left(-{\left|\left|{x}_i-{x}_j\right|\right|}^2\right)/2{\sigma}^2}, $$

where σ² is the variance that represents the variability of the data with respect to its mean. Next, using a student t-distribution with 1 degree of freedom, a second set of probabilities ($ {Q}_{ij} $) in the low-dimensional space is determined and given as

(5)$$ {q}_{ij}=\frac{{\left(1+{\left|\left|{y}_i-{y}_j\right|\right|}^2\right)}^{-1}}{\sum_{k\ne i}{\left(1+{\left|\left|{y}_i-{y}_j\right|\right|}^2\right)}^{-1}}. $$

Finally, t-SNE optimizes over a set number of iterations, using gradient descent with Kullback–Leibler divergence as the cost function. The algorithm is stochastic, therefore, multiple executions with different random seeds will yield different results. It is acceptable to run the algorithm several times and pick the embedding with the lowest KL divergence. The KL divergence is defined as

(6)$$ KL\left(P\parallel Q\right)=\sum \limits_i\sum \limits_{j\ne i} pij\log \frac{pij}{qij}. $$

t-SNE is more accurate in preserving the local structure because the cost function is proportional to the joint probability in the high-dimensional space, hence, points that are relatively distant have a much lower impact on the cost function.

UMAP aims to find a transformation function for mapping high-dimensional data onto a low-dimensional plane. This is a clear distinction between t-SNE and UMAP as t-SNE directly optimizes an embedding. The steps for finding the transformation function are as followed: First, a weighted graph is computed for the high-dimensional data $ {W}^H $ that models the local relationship of neighboring points. Second, a weighted graph is computed for a low-dimensional representation $ {W}^L $, similarly to the high-dimensional neighborhood. The low-dimensional representation is then determined by minimizing the cross entropy (McInnes et al., Reference McInnes, Healy and Melville2018), given by:

(7)$$ C\left({W}^H,{W}^L\right)=\sum_{i\ne j}{W}_{ij}^H\log \left(\frac{W_{ij}^H}{W_{ij}^L}\right)+\left(1-{W}_{ij}^h\right)\log \left(\frac{1-{W}_{ij}^H}{1-{W}_{ij}^l}\right). $$

By incorporating the second term in Eq. 7, the local relationships are also considered and preserved, in addition to the global relationships represented by the first term, which is also present in t-SNE(Eq. 6 above). As implemented by McInnes et al. (Reference McInnes, Healy and Melville2018), the most important hyperparameter for UMAP is the number of neighbors that are considered when constructing the weighted graph. Having a larger number of neighbors produces more global views of the structure, which preserves a more global structure of the data. Another important hyperparameter is the minimum distance between datapoints. A lower (or zero) minimum distance relaxes the constraints on the placement of the points in terms of the distance between neighbors. This typically leads to dense clumps of data. A large minimum distance typically leads to the datapoints being sparser in the low-dimensional plane.

2.3.1. Flat centroid-based clustering

Flat centroid-based clustering algorithms find the splitting of the dataset that minimizes the sum of the distance between the members of a cluster and the centroid of said cluster. In K-Means for example, K initial centroids are chosen corresponding to the number of clusters desired (the only hyperparameter for this method). Each point in the dataset is assigned to the closest centroid, and the centroid of each cluster is updated with each iteration based on the points assigned to the cluster (Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, Zhu and Romagnoli2018).

K-Means not only seeks spherical clusters in data (Tan et al., Reference Tan, Steinbach and Kumar2016), but it also clusters with roughly equal number of samples. Therefore, K-Means should never be blindly used to cluster any data without careful verification of the results. It should also be noted that as the number of clusters is increased, the number of samples in clusters decreases, which makes this algorithm more sensitive to outliers (Vesanto and Alhoniemi, Reference Vesanto and Alhoniemi2000).

Another flat centroid-based clustering method called Gaussian Mixture Models (GMM) treats the dataset as a combination of subsets, each of which is described by a gaussian distribution (Bishop, Reference Bishop2006). This provides a more flexible approach than that of K-means by assigning a measure of uncertainty to the assignment of a point to a particular cluster. However, the disadvantages of flat clustering, as will be described in the next section, are still present.

