International Journal of Computer Integrated

Manufacturing

ISSN: 0951-192X (Print) 1362-3052 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcim20

Agent-based fault tolerant framework for

manufacturing process automation

Zubair Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Tahir Khan, Izhar Ul Haq & Kamran Shah

To cite this article: Zubair Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Tahir Khan, Izhar Ul Haq &
Kamran Shah (2019) Agent-based fault tolerant framework for manufacturing process
automation, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 32:3, 268-277, DOI:
10.1080/0951192X.2019.1571235

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2019.1571235

Published online: 11 Feb 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 14

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcim20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING
2019, VOL. 32, NO. 3, 268–277
https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192X.2019.1571235

ARTICLE

Agent-based fault tolerant framework for manufacturing process automation

Zubair Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Tahir Khan, Izhar Ul Haq and Kamran Shah
Department of Mechatronics Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar, Pakistan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Disruption in manufacturing process adversely affects the productivity, efficiency and increases the down- Received 21 May 2018
time, which severely affects the consumer-centric value. In this regard, it is inevitable to bring about Accepted 22 November
disruption in an effective way. Agent-based techniques are frequently practised to deal with multiple 2018
industrial-based disruptions regarding handling machine faults. This current research work is an endeavour KEYWORDS
to mitigate disruption by deploying Agent-Based Fault Tolerant Framework (ABFTF) in the manufacturing Disruption detection and
process; this technique is adept to handle Fault Detection and Identification (FDI) effectively, as well as it identification; fault tolerant
responds to the disruption dynamically to assess the root cause. Once disruption is identified, weight is system; manufacturing
assigned to it in a pre-defined manner and a corrective mechanism is executed. This proposed model was process automation
implemented on asphalt manufacturing plant. The observed reduction in downtime was 80.26 min in 24 h,
while the overall production was improved by 5.1%, casting worthwhile impacts on process efficiency and
consumer-centric value in comparison to established logics.

1. Introduction a desperate need of such model that should decrease down-

time and increase manufacturing process efficiency.
Modern manufacturing processes are turning into complex
This paper presents a model which is aimed at presenting the
and refined structures. Such processes require smart and
design and implementation of Agent-Based Fault Tolerant
intelligent mechanisms to handle the maintenance and
Framework (ABFTF) in a manufacturing process (Asphalt plant)
repair issues pertaining to disruptions and keep the pro-
for Fault detection, and Isolation (FDI) along with automatic
cesses streamlined. Every manufacturing process is pruned
response generated based on the assignment of weightages to
to unexpected events, such as hardware malfunction, drives
evaluate the root causes of disruption. The proposed model pro-
failures, tool breakage, sensor calibration issues, leading to
cesses the data in an intelligent way and dynamically responds to
undesirable effects like process downtime, loss of produc-
the disruptions.
tivity and efficiency. The process will halt or deviate from its
The paper is outlined in the following sections; Section 1 details
normal functionality until a corrective mechanism is exe-
introduction to ABFTF, Section 2 discusses the literature review
cuted (Lewandowski and Scholz-Reiter 2013; Bruccoleri,
and the recent advancement in FDI models in manufacturing
Pasek, and Koren 2006). Notably, these disruptions could
processes, Section 3 details the proposed ABFTF, while Section 4
result in secondary complications if not tackled properly
is a case study which draws a comparison between the established
(Aytug et al. 2005).
logics available in market with ABFTF and results are discussed in
In order to mitigate the delays and loss of productivity
Section 5, while conclusion and future work is discussed in
pertaining to disruption in manufacturing automation envir-
Section 6.
onment, extensive knowledge of disruption management
logic is needed (Darmoul, Pierreval, and Hajri–Gabouj
2011a). Biological immunity has inspired the design of an 2. Background study
integrated and generic framework to monitor, control and
Intensive research has been carried out in the recent past decades
predict the disruptions in a manufacturing system (Bayar
to target the disruption handling in a manufacturing facility. The
et al. 2015; Darmoul, Pierreval, and Hajri-Gabouj 2011b).
breakdown of the techniques addressing the faults handling is
However, this immune concept only focuses on presenting
presented below as a baseline for our study.
the conceptual frameworks and suggests methodological
guidelines to apply immune concepts for the solutions of
(1) Fault or disruption detection and Isolation models (FDI
disruptions in a manufacturing facility.
models).
The generalised disruption handling techniques, fault
(2) Analysis in alarm management systems for the produc-
identification (FDI) and Immune-based techniques offered
tion industry.
by different researchers have a contribution to properly han-
(3) Generalised models for handling disruption in a specific
dle disruption. However, based on the literature, a dedicated
area of the manufacturing process.
model for disruption handling cease to exist. There is

