Proceedings of ESCAPE 35ISSN: 2818-4734
Volume: 4 (2025)
Table of Contents
LAPSE:2025.0384
Published Article
LAPSE:2025.0384
A combined approach to optimization of soft sensor architecture and physical sensor configuration
Lukas Furtner, Isabell Viedt, Leon Urbas
June 27, 2025
Abstract
In the chemical industry, soft sensors are deployed to reduce equipment cost or allow for a continuous measurement of process variables. Soft sensors monitor parameters not via physical sensors but infer them from other process variables. On the one hand, the precision of a soft sensors is affected by its architecture, the choice of parametric equations like balances and thermodynamic or kinetic dependencies in the soft sensor model. On the other hand, uncertainty that is inherent to the input variable values propagates through the soft sensor model and impacts the output uncertainty. The latter is affected by the configuration of physical sensors in the chemical process. This paper proposes an approach for the combined optimization of soft sensor architecture and physical sensor configuration. For this purpose, the method combines an automatic extraction of all possible soft sensor architectures from a set of system equations with an uncertainty-based evaluation of sensor configurations. Applied to an in-situ Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR), the method is capable of automatically identifying the optimal combination of soft sensor model and physical sensor configuration. It is further discussed, how the explainability of the results can be improved via variance-based uncertainty decomposition, by contributing soft sensor prediction uncertainty to individual inputs or operations along the calculation path.
Keywords
Digraph, Sensor Configuration, Soft Sensor, Uncertainty Analysis
Suggested Citation
Furtner L, Viedt I, Urbas L. A combined approach to optimization of soft sensor architecture and physical sensor configuration. Systems and Control Transactions 4:1445-1449 (2025) https://doi.org/10.69997/sct.103294
Author Affiliations
Furtner L: TUD Dresden University of Technology, Process-to-Order Group, Process Systems Engineering Group; TUD Dresden University of Technology, Process-to-Order Group, Process-to-Order (P2O) Lab Learning Factory
Viedt I: TUD Dresden University of Technology, Process-to-Order Group, Process Systems Engineering Group; TUD Dresden University of Technology, Process-to-Order Group, Process-to-Order (P2O) Lab Learning Factory
Urbas L: TUD Dresden University of Technology, Process-to-Order Group, Process Systems Engineering Group; TUD Dresden University of Technology, Process-to-Order Group, Chair of Process Control Systems; TUD Dresden University of Technology, Process-to-Order Group,
Journal Name
Systems and Control Transactions
Volume
4
First Page
1445
Last Page
1449
Year
2025
Publication Date
2025-07-01
Version Comments
Original Submission
Other Meta
PII: 1445-1449-1415-SCT-4-2025, Publication Type: Journal Article
Record Map
Published Article

LAPSE:2025.0384
This Record
External Link

https://doi.org/10.69997/sct.103294
Article DOI
Download
Files
Jun 27, 2025
Main Article
License
CC BY-SA 4.0
Meta
Record Statistics
Record Views
1061
Version History
[v1] (Original Submission)
Jun 27, 2025
 
Verified by curator on
Jun 27, 2025
This Version Number
v1
Citations
Most Recent
This Version
URL Here
https://psecommunity.org/LAPSE:2025.0384
 
Record Owner
PSE Press
Links to Related Works
Directly Related to This Work
Article DOI
References Cited
  1. C. Sumana and Ch. Venkateswarlu, "Optimal selection of sensors for state estimation in a reactive distillation process," Journal of Process Control, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1024-1035, Jun. 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.2009.01.003
  2. S. Liu, X. Yin, Z. Pan, and J. Liu, "A sensitivity-based approach to optimal sensor selection for complex processes," Chemical Engineering Science, vol. 278, p. 118901, Aug. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2023.118901
  3. K. R. Muske, Christos Georgakis, and C. Georgakis, "Optimal measurement system design for chemical processes," Aiche Journal, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 1488-1494, Jun. 2003, https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.690490612
  4. A. J. Lee and U. M. Diwekar, "Optimal sensor placement in integrated gasification combined cycle power systems," Applied Energy, vol. 99, pp. 255-264, Nov. 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.04.027
  5. P. Mobed, J. Maddala, P. Pednekar, D. Bhattacharyya, and R. Rengaswamy, "Optimal Sensor Placement for Fault Diagnosis Using Magnitude Ratio," Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol. 54, no. 38, pp. 9369-9381, Sep. 2015, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.5b00482
  6. C. Heny, D. Simanca, and M. Delgado, "Pseudo-bond graph model and simulation of a continuous stirred tank reactor," Journal of the Franklin Institute, vol. 337, no. 1, pp. 21-42, Jan. 2000, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-0032(99)00043-5
  7. K. Tidriri, N. Chatti, S. Verron, and T. Tiplica, "A bond graph modeling for health monitoring and diagnosis of the Tennessee Eastman process," in 2017 4th International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT), Barcelona: IEEE, Apr. 2017, pp. 0155-0160. https://doi.org/10.1109/CoDIT.2017.8102583
  8. L. Furtner, J. Mädler, and L. Urbas, "An Uncertainty Analysis Based Approach to Sensor Selection in Chemical Processes," in 2024 IEEE 29th International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), Padova, Italy: IEEE, Sep. 2024, pp. 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ETFA61755.2024.10710989
  9. J. Sansana et al., "Recent trends on hybrid modeling for Industry 4.0," Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 151, p. 107365, Aug. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compchemeng.2021.107365
  10. N. Benoumechiara and K. Elie-Dit-Cosaque, "Shapley effects for sensitivity analysis with dependent inputs: bootstrap and kriging-based algorithms," ESAIM: ProcS, vol. 65, pp. 266-293, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1051/proc/201965266
(0.08 seconds)

[0.08 s]