2.3.2. Hierarchical density-based clustering

Given a measure of proximity, density-based clustering looks for clusters of any shape and without need of initial centroids or the assumption of equal variables around a point (Gaussian sphere assumption). Furthermore, density-based clustering does not require every data point to be assigned to a cluster, allowing for data in sparse regions to be identified as noise. These features provide an advantage over partitional clustering, since fewer assumptions are made regarding the distribution of the data, which can become important when dealing with high-dimensional data (McInnes et al., Reference McInnes, Healy and Astels2017). A representative example of density-based clustering algorithms is density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (DBSCAN) (Ester et al., Reference Ester, Kriegel, Sander and Xu1996). To deploy DBSCAN, two hyperparameters are needed: epsilon (eps), the radius of a neighborhood; and min_samples, the minimum number of points within the neighborhood radius of a point for such point to be considered a density point.

Defining the number of clusters to be obtained (a prerequisite for K-Means, for example) can be difficult when little is known about the real distribution of the data in the high-dimensional space. In this scenario, the notion of further divided clusters preserving the hierarchical relationship among them has proved to be useful. Such is the case of clustering algorithms such as hierarchical density-based spatial clustering of applications with noise (HDBSCAN), which uses hierarchical clustering to improve the density-based approach provided by DBSCAN (McInnes et al., Reference McInnes, Healy and Astels2017). In terms of implementation, this means that the eps hyperparameter for DBSCAN is no longer required to be input manually; but is rather learned from the clustering algorithm. This allows for clusters with different densities, which could be desired for higher resolution.

2.3.3. Clustering analysis: subspace greedy search

Once the dimensionality reduction and clustering procedures are performed, further analysis of the resulting clusters could be needed to extract meaningful conclusions. Subspace greedy search (SGS) is an algorithm that allows for the identification of the variables responsible for the separation between 2 given clusters. To do this, SGS starts by analyzing the lowest dimension, then moves to higher dimensions until no possible subspaces are left. The k-nearest neighbor distance (k-distance) between the clusters for each subspace is used as a score to compare the different subspaces that contain the same dimension. The lower scores are discarded and the highest move on to further analysis. The basic idea is inspired by Micenkova’s concept of explanatory subspace (Micenková et al., Reference Micenková, Ng, Dang and Assent2013), which characterizes differences between clusters by greedy searching for the most contributing combination of variables. The implementation of a greedy algorithm dramatically reduces the computational cost for searching the target combination of variables, which allows such algorithm to be implemented in real-time scenarios for fault diagnosis. A detailed description and implementation of SGS can be found elsewhere (Zhu et al., Reference Zhu, Sun and Romagnoli2018).

4.1.1. Process description

Figure 3 shows a schematic representation of the Natural gas liquids (NGL) process. The recovered raw gas feed is cooled to −4.8 °C by a gas–gas heat-exchanger (E-100) and then further cooled by a chiller (E-101) to reach an appropriate temperature for the separation of condensates in a flash separator (TK-100). The gas stream leaving the separator (TK-100) is further cooled by the gas–gas heat-exchanger (E-102). Both the cooled gas and condensates are fed to the demethanizer column (T-100) at different feed locations. More details of the process are given by Zhu et al. (Reference Zhu, Chebeir and Romagnoli2020). Three types of scenarios were used to generate datasets. At t=1200 a step change in the feed composition was introduced to generate a global disturbance and at t=3,500 and t=5,500 two additional steps changes in the pressure setpoint (PIC-100) and bottoms’ composition setpoint (XIC-100) were introduced to generate local disturbances. The total dataset included 7,726 points for 62 process variables.

Figure 3.

Simulated NGL plant schematic (Chebeir et al., Reference Chebeir, Salas and Romagnoli2019).

4.1.2. Data preprocessing

Since the data used in this case study comes from a simulation, no outliers or measurement noise is expected. Therefore, the data cleaning step only included a screening for non-numerical values and missing data. In this application, the focus of the preprocessing will be on analyzing the effect of scaling/normalization of the original data set. Two scaling methods (over max, over mean) and one normalization method (z-score) were compared and visualized using SOM to quantify the effect on final data classification.

Figure 4 (left) shows the temporal variations of XIC-100.PV process variable (chosen as indicator) through the different scenarios discussed before. It can be observed that from an undisturbed initial condition the plant evolves through different changes and operational statuses. Overall, we can identify four operational conditions including the starting point. Figure 4 (right) illustrates the characterized process conditions within the SOM plot using z-scores as normalization approach.

Figure 4.