CONTACT Zubair Ahmad khan Engr.zubair@uetpeshawar.edu.pk

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING 269

2.1. FDI models Girardi (n.d.) harnesses the filtering technique called SIGARA,
for alarm management. Machado et al. (2015) developed
Recent advancements in the field of disruption handling pre-
a framework based on an intelligent approach of learning
sent intelligent techniques, having attractive attributes to
objects recommendations that work in a pervasive manner.
manage disruptions in the process industry. One such mile-
The study introduced by Matheus et al. (n.d.) characterises
stone is set by Hu, Starr, and Leung (1999) in which
a generic ontology for modelling circumstances. The main
they proposed two contrasting models: discrete logic and
objective of this research was to characterise the idea of
continuous disruption models, for diagnosis of disruptions in
structure from which it is conceivable to represent the scope
manufacturing plant. In another work, the disruption is
of circumstances and ideas which could be employed in
addressed, based on Fault Tree Analysis (Hu, Starr, and
a different domain. In the recent survey, Wang et al. (2016)
Leung 2003). In the latest research by Qin and Wang (2012),
mentioned that alarm systems are an integral part of modern
a procedure for disruption diagnosis is developed based on
industrial plants to achieve the safe and efficient operations. It
hamming distance-dependent on signal occurrence string
was also pointed out that overloading of alarms in many cases
matching, addressing the said issue for the process industry.
have a negative impact on the efficiency of the manufacturing
In an associated article, a technique is introduced that
process. The study identified four main agents of alarm over-
instantly creates a response to disruption through PLC system
loading and eight fundamental research problems to be
and circuit layouts; utilising the information gained from pre-
solved.
vious data, it executes disruption diagnosis in the operational
The significance of alarm management can be seen from the
industry (W. Hu, M. Schroeder 2008). A recent breakthrough in
approval and of completed and ongoing research schemes. The
this field is Finite State Machine (FSM)-based technology to
Research and Development of European Commission’s
handle disruption (Bao, Wu, and Yan 2014). The P-variant of
Community Information Service backed the Fifth Framework
Petri Nets was utilised to find out the particular sequence of
Program called ‘Advanced decision support system for chemi-
disruption and exceptional logic functions were employed to
cal/petrochemical manufacturing processes (2001–2004)’, where
recognise the sensor and actuator disruptions in the process
some models have been created for alarm management. The
industry (Lee and Chuang 2009). Gandolf R. Finke, Mahender
Australian Research Council supported a scheme titled ‘Alarm
Singh (2012) studied the impacts of disruptions that cause the
management: silence is golden (2003–2007)’. The Western
deviations in the individual processing set time. The approach
Australian Energy Research Alliance supported a project titled
is focused on the impacts of the variability of downtime on
‘Adaptive optimization learning applied to real time alarm man-
the system production performance. Arup Ghosh, Gi-Nam
agement (2008–2012)’. Japan Society for the Advancement of
Wang (2017a) presented a novel approach that utilises data
Science established the 143rd Committee on Process System
records of the PLC program signal. The proposed model is
Engineering that accepted an assignment titled ‘Alarm manage-
implemented in the control process to determine associated
ment (2009–2011)’. In Canada, the Association of Engineering
operational faults. This study presented a unified logical model
Research and Natural Sciences supported a strategic funding
which includes the signal state model of machine and asso-
titled ‘Development of an advanced technology for alarm analy-
ciated models of the device groups, which automatically pro-
sis and design (2009–2012)’. In China, the foundation for National
duces a unified model from the log data of PLC signals and
Natural Science is sponsoring a project named ‘Alarm design and
provides a hash table-based model indexing and disruption
removal methods and applications for highly efficient and safe
probing scheme to isolate anomaly in the production system.
operation of large-scale industrial systems (2015–2019)’.
Ghosh et al. (2017b) presented a more intelligent tool known
Alarm management techniques offer significant and essen-
as FBMTP that is capable to diagnose and isolate a particular
tial features for safe and efficient operation of the modern
disruption related with PLC-controlled production system. The
industry. Most of the today’s industrial alarm management
log records of inaccuracies concerns of huge production sys-
systems suffer from poor efficiency especially in case of over-
tems are also addressed in this work.
loading. However, the role alarm system is vital to the safe and
In brief, the above-mentioned solutions are centralised dis-
efficient running of the industry.
ruptions solutions and techniques to address the core issue.
These are more focused to detect and isolate a particular
disruption and rectify it, but these approaches have a serious 2.3. Generalised manufacturing process disruptions
issue of time lag wherein the data are scanned and a response
Significant research has been carried out to deal with disruptions
is generated, thus raising a hindrance to generate quick
in the manufacturing industry (Heckmann, Comes, and Nickel
responses in real-time.
2015) (Marhavilas, Koulouriotis, and Gemeni 2011) (Willquist and
Törner 2003). Much of this research is focused on the issues
Reliability-Based Maintenance (Khan and Haddara 2003),
2.2. Alarm management systems
Condition-based Maintenance (Ã, Lin, and Banjevic 2006),
An alarm is a condition of the plant which demands immedi- Statistical Process Control (A. Shewhart and Deming 1986), etc.,
ate consideration. da silva, Pereira, and Gotz (2016) presented emphasis more on predicting a disruption and describing its
an ontology-based study exploiting organised system informa- causes rather than on determining disruption effects on
tion and relating them for alarm signalling. However, this expected performance.
