The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bridging data-driven and model-based approaches for process fault diagnosis and health monitoring: A review of researches and future challenges
Abstract
Fault Diagnosis and Health Monitoring (FD-HM) for modern control systems have been an active area of research over the last few years. Model-based FD-HM computational approaches have been extensively developed to detect and locate faults by considering logical or mathematical description of the monitored process. However, because of parametric, measurement and model uncertainties, applicable approaches that endeavor to locate faults with great accuracy are likely to give false alarms. Recently, many research works have been conducted in order to tackle this issue by making a tradeoff between accuracy and robustness during the fault detection phase. Due to the recent advances in sensor technology, computational capabilities and dedicated software/hardware interfaces, data-driven FD-HM approaches have demonstrated that highly accurate fault detection is possible when the system monitoring data for nominal and degraded conditions are available. Therefore, it seems that more than one approach is usually required for developing a complete robust fault detection and diagnosis tool. In this paper, the features of different model-based and data-driven approaches are investigated separately as well as the existing works that attempted to integrate both of them. In this latter context, there have been only few works published in the literature and hence reviewing and discussing them is strongly motivated by providing a good reference for those interested in developing hybrid approaches for FD-HM.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A New Approach to Linear Filtering and Prediction Problems
Kalman, R. E. (1960) · Journal of Basic Engineering · doi:10.1115/1.3662552 · Cited by 31,751
Observers for multivariable systems
Luenberger, D. (1966) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.1966.1098323 · Cited by 1,763
Cited by
Digital twin paradigm: A systematic literature review
Semeraro, C., Lezoche, M., Panetto, H., & Dassisti, M. (2021) · Computers in Industry · doi:10.1016/j.compind.2021.103469 · Cited by 986
Diez-Olivan, A., Del Ser, J., Galar, D., & Sierra, B. (2019) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2018.10.005 · Cited by 633
Zhu, J., Ge, Z., Song, Z., & Gao, F. (2018) · Annual Reviews in Control · doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2018.09.003 · Cited by 308
Zhang, Y., Li, X., Gao, L., Wang, L., & Wen, L. (2018) · Journal of Manufacturing Systems · doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.04.005 · Cited by 226
An Improved Generic Hybrid Prognostic Method for RUL Prediction Based on PF-LSTM Learning
Xue, K., Yang, J., Yang, M., & Wang, D. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement · doi:10.1109/tim.2023.3251391 · Cited by 75
Metadata
- Authors
- Tidriri, K., Chatti, N., Verron, S., & Tiplica, T.
- Venue
- Annual Reviews in Control
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016
- Volume
- 42
- Pages
- 63-81
- ISSN
- 1367-5788 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2520169384
- Cited by
- 397
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 27.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bridging data-driven and model-based approaches for process fault diagnosis and health monitoring: A review of researches and future challenges. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2016.09.008
- The paper
- Tidriri, K., Chatti, N., Verron, S., & Tiplica, T. (2016). Bridging data-driven and model-based approaches for process fault diagnosis and health monitoring: A review of researches and future challenges. Annual Reviews in Control. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arcontrol.2016.09.008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.