NGL time evolution of XIC 100.PV variable and partition of operational conditions. (Left) Line plot. (Right) SOM (Darker regions represent high similarity (clusters) between datapoints, and brighter regions represent low similarity (separation between clusters)).

4.1.2.1. Effect of sampling

The effect of sampling was investigated using random sampling and cNN. Data were normalized using z-score in all cases. Figure 5 illustrates the sampling effect visualized as SOM, 3D projection (using PCA-DBSCAN), and time evolution of XIC 100.PV. Using random sampling (first row) the data size is reduced by approximately six fold, from 7700 to1400 data points, however, this reduction does not affect the quality of the dataset and the analysis since the main events are still captured as indicated by the corresponding SOM, 3D projection and temporal variation of XIC 100.PV. Four main clusters are identified and properly classified using PCA-DBSCAN. In the case of cNN approach, the same reduction is obtained, however, clearly some of the events captured in the original data set are lost, as indicated by the corresponding plot. The SOM features are completely modified and only two main clusters are identified by the PCA-DBSCAN combination. Some of the main dynamics of the XIC 100.PV variable, including the stability reached after the changes by action of the controllers, are lost. This observation is consistent with the main feature of cNN which is to reduce the amount of data points in monotone regions (stability) and to keep more data points in highly variable regions.

Figure 5.

Effect of sampling on the visualization and classification for the NGL plant via SOM, 3D projection, and time evolution of XIC 100.PV process variable. First row shows random sampling and second row shows cNN sampling.

4.1.2.2. Scaling/normalization

Figure 6 illustrates the results comparing alternative scaling/normalization approaches: z-scores (first row) and over mean (second row). From these results, it is evident that the scaling/normalization method has a strong influence on the visualization of the process conditions through the SOM. Furthermore, the use of SOM with z-scores is able to characterize the process operating conditions (brighter separation among operating status). When using over mean, on the other hand, the separation between the clusters becomes less clear (darker boundaries between the clusters).

Figure 6.

Effect of scaling over the visualization and projections of process data from the NGL plant: (first row) z-score and (second row) over mean.

Since the SOM visualization is just one component of the data mining tools, the implications of the scaling/normalization on the data classification are also analyzed. Figure 6b,c,e,f shows the projection of one of the operating conditions (pressure change) as identified by the DR-Clustering into the SOM and into the time evolution for the two approaches. In this case, the combination of PCA-DBSCAN (min_sample = 60) as DR and clustering tools is utilized. As shown in the figure, the z-score normalization in combination with the PCA-DBSCAN perfectly captures the operating condition identified previously both in the SOM representation and the time projection. Meanwhile, using over mean scaling, the PCA-DBSCAN combination characterizes an additional operating status of the plant subdividing the pressure change into two separate clusters.

From the previous discussion, it becomes clear that the scaling/normalization approach used has strong implications for the data visualization as well as classification. It should be noted that some of the results provided above for classification can be shaped accordingly using alternative DR/clustering tools as well as proper adjustment of the hyperparameters involved. However, in the case of industrial data where no previous knowledge of the operating status of the plant is known, this is not possible without a proper visualization approach as provided by SOM as will be discussed later in the industrial application case study.

4.1.3. Data analysis and classification

After the analysis of preprocessing techniques, focus shifted to extracting information from the given data set. As illustrated in Figure 4, the data set for the NGL plant contains information on four main operating conditions due to effect of disturbances and set-point changes. Consequently, one of the tasks of data mining is to be able to characterize the different plant statuses and classify the data accordingly.

4.1.3.1. Effect of DR techniques

Figure 7 shows the comparisons using PCA, t-SNE, and UMAP in terms of the 3D clusters plot, SOM projection and time evolution of the XIC 100.PV with data projected according to region 2. In this analysis a reduced set data was used (random sampling, sampling = 5) and DBSCAN as clustering technique. PCA-DBSCAN (min_samples = 20); t-SNE-DBSCAN and UMAP-DBSCAN (min_samples = 50) were used respectively.

Figure 7.

Effect of DR techniques: (first row) PCA; (second row) t-SNE; and (third row) UMAP.