specific model was not capable of dealing with extending Some researchers have worked on the manufacturing
the ontology display. Research developed by Quintão and defects, one of which is the model presented by Anyfantis,
270 Z. A. KHAN ET AL.
Stavropoulos, and Chryssolouris (2018) to evolve criticality of
production process defects. The work by Li, Han, and Kang
(2013) developed a fault diagnosis system for semiconductor
in the manufacturing process. The Bayesian Network (BN) is
employed to diagnose the process anomalies and root causes
of disruption. In another work, Samarghandi and Elmekkawy
(2014) proposed the idea of sequence-based run time for each
machine. The strategy of no wait is adopted where the
machine changes its state upon completion of the previous
process. A novel encoding technique called Matrix Coding
(MC) is utilised here casting improved impacts on reducing
downtime. In the work by Mourtzis (2016), features of
a manufacturing network life cycle introduces challenges
that need to be addressed in order to achieve the pre-set
goals. The study also deals with: supply chain control and
coordination, the initial design of manufacturing network
and consumer satisfaction through high consumer-centric
value. A framework for a social network for employees is
developed by Mourtzis, Doukas, and Milas (2016). Its purpose
is to develop a common platform for coworkers to discuss
related issues to add to consumer-centric value of process. In
addition, an android app is developed using the same idea of
problem-solving using expert’s opinion via vector space
model method.
Lewandowski and Scholz-Reiter (2013) offered a framework
that presents tools for the systematic design of condition-
based maintenance systems and offers integrated support
for operating such systems in order to smoothly run the
production system and decrease downtime. Hadidi and
Rahim (2012) in his work emphasised the importance and
requirement of designing comprehensive and inter-operable
approaches to handle disruptions in manufacturing organiza-
tions in a more specific way. Ahn and Kim (2016) addressed
the recoverability issue in workflow management of the pro-
duction system. The theoretical model being presented here is
capable to ascertain the automatic anomaly detection func-
tionality. A strategy to deal with the autonomous recovery of
the detected anomaly has also been modelled in this work,
which is named as a gateway-centred workflow rollback deci-
sion model. It is used to avoid exceptional and risky situations
in the production environment. Pandey and Kulkarni (2010)
emphasised on the significance and design methods that
evaluate the effects of disruption on related manufacturing
processes and workflows. Nezhad et al. (2014) worked on
Redundancy Allocation Problem (RAP). This approach offers
maximising system reliability by discrete selection from avail-
able equipment.
Several authors have dedicated research for joint inventory
control and repair plans to control shortages and prevent
production disruption due to unpredicted machine malfunc-
tions (Makis and Fung 1995)(Yao, Fu, and Marcus n.d.). Several
other authors have incorporated preventive maintenance pro-
blems in scheduling techniques, such as Berrichi et al. (2010)
who presented models for scheduling tasks with equipment
unavailability due to maintenance procedures.
The above discussion of combined/integrated approaches
reveals that most of the concepts are related to offline and
preventive measures. Their only focus is on machine-level
disruptions and these disruptions are further reported to the
decision maker. The alarm management systems tend to find
in-time detection of disruption. Examining the previous work
reveals that there is a little effort dedicated to design a system
that would dynamically evaluate the disruption to enhance
process efficiency and consumer-centric value. This research
work is aimed to propose a model that dynamically evaluates
the disruption and generates an automatic response for the
identified disruption. The response or reaction to disruption is
generated in order to minimise process downtime that
obviously has positive impacts on process efficiency, lowering
rejection and consumer-centric value.
3. Methodology
The framework of this model starts with the concept of events
vector, which represents the various processes that occur in
the manufacturing facility. For the ease of understanding, the
whole plant is categorised into workstations. The conception
of this approach is that it constantly checks the data from the
workstations and compares it through Control and monitoring
(C and M) agent with the pre-defined disruptions in the data-
base. If there is any match in the data, then it is transferred to
the reaction agent. There could be many reactions possible,
but the fault-tolerant agent decides intelligently, on the basis
of weight assignment, wither to stop the process (batch rejec-
tion) or execute the process to increase productivity and
decrease the downtime. The methodology developed in this
work is detailed in the foregoing discussion. The whole man-
ufacturing plant (MP) is defined in terms of five tuple {X, E, F,
R and C}.
X: represents workstation vector, consider there are three
2 3
x1
workstations. X ¼ 4 x2 5
x3
E: represents normal events of the tags in normal form.
F: represents fault vectors of the workstation.
R: represents response vector of the work station.
C: Consequences vector of the detected fault.
The concept of events leading to disruption differs in this
model from established logic in the market. Event e declares
a transition from one state to another that could be an input
or output bit. Any anomaly in the data bit is referred, as ef
known as fault bit or disruption is detected and isolated from
the data. To rectify this, a response bit, er is generated and
finally the consequence bit ec is evaluated based on the
weightages.
Fi is fault vector featuring the kind of fault.
Fi ¼ Xi  ef (1)
The fault vector works on the principle of masking by compar-
ing two vectors and identifies the fault. As mentioned earlier,
‘Fi’ triggers the initiation of response vector R, given as
R ¼ Fi  er (2)
A consequence vector is stimulated once the response vector
is obtained by proper allocation of weightages to it and the
reaction is finalised.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING 271

C ¼ Ri  ec (3) 3.2. Fault bit agent

The logical flow of the process is depicted in the following In fault bit agent database, fault bit matrices are pre-defined. It
manner. also has the ability to update any new unanticipated faults
and communicates constantly with C and M agent as shown in
F ¼ Xi  ef ! R ¼ Fi  er ! C ¼ Ri  ec (4)
Figure 1. In a similar way to Equation (5), the sets of expected
The systematic flow of the whole process is delineated in fault bits are assigned to each workstation. The fault bit is
Figure 1.. generated as shown below in Equation (6).
2 3 2 3
ef 11 ef 21
6 ef 12 7 6 ef 22 7
3.1. Control and monitoring agent (C and M agent) 6 7 6 7
6 ef 13 7 6 ef 23 7
6 7 6 7
C and M agent deals with the real and virtual entities of data 6 ef 14 7 6 ef 24 7
F1 ¼ 66 7 6 7
7; F2 ¼ 6 : 7; . . . :Fn
of the production system. It is the fundamental controller that 6 : 7 6 7
6 : 7 6 : 7
includes Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), customised 6 7 6 7
micro-controllers or even computers. C and M observe the 4 : 5 4 : 5
process and transfer their data to the fault identification ef 1n ef 2n
2 3
operator. The whole process data are divided into vectors of efn1
6 efn2 7
states, and each vector represents events of related states. 6 7
6 efn3 7
X represents the station number, while e11….enn represent 6 7
6 efn4 7
events of different workstations. ¼ 66 7 (6)
7
6 : 7
2 3 2 3 6 : 7
e11 e21 6 7
4 : 5
6 e12 7 6 e22 7
6 7 6 7 efnn
6 e13 7 6 e23 7
6 7 6 7
6 e14 7 6 7
X1 ¼ 6 7; X2 ¼ 6 e24 7; . . . . . . . . . . . . Xn The fault is signalled whenever the state of the system (MP)
6 : 7 6 : 7
6 7 6 7 matches with pre-defined fault matrices, stored in fault regis-
6 : 7 6 : 7
6 7 6 7 ter. The process is shown in Figure 2. Once the fault is
4 : 5 4 : 5
detected by confirming it in the fault register, it is then further
e1n e2n
2 3 processed down to find out the workstation where the fault
en1 has occurred, which is then communicated to a reaction
6 en2 7
6 7 agent.
6 en3 7
6 7
6 en4 7
¼ 6 7
6 : 7 (5)
6 7 3.3. Reaction agent
6 : 7
6 7
4 : 5 Reaction agent responds to the corresponding disruption
enn occurred all tags. For every fault bit vector, there is a reaction

Figure 1. Flow diagram of ABFTF.

272 Z. A. KHAN ET AL.

Figure 2. C and M agent and fault agent instances.

vector which automatically executes the response and commu- 3.4. Fault tolerant agents
nicates it with cause and effect sheet and the cause is updated
It is the key parameter in this system, which intelligently
and the effect is set forth to fault-tolerant agent as shown in
decides the operation (Execution or rejection) of the process.
Figure 1. The reaction bits of associated faults are shown below
The threshold value is pre-defined in the system. If the process
in Equation (7).
in consideration is above or equal to that set value, the
2 3 2 3 process is executed and an alarm signal is subsided, while if
er11 er21
6 er12 7 6 er22 7 the process status is below the set value of the threshold, the
6 7 6 7 process is halted, the alarm is signalled and the batch is
6 er13 7 6 er23 7
6 7 6 7 rejected. The process is schematically shown below in
6 er14 7 6 er24 7
XR1 ¼ 6 7
6 : 7; XR2 ¼
6 7
6 : 7; . . . XRnn Figure 4.
6 7 6 7
6 : 7 6 : 7 The pseudo-code summarises the previous discussion.
6 7 6 7
4 : 5 4 : 5
er1n er3n Initialize Threshold1;
2 3 Initialize Threshold2;
ern1
6 ern2 7 READ input from the Process data
6 7
6 ern3 7 COMPARE (C& M bit register with Fault bit register)
6 7
6 ern4 7 IF (any bit of the register = = 1),
¼6 7
6 : 7 (7)
6 7 Then check workstation
6 : 7 IF (faulty workstation is detected),
6 7
4 : 5 Then check for equipment
ernn IF (faulty equipment is detected),
Then select the concerned reaction value from
The reaction integer is generated, when the data of fault integer database
is activated as shown in Figure 3. In addition, Figure 3 also IF (Reaction value ≤ threshold1)
shows that fault value is transferred to RA, for checking the Go to: COMPARE
nature of fault (virtual and real). Next, it selects the rules for the ELSE
reaction according to the process status. Finally, reaction value //reaction consequences
is generated either by the decision maker (in case of unavail- W = operation status _value+ Reaction status_
ability in reaction sets) or it is generated through reaction set value
value comparison. IF (W≤ Threshold2)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING 273

Figure 3. Reaction agent instances.

Figure 4. Fault tolerant agent instances.