The PC-DBSCAN combination can identify the four regions, leading to a perfect classification of the data according to the main operating conditions of the plant. The use of t-SNE or UMAP as DR techniques leads to an increased number of clusters in the final classification since they tend to capture not just the main operating conditions but also to capture the transient states dynamics due to the control actions. In the case of t-SNE for region 2, part of the transition data is added to the specific cluster and in the case of UMAP the region is further decomposed as shown in Figure 7h. This means both t-SNE or UMAP as DR techniques provide more resolution when analyzing the data and are able to capture not just the global effects (main changes in operating conditions where most variables are involved) but also local effects (few variables are involved). This main difference between PCA and the neighbors graph approaches (t-SNE and UMAP) has important implications in real operations where those changes may last for several hours which in a large dataset may represent just a local effect. Furthermore, it is important to note the separability properties of the neighbor’s graph approaches. Projections of the regions are farther distanced as compared to the PCA projection. The effect of min_sample parameter will be discussed separately.

4.1.3.2. Effect of clustering techniques

Figure 8 shows the application of PCA as DR with alternative clustering techniques, DBSCAN, HDBSCAN (min_samples= 50 for both), and K-Means (k = 4) to the data set. In general, HDBSCAN adds an additional level of resolution to the analysis as compared to DBSCAN. The combination PCA-DBSCAN strictly captures the new state, and the transient is added to the noise component (cluster). PCA-HDBSCAN on the other hand reduces the level of noise and captures part of the transient into the main cluster. That is, the level of noise captured by HDBSCAN is reduced significantly since other transitions were classified as part of the main clusters. This is 1 of the nice features of density-based clustering as it can classify some of the data points as noise. Typically, most transitions between operations are classified as noise when the PCA-DBSCAN combination is used and the size of the noise cluster is reduced in the case t-SNE and UMAP, since some of the transitions are captured as main clusters.

Figure 8.

Effect of alternative clustering techniques: (a-c) DBSCAN; (d-f) HDBSCAN; and (g-i) K-Means.

The use of K-Means in this application does not produce a good separation since it lumps conditions 3 and 4 into a single cluster, and an additional cluster is created representing the dynamic between conditions 1 and 2.

4.1.3.3. Effect of min_sample

The final number of clusters, and therefore the resolution of the pattern, also depends on the selection of the hyperparameters for the clustering algorithm. Although the selection of the right hyperparameters will depend on each specific application and any domain knowledge the analyst may have, an overview of their effect on the result is provided here as a general guide. In our analysis, the parameter used to “adjust” the number of clusters in each approach was min_samples in the clustering methods. The default values in FastMan for the eps (epsilon radius parameter) are calculated from the data structure using K-Nearest Neighbors algorithm. As a basic simple rule, increasing the min_samples decreases the number of clusters and some of the clusters are merged. For example, part of the transient operation may be added to the new state cluster. Default value for min-samples parameter in FastMan is 10.

Figure 9 illustrates the results when min_samples in a PCA-DBSCAN combination is decreased to 10 and then to 5, and its effect on classifying region 2. First, decreasing from 50, as used before (Figure 8b,c), to 10 maintains the same number of clusters but the cluster representing region 2 is now capturing part of the transient state (Figure 9a,b). Furthermore, reducing the min_samples to 5 increases the number of clusters subdividing the original region. The new cluster captures part of the transient component between the two regions and consequently, the size of the noise cluster is reduced by lowering the min_samples parameter. An interesting feature of FastMan is the possibility of merging clusters manually. This is a very important feature, especially when dealing with industrial data and if the goal is to classify the data for future supervised learning approaches for pattern recognition. One can use the powerful visualization features of SOM to manually adjust the clusters to reduce the number of clusters to match the operating regimes characterized by SOM without the need to tune the hyperparameters.

Figure 9.

Effect of min_samples parameter: (a, b) min_samples = 10 and (c-f) min_samples = 5.

4.1.3.4. Cluster analysis

Using the clustering results from t-SNE and DBSCAN, a subspace greedy search analysis was conducted to assess the DMKD implementation’s ability to correctly identify the variables responsible for the patterns observed in the data. Figure 10(left) shows the results from the SGS analyses between clusters 3 and 4 (XIC 100 set-point change). The SGS analysis was able to find the correct variables associated with the changes. In addition to the distance matrix visualization of the SOM already shown in our discussions, a component analysis was conducted. In the component analysis using SOM, the contributions of each variable to the clustering results are projected in individual maps. This information complements and verifies the results from the SGS analysis. Figure 10(right) shows the SOM component projections for the most contributing variable to the cluster distributions by the SGS. Accordingly, the SOM component projection for each of the most influential variables (in this case the XIC 100.PV) matches perfectly the shape of the corresponding region in the overall SOM (right upper corner).