274 Z. A. KHAN ET AL.
Go to: COMPARE
ELSE EXECUTE reaction
ENDIF
ENDIF
ENDIF
ENDIF
3.5. Case study
The proposed system is implemented on an Asphalt plant, the
focus is on the batch mix type of Asphalt Plant. This plant is
selected for the proposed study due to different workstations
available for analysis and is pruned to many disruptions. The
production process is studied thoroughly and all the disrup-
tions are categorised pertaining to each workstation.
3.5.1. Description of the process
In batch mix type of Asphalt Plant (See Figure 5), the unheated
aggregates stored in the cold bins are first loaded onto con-
veyor or bucket elevator by opening cold-feed gates. It takes
the aggregates to the dryer where it is heated and subse-
quently dried. Exhaust stack and dust collectors are responsi-
ble to remove unwanted dust through the dryer exhaust. Hot
elevator delivers the heated and dried aggregates to the
screening unit, where different sized particles are screened
and are stored in the hot bins (temporary storage). The hot
bins open in controlled amounts into the weigh box when
required. The aggregates are then dumped into the Pugmil or
mixing chamber with the proper ratio of filler (bitumen). From
the mixing chamber, the ready to use asphalt is transferred for
delivery.
Figure 5. Asphalt plant flow diagram.
3.5.2. Definition of states
As depicted in Equation (4) of the presented approach work-
stations are represented by Xn . The whole plant is divided
into seven different workstations, X1 to X7, mentioned in
Table 1.
3.5.3. Agents and tags
According to Equation (3) of the proposed model, each event
of the workstation is associated with a matrix or tag. For
Example, the workstation 5 that has an analogue sensor.
(Pyrometer installed in Pugmil Mixing System). Details of all
tags associated with pyrometer of Pugmil are mentioned in
Table 2. In a similar manner, the proposed model can be
applied to any work station of the production system.
3.5.4. Fault bit agent
As mentioned earlier, to each event of the workstation there is
an associated fault bit. Vector ef of Pugmill pyrometer is
shown in Table 3.
3.5.5. Reaction agent
As given in Equation (4), a vector of reaction bits is assigned to
the work station. The reaction bits associated with Pugmil of
the asphalt plant are shown in Table 4
4. Results and discussions
The plant is run and examined for 24 h using the established
technique offered by (Ghosh et al. 2017b) Fault and beha-
vioural anomaly detection tool for PLC-controlled manufactur-
ing plant (FBMTP). In this mentioned technique, the whole
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING 275

Table 1. Asphalt plant workstations. Table 5. Disruptions in different workstations.

Stations States Description Sum of Downtime
Aggregate Storage and Cold-Feed System (CFS) X0 Aggregate Storage and Cold-Feed System (CFS) 38.28
Aggregate Dryer and Heating System (ADS) X1 Aggregate Dryer and Heating System (ADS) 35.7
Dust Control and Collection System (DCS) X2 Dust Control and Collection System (DCS) 29.93
Hot Aggregate Screening (HAS) X3 Hot Aggregate Screening (HAS) 22.65
Hot Bins Storage and Batch Preparation System (HBS) X4 Hot Bins Storage and Batch Preparation System (HBS) 22.42
Pugmil Mixing System (PMS) X5 Pugmil Mixing System (PMS) 22.03
Heated Bitumen spraying System (BSS) X6 Heated Bitumen Spraying System (BSS) 18.95
Truck Loading System (TLS) X7 Truck Loading System (TLS) 18.72
Grand Total 208.68

Table 2. Events matrix details.

e51 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer Table 6. Disruptions in workstations after ABFTF.
e52 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, HIHI Set point Description Downtime
e53 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, HI Set point Pugmil Mixing System (PMS) 32.03
e54 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, LO Set point Heated Bitumen spraying System (BSS) 28.95
e55 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, LOLO Set point Truck Loading System (TLS) 28.72
e56 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, Day Maximum Temperature Aggregate Dryer and Heating System (ADS) 15.7
Dust Control and Collection System (DCS) 9.93
Aggregate Storage and Cold-Feed System (CFS) 8.28
Table 3. Fault matrix details. Hot Aggregate Screening (HAS) 2.65
Hot Bins Storage and Batch Preparation System (HBS) 2.42
ef 71 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, HIHI Alarm Grand Total 128.68
ef 72 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, HI Alarm
ef 73 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, LO Alarm
ef 74 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, LOLO Alarm
ef 75 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, HIHI Alarm Enable downtime. The framework was predominantly intended to
emphasise variables that were the key elements adding to process
downtime such as ADS, CFS and DCS. The downtime was mini-
Table 4. Reaction matrix details. mised to 128.68 min (see Table 6) reflecting a visible reduction of
er71 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, HIHI Alarm, Reaction Bit
80 min of downtime in 24 h. Resultantly, the variables (targeted)
er72 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, HI Alarm, Reaction Bit
er73 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, LO Alarm, Reaction Bit were evidently reduced to most possible minimum levels such as
er74 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, LOLO Alarm, Reaction Bit ADS accounted a reduction of 20 min abating from 35.70 to 15.70,
er75 Temperature of Pug Mill Mixer, HIHI Alarm Enable, Reaction Bit
CFS showed to a most significant reduction in downtime from
38.28 to 8.28, while DCS HAS and HBS were recorded with 20-min
process is divided into states, whereas the proposed approach reduction. On the flip side, the variables comprising less downtime
divides the process into workstations. Furthermore, the FBMTP of disruption increased to a certain extent. For instance, an
like most of the presented approaches communicate disrup- increase of 4 min in BSS, 10 min each in PMS and TLS downtime
tion to the decision maker (Usually process engineer). The has been observed. Based on the overall reduction in downtime of
ABFTF concentrates on the self-intelligent response in case disruption, it is evident that the proposed framework was palpably
of disruption. effective in terms of the focused variables.
The tables illustrate the situation in two scenarios, before
and after the experiment. The collected data reflect (see Table
4.1. Analysing established control logic 7) an obvious difference in grand totals of both the processes.
The process within 24 h of continuous operation experienced The overall demarcation line falls at the reductive-fluctuation
different disruptions by various causes that have a direct of 80.43 min that shows the effectiveness of the framework,
impact on the process downtime, decrease in process effi- ABFTF implementation.
ciency and increase in rejection value. Obviously, these vari-
ables have a negative impact on consumer-centric value. The
disruption details with process downtime in minutes are men- 4.3. Discussion of rejection
tioned in Table 5. Based on the data collected and analysed under Tables 6 and 7,
The table reflects a thorough description of downtime dis- it is evident that the frequency of downtime is directly
ruption in a continuous duration of 24 h. The process down-
time recorded was 208.68 min. The maximum downtime is Table 7. Number of starts and stops on FBMTP.
caused by CFS workstation, where ADS workstation becomes Count number of
the second potential variable by adding 35.70 min to Description Start and Stop
downtime. Hot Aggregate Screening (HAS) 22
Aggregate Dryer and Heating System (ADS) 19
Dust Control and Collection System (DCS) 11
Aggregate Storage and Cold-Feed System (CFS) 9
4.2. Implementing ABFTF approach Truck Loading System (TLS) 7
Heated Bitumen spraying System (BSS) 7
The data presented in Table 6 are further processed through Pugmill Mixing System (PMS) 3
ABFTF, S7-1200 PLC, and WinCC Flexible SCADA Software with Hot Bins Storage and Batch Preparation System (HBS) 1
scripting capability is utilised to analyse the data and record Grand Total 79
276 Z. A. KHAN ET AL.
correlated and associated with an increase in rejection. Every
start and stop of the plant generates a rejection of non-fit
products. In this regard, the plant experienced a total of 79
times ‘stops’ casting adverse effects on the overall production
process. Table 7 exhibits the overall frequency of ‘start & stop’;
the most frequent was HAS accounting for 22 times, followed
by ADS (19 times), DCS and CFS (11 and 9 times, respectively).
After application of the proposed model, the frequency of
‘stops’ was recorded as 29. (See Table 8). The dominant variables
HAS (1 time) showed a remarkable reduction of 20, along with
ADS reducing from 19, while DCS and CFS (4 and 3 times,
respectively) abating from 11 and 9.
Based on the data mentioned in tables above, it is evident
proposed framework casts an excellent impact on the consu-
mer-centric value by reducing the frequency of rejection, since
every start and stop results in at least 10 kg rejection of
aggregates in the plant. Table 9 compares the two approaches
in terms of frequency of rejection. On the contrary, a few of
the other variables reflected the rise in frequency, yet they are
negligible as the desired goal has been substantially achieved.