Figure 10.

Cluster analysis results: (left) SGS analysis of the clusters produced with PCA-DBSCAN combination. (right) Cluster projections over the components SOM for most influential variable.

4.2.1. Process description

The pyrolysis reactor is an important unit in the chemical industry used to crack heavier hydrocarbons to lower molecular weight hydrocarbons. The entire reactor is placed in a fired furnace, where the energy required for the reaction is generated from fuel gas combustion. In this study, the data come from an industrial scale furnace reactor, in which naphtha is cracked to ethylene. As shown in Figure 11, six coils of naphtha are mixed with steam before cracking in the furnace. The ethylene product is generated by cracking the mixture through the furnace at a high temperature (around 1000 °C). 27 variables are utilized for process monitoring, involving mainly hydrocarbon and steam process flows and fluid temperatures entering and leaving the combustion chamber. A more detailed description of the system be found in Zhu et al. (Reference Zhu, Webb, Mao and Romagnoli2019).

Figure 11.

Schematic representation of the industrial pyrolysis reactor.

4.2.2. Data preprocessing

4.2.2.1. Data cleaning and outlier removal

Real plant data often contains outliers and erroneous data, and it is of interest to have a method to detect and remove such data points to minimize the effect on the overall analysis. However, caution is required when dealing with outliers. As shown in Figure 12, what at first glance might be considered an outlier, actually represents a large variation of the total hydrocarbon flow for about 5 hr of operation. This period represents a small portion of the data thus the corresponding set of data is categorized as outliers (does not conform to the main data distribution) and adjusted accordingly. Therefore, an outlier detection and removal method that can distinguish between rare operation states and true outliers is desired. In FastMan, outliers are detected using the kNN algorithm. However, to prevent the loss of meaningful information, the outliers are not deleted but rather labeled.

Figure 12.

Rare operation states in the pyrolisis reactor dataset. (a) raw data; (b) zoom around apparent outlier; and (c) further zoom showing a 5 hr operation region.

Figure 13 illustrates the case of the same situation now in the measurements of hydrocarbon flows in coils 2 and 6. In Figure 13d, a projection of the data is also given using the projection tools discussed before to illustrate the effect of the outliers in data analytics. The encircled region in Figure 13d corresponds to the outliers which are clearly well separated from the main data distribution. A combination of PCA and DBSCAN for dimensionality reduction and clustering were used, respectively. In this case, it is not a single outlier but several points that create a new cluster. The number of k-neighbors, the single parameter required for kNN, strongly influences the amount of data being classified as outliers. By increasing the number of neighbors, more data points are designated as anomalies, leaving only important features in the final dataset. However, for a given dataset, the point of diminishing returns will be reached at some value of $ k $. As shown in Figure 14, for this specific example increasing the number of neighbors beyond $ k=50 $ does not improve the data substantially.

Figure 13.

Hydrocarbon flows for coils 2 and 6 for pyrolysis reactor: (a) raw data; (b) data after outliers’ detection/elimination; (c) zoomed view of the section within the circle; and (d) data projected in a 3D space using PCA-DBSCAN.

Figure 14.

Effect of number of neighbors, $ k $, over the data makeup for the pyrolysis reactor.

4.2.2.2. Sampling

The effect of sampling real plant data was investigated using random sampling and cNN with different values of $ k $. Data were normalized using z-score in all cases. Figures 15 and 16 illustrate the sampling effect on 2 of the process variables (steam flow in coils 2 and 5). Figure 15 shows the results for the cNN sampling approach with k number of neighbors 5 and 50. Both the time evolution of the variables and the associated 3D projection (using PCA-DBSCAN combination) are given. For the cNN approach the data size is reduced sixfold, from7800 to 1400 data points, however, this reduction does not affect the quality of the dataset since the main events are still captured in any of the 3 conditions investigated. This is shown with the help of 3D projection plots which clearly illustrate 3 main events captured by the data. The number of neighbors slightly changes the size of the data but does not have further influence on the analytics. This agrees which the idea that in this approach the highly variable regions (more classes) are more densely sampled. Furthermore, since no steady state is actually reached (real plant conditions and the drifting nature of the pyrolysis reactor) the effect of cNN is different from that observed with simulated data.

Figure 15.

Effect of sampling on the process variables. cNN sampling: (a) k = 5 and (c) k = 50. (b) and (d) corresponding projection to 3D space.

Figure 16.

Effect of sampling on the process variables. Random sampling: (a) n = 2 and (c) n = 10; (b) and (d) corresponding projection to 3D space.

Figure 16 shows the results for the random sampling strategy with interval values of 2 and 10. Data have been reduced from 7800 data points to 3500 and 1400 respectively. In this case, some of the events captured in the original data set are lost to some degree, depending on the size of the interval. The event occurring at the start of the operation is lost (for n = 10) or not captured completely (n = 2). In the latter cases, the original region is subdivided into two smaller regions, according to the 3D projection.

4.2.3. Data analysis and classification

Figure 17 illustrates the time evolution of the steam flows for coils 2 and 5 and hydrocarbon flows for coils 1 and 5, respectively. The analysis was done on the total set of measurements but for simplicity, we will focus our discussion on these four flowrates. The projection plots and the SOM are illustrated in Figure 18 (the line arrow indicates time direction of the batch).

Figure 17.

Process variables time evolution: (a) coils 2 and 4 steam flow rates and (b) coils 1 and 5 hydrocarbon flowrates.

Figure 18.

Process variables time evolution:(a) 3D projection plots and (b) the SOM for the PCA-DBSCAN.

Figure 19 illustrates the projection of the main cluster identified by PCA-DBSCAN into the time evolution and the SOM. Using this combination, most of the operating cycle is characterized as a single cluster. However, as observed in the SOM, a number of subregions are present (light colors separations) throughout the cycle.

Figure 19.

Projection of the main cluster as predicted by PCS-DBSCAN into SOM: (a) time evolution plot and (b) SOM.

Figure 20 shows the results when the min_samples parameter in DBSCAN is reduced from 10 to 5. In this case, the methodology identifies an additional region in the top right corner of the SOM as well some additional regions in the startup and shut down conditions. The figure illustrates the projections of these two main clusters on the time evolution plot and the SOM (Figure 20a,b,d,e). Next, the analysis of formation of these two clusters is performed and illustrated in Figure 20c,f in terms of the component map and SGS contributions plot, respectively. As shown in Figure 20c, the component map for coil 5 steam flowrate is the main contributor to the cluster formation since the component map perfectly matches the overall SOM features. This is corroborated through the contributions plot, where the main contributors are the steam flowrates and in particular steam flowrates of coils 1 and 5. This can also be inferred from the time evolution plot in Figure 20d where a sharp increase/decrease in these flowrates can be observed.

Figure 20.

Projection of clusters when min_sample in DBSCAN is reduced from 10 to 5: (a, d) time evolution plot; (b, c, e) cluster projection over the SOM; and (c) subspace greedy search results.

Similar analysis was performed using a neighbor’s graph approach and clustering (in this case the t-SNE-DBSCAN eps 6; min_samples = 80) to compare the results of feature extraction. Figure 21a illustrates the time evolution of the hydrocarbon flows of coils 1 and 5. Dotted boxes identify the operating regions identified by the DR and clustering combination of t-SNE-DBSCAN. The clustering results are given in Figure 21b. In this case, t-SNE projects the data into a 2D space. Five main clusters are clearly identified and also indicated in the time evolution plots. As can be seen, the large cluster identified previously using PCA is now subdivided into four subregions showcasing the better resolution of t-SNE. These subregions were also present in the SOM plot as discussed before (although not identified using PCA projection) and correspond to local system behavior (a small number of variables change significantly), as compared to the global changes discussed previously, for sharp changes in the steam flows. Figure 22 illustrates the cluster (corresponding to 2 subregions) projected into the time evolution as well as into the SOM and component plots. In this specific case, the most contributing variables are coils 1 and 5 hydrocarbon flow rates (Figure 23).

Figure 21.

(a) Time evolution of the hydrocarbon flows of coils 1 and 5. Circles identify the operating regions identified by the DR and clustering combination of t-SNE-DBSCAN; (b) clustering results in 3D plot.

Figure 22.

Cluster (corresponding to two subregions) projected into the time evolution as well as into the SOM and component plots.

Figure 23.

Contributing variables as identified by the subspace greedy search. Variables with the highest scores have a greater influence on the distribution of the data (i.e., cluster separation).