Every single start and stop corresponds to at least 10 kg
rejections of Aggregates in the plant.
Total rejections in Kilograms = 79  10 ¼ 790 Kg (Using
FBMTP)
Total rejections in Kilograms = 29  10 ¼ 290 Kg (Using
ABFTF)
% Reduction in Rejections = ð790290
790
Þ
 100 ¼ 63:32% .
From above one can see a considerable amount of reduc-
tion in rejection as the frequency of stops is minimised. The
above test data can be mapped on how this is impacting
consumer-centric quality as the entire product cost (including
wastages/rejections) is charged by consumers. In the above
test data, it is shown that the reduction in the number of stops
has improved the rejection rate by 63%. Also, the probability
of low-quality product reaching the consumer has reduced.
This helps in adding the consumer-centric value.
5. Conclusion and future work
In this study, a model is proposed which demonstrates
a favourable solution for disruption handling in the manufacturing
process by deploying ABFTF approach. Initially, FBMTP was studied
on an Asphalt plant, the data were analysed for 24 h; afterwards,
Table 8. Number of starts and stops after ABFTF.
Count number of
Description Start and Stop
Pugmil Mixing System (PMS)
Hot Bins Storage and Batch Preparation System (HBS)
Dust Control and Collection System (DCS)
Aggregate Storage and Cold-Feed System (CFS)
Heated Bitumen spraying System (BSS)
Aggregate Dryer and Heating System (ADS)
Hot Aggregate Screening (HAS)
Grand Total 29
Table 9. Comparison before and after implementing ABFTF.
Description Number of counts (Starts and Stops)
Number of Starts and Stops on FBMTP 79
Number of Starts and Stops after ABFTF 29
the proposed model was employed and the results were com-
pared. The results showed a significant reduction in the process
downtime, almost 80.43 min in 24 h for all types of disruptions.
Additionally, 37% reduction in the number of rejections has been
noticed. This can lead to an increase of 5.1% in the overall produc-
tion. Resultantly extra 500 kg of asphalt was produced in 24 h after
implementation of ABFTF. This proposed method offers
a promising opportunity for enhancing the efficiency of the plant.
The offered fault tolerant system is more focused towards the
production floor shop. In the future, the system would be
extended to consider a broad spectrum of features of
a production system. Moreover, different types of disruptions
including disruptions in inventory control and supply chain
would also be considered. Furthermore, the use of intelligent
techniques will be investigated for FDI, whereas artificial
immune-based networking techniques will be investigated for
coordination among multiple agents.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Ã, A. K. S. J., D. Lin, and D. Banjevic. 2006. “A Review on Machinery
Diagnostics and Prognostics Implementing Condition-Based
Maintenance.” 20: 1483–1510. doi:10.1016/j.ymssp.2005.09.012.
A. Shewhart, W., and W. E. Deming. 1986. Statistical Method: From the
Viewpoint Ofquality Control. USA: Dover Publications.
Ahn, H., and K. P. Kim. 2016. “A Gateway-Centered Workflow Rollback
Decision Model toward Autonomous Workflow Process Recovery.”
International Journal of Industrial Engineering : Theory Applications and
Practice 23 (4): 207–215.
Anyfantis, K., P. Stavropoulos, and G. Chryssolouris. 2018. “Fracture
Mechanics Based Assessment of Manufacturing Defects Laying at the
Edge of CFRP-Metal Bondlines,” 173–183.
Aytug, H., M. A. Lawley, K. McKay, S. Mohan, and R. Uzsoy. 2005. “Executing
Production Schedules in the Face of Uncertainties: A Review and Some
Future Directions.” European Journal of Operational Research 161 (1):
86–110. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2003.08.027.
Bao, J., W. Huifeng, and Y. Yan. 2014. “A Fault Diagnosis System-PLC
Design for System Reliability Improvement.” International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 75 (1–4): 523–534. doi:10.1007/
s00170-014-6166-z.
Bayar, N., S. Darmoul, S. Hajri-Gabouj, and H. Pierreval. 2015. “Fault
Detection, Diagnosis and Recovery Using Artificial Immune Systems: A
Review.” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 46 (August):
43–57. doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2015.08.006.
Berrichi, A., F. Yalaoui, L. Amodeo, and M. Mezghiche. 2010. “Computers &
Operations Research Bi-Objective Ant Colony Optimization Approach
to Optimize Production and Maintenance Scheduling.” Computers and
9 Operation Research 37 (9): 1584–1596. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2009.11.017.
7 Bruccoleri, M., Z. J. Pasek, and Y. Koren. 2006. “Operation Management in
4 Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems: Reconfiguration for Error
3 Handling.” International Journal of Production Economics 100 (1):
3 87–100. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.10.009.
2 da Silva, M. J., C. E. Pereira, and M. Gotz. 2016. “A dynamic approach for
1 industrial alarm systems.” IEEE CITS 2016-2016 International Conference
on Computer, Information and Telecommunication Systems.
doi:10.1109/CITS.2016.7546404.
Darmoul, S., H. Pierreval, and S. Hajri-Gabouj. 2011a. “Using ontologies to
capture and structure knowledge about disruptions in manufacturing
systems: An immune driven approach.” IEEE International Conference
on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation, ETFA, IESM METZ-
France, no. September 2011. doi: 10.1109/ETFA.2011.6059033.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING
Darmoul, S., H. Pierreval, and S. Hajri–Gabouj. 2011b. “An immune inspired-
multi agent system to handle disruptions in manufacturing production
systems.” International Conference on Industrial Engineering andAQ12
Systems Management, IESM’2011, IESM METZ-France, no. May 2011.
Finke, G. R., M. Singh, and S. Paul. 2012. “Production Lead Time
Variability Simulation – Insights from a Case Study.” International
Journal of Industrial Engineering: Theory, Applications and Practice
19: 213–220.
Ghosh, A., G.-N. Wang, and J. Lee. 2017a. “Unified Logical Model to
IdentifyFaults in a Plc Controlled Manufacturing System.” International
Journalof Industrial Engineering: Theory, Applications and Practice 24 (3):
272–283.
Ghosh, A., S. Qin, J. Lee, and G. N. Wang. 2017b. “FBMTP: An
AutomatedFault and Behavioral Anomaly Detection and Isolation Tool
forPLC-Controlled Manufacturing Systems.” IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 47 (12): 3397–3417. doi:
10.1109/TSMC.2016.2633392.
Hadidi, L. A., and A. Rahim. 2012. “Integrated Models in Production
Planning and Scheduling, Maintenance and Quality : A Review
Integrated Models in Production Planning and Scheduling,
Maintenance and Quality : A Review Laith A. Hadidi * and Umar M. Al-
Turki Abdur Rahim,” no. January. doi:10.1504/IJISE.2012.044042.
Heckmann, I., T. Comes, and S. Nickel. 2015. “A Critical Review on Supply
Chain Risk – De Fi Nition, Measure.” Omega 52: 119–132. doi:10.1016/j.
omega.2014.10.004.
Hu, W., A. G. Starr, and A. Y. T. Leung. 1999. “Two Diagnostic Models for
PLC Controlled Flexible Manufacturing Systems.” International Journal
of Machine Tools and Manufacture 39 (12): 1979–1991. doi:10.1016/
S0890-6955(99)00022-X.
Hu, W., A. G. Starr, and A. Y. T. Leung. 2003. “Operational Fault Diagnosis of
Manufacturing Systems.” Journal of Materials Processing Technology 133
(1–2): 108–117. doi:10.1016/S0924-0136(02)00252-2.
Hu, W., M. Schroeder, and A. Starr. 2008. “A Knowledge-Based Real-Time
Diagnostic System for PLC Controlled Manufacturing Systems.” Animal
Genetics 39 (5): 561–563.
Khan, F. I., and M. M. Haddara. 2003. “Risk-Based Maintenance (RBM):
A Quantitative Approach for Maintenance/Inspection Scheduling and
Planning.” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16 (6):
561–573. doi:10.1016/J.JLP.2003.08.011.
Lee, J. S., and C. C. Chuang. 2009. “Development of a petri net-based fault
diagnostic system for industrial processes.” IECON Proceedings
(Industrial Electronics Conference), 4347–4352. doi:10.1109/
IECON.2009.5414911.
Lewandowski, M., and B. Scholz-Reiter. 2013. “A Framework for Systematic
Design and Operation of Condition-Based Maintenance Systems:
Application at A German Sea Port.” International Journal of Industrial
Engineering 20.
Li, B., T. Han, and F. Kang. 2013. “Fault Diagnosis Expert System of
Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment Using a Bayesian Network.”
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 26 (12):
1161–1171. doi:10.1080/0951192X.2013.812803.
Machado, A., D. Lichtnow, A. M. Pernas, A. Bouzeghoub, I. Augustin, and
L. K. Wives. 2015. “A Framework Reactive and Proactive for Pervasive
277
Homecare Environments.” Enterprise Information Systems 2: 320–338.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22348-3.
Makis, V., and J. Fung. 1995. “Optimal Preventive Replacement, Lot Sizing and
Inspection Policy for a Deteriorating Production System.” Journal of Quality
in Maintenance Engineering 1 (4): 41–55.
Marhavilas, P. K., D. Koulouriotis, and V. Gemeni. 2011. “Journal of Loss
Prevention in the Process Industries Risk Analysis and Assessment
Methodologies in the Work Sites : On a Review, Classi Fi Cation and
Comparative Study of the Scienti Fi C Literature of the Period 2000 E
2009.” Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 24 (5):
477–523. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2011.03.004.
Matheus, C. J., M. M. Kokar, K. Baclawski, J. A. Letkowski, C. Call, M. Hinman,
J. Salerno, and D. Boulware. n.d. SAWA : An Assistant for Higher-Level
Fusion and Situation Awareness. Framingham: Vistology.
Mourtzis, D. 2016. “Challenges and Future Perspectives for the Life Cycle
of Manufacturing Networks in the Mass Customisation Era.” Logistics
Research 9 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1007/s12159-015-0129-0.
Mourtzis, D. D., and N. Milas. 2016. “A Knowledge-Based Social Networking
App for Collaborative Problem-Solving in Manufacturing.”
Manufacturing Letters 10: 1–5. doi:10.1016/j.mfglet.2016.08.001.
Nezhad, A., G. Salehi, A. E. Jahromi, M. H. Salmani, and F. Ghasem. 2014.
“An Approach to Consider Uncertain Components’ Failure Rates in
Series-Parallel Reliability Systems with Redundancy Allocation.”
International Journal of Industrial Engineering : Theory Applications and
Practice 21 (2): 86–99.
Pandey, D., and M. S. Kulkarni. 2010. “Joint Consideration of Production
Scheduling, Maintenance and Quality Policies : A Review and
Conceptual Framework Prem Vrat” Int. J. Advanced Operations
Management 2: 1–24.
Qin, S., and G. Wang. 2012. “A Study of Fault Detection and Diagnosis for
PLC Controlled Manufacturing System.” Communications in Computer
and Information Science 326 (PART 1): 373–382. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-
34381-0_43.
Quintão, H., and R. Girardi. n.d. “Especificação Dos Requisitos de Um
Sistema de Gerenciamento de Alarmes Baseado Na Recomendação de
Ações 2 Análise e Classificação Dos Principais Padrões e Técnicas
Existentes Para Criação de SIGA.”
Samarghandi, H., and T. Y. Elmekkawy. 2014. “Solving the No-Wait
Flow-Shop Problem with Sequence-Dependent Set-Up Times.”
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 27 (3):
213–228. doi:10.1080/0951192X.2013.812802.
Wang, J., F. Yang, T. Chen, and S. L. Shah. 2016. “An Overview of Industrial
Alarm Systems: Main Causes for Alarm Overloading, Research Status,
and Open Problems.” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and
Engineering 13 (2): 1045–1061. doi:10.1109/TASE.2015.2464234.
Willquist, P., and T. Marianne. 2003. “Identifying and Analysing Hazards in
Manufacturing Industry—A Review of Selected Methods and
Development of a Framework for Method Applicability.” International
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32 (3): 165–180. doi:10.1016/S0169-
8141(03)00061-1.
Yao, X., M. C. Fu, and S. I. Marcus. n.d. “Optimal Joint Preventive
Maintenance and Production Policies *.” Naval Research Logistics
27513. doi:10.1002/nav.20107.