factory automation_ top ten alarming blunders

7/29/2019 Factory Automation_ Top Ten Alarming Blunders

1/4

GO

SUBSCRIBE ADVERTISE FEEDBACK ABOUT INTECH CONTACT LOG OUT

Comment Rate This

January/February 2013

Factory Automation

Top ten alarming blunders

Proper alarm methods improve safety, the environment, and plant profitability

Fast Forward:

Ineffective alarm systems pose a serious risk to safety, the environment, and plant profi tability.

Benchmarking is vital to any serious improvement initiative. If current performance is not measured, progress cannotbe accurately determined.

Failure to assign roles and responsibility is the most common and most deadly oversight in an alarm managementproject.

By Kevin Brown

American comedian Sam Levenson once said, You must learn

from the mistakes of others. You cant possibly live long enough to

make them all yourself. When it comes to alarm management,

Levenson is correct.

Ineffective alarm systems pose a serious risk to safety, the

environment, and plant profitability. Too often, alarm system

effec tiveness is unknowingly undermined by poorly configured

alarms. Static alarm settings cannot adapt to dynamic plant

conditions, and many other nuisances result in alarm floods that overwhelm operators when they instead

need concise direction.

Alarm systems are the primary tool for identifying abnormal situations and helping plant personnel take

timely, appropriate action to move their processes back to operational targets. For operators considering

undertaking an alarm management program, taking the time to examine common alarming blunders is

important to ensure steps are taken to avoid them.

Examining the alarm management process

Before diving into the common mistakes associated with alarm management, it is important to illustrate and

review the proper execution path. The overall structure of a successf ul alarm management process is

fundamentally the same across industries, regardless of plant size. This includes benchmark, alarm

philosophy, rationalization, implementation, continuous improvement, and maintenance.

Benchmarking and evaluating current performance is the time to identify the most pressing alarm system

problems and the biggest opportunities for improvement. This is also the best place to start if it is unclear

what actions are required fo r a successful alarm management program.

With the landscape better understood, it is also important to develop an alarm philosophy document (APD).

The APD is not a theory but an engineering document focused on all aspects of the alarm management

system. This document should clearly outline key concepts and governing rules for the alarm strategy, such

as what constitutes an alarm and what risk categories pertain to site operations. The philosophy should also

outline roles and responsibilities and change management procedures and project goals, such as target

alarm rates. For reference, the ANSI/ISA-18.2-2009, Management of Alarm Systems for the Process

Industriesstandard identifies all the sections required in the alarm philosophy document and covers other

areas (e.g., rationalization).

There are different methods of rationalization, and more than one method may be used to solve alarming

issues. The purpose of alarm rationalization is to determine the causes, consequences, and correctiveactions for an alarm. Once rationalization is complete, the next step is implementation, which is key to a

successful alarm system. Control logic, alarm des ign, and graphics need to be included in the

implementation stage.

Alarms are dynamic and will be affected by process or control changes, and routine performance

monitoring helps to identify new opportunities for improvement, such as dynamic alarm strategies. Once the

Coming Next

Cover Story: Salary Survey

Process Automation: Single-to-Multi-Product

Production Conversion

Factory Automation: System Commissioning &Startup

System Integration: Specifying Automation

Automation IT: Automation System LifecycleManagement

Special Section: Electrical Test Equipment

Basics: Intrinsic Safety

Ask The Experts

Read questions answered by our

experts orjoin the email list.

Feedback Hub

Less theory, more practice andmore

Newbie engineers

Sparking an Interest and more

ISA Jobs

Process Controls Engineer |E2i, Inc.

Maintenance Superintendent |

Central Coast Water Authority

Account Representative-Process Automation and

Measurement | RonanEngineering

InTech Home Features Archives

HOME FEATURES DEPARTMENTS PRODUCTS COMMUNITIES WHITE PAPERS ISA JOBS E-NEWS CALENDAR PEOPLE CONTRIBUTE

tory Automation: Top ten alarming blunders | ISA http://www.isa.org/InTechTemplate.cfm?Section=Archives4&template...

4 06/09/2013 22:19


2/4

alarm practices are at a comfortable level, they can be integrated into p lant workflow to sustain optimized

plant performance over the long term.

Even with a proper execution path in place, however, operators are still at risk of committing alarm blunders

that can impede a successful alarm management program. By avoiding these common pitfalls in their alarm

management programs, operators can continue ef fectively responding to abnormal situations and better

ensure their plants are meeting their operational targets.

Blunder #1: Operations ownership of the alarm system

Often, the operations group in f acilities be lieves alarm issues belong to the controls or instrumentation

group since this groups responsibility is computer system maintenance. It is important for operations to

take ownership and realize that the computer control system is also their responsibility, and how it functionsis determined by their requirements. It is irresponsible, for instance, to take a car to a mechanic and let

them decide on what maintenance needs to be done. Similarly, operations should not expect the

maintenance group to resolve the alarm issue. Maintenance will make the required changes, but operations

must drive them.

Blunder #2: Missing or incomplete alarm philosophy document

The APD def ines all aspects of the alarm system. One reason alarms are out of control is they are not

being properly designed or maintained. Failing to establish and document best practices is a rec ipe for

disaster. Guidelines for performing alarm rationalization need to be formulated. For example, an alarm

philosophy should include methodology and rules for se tting alarms, an alarm review to build commitment

and consolidate training, and an audit process to ensure the philosophy is consistently applied. These

guidelines will clearly define the criteria for legitimate alarms and the setting of their priorities. These are the

backbone of an APD, which acts as a corporate s tandard to guide the organizations alarm management

initiatives.

Blunder #3: Using the wrong tools

Alarm and event archiving and proper analysis tools are required to ensure that time spent on problem

correction delivers maximum return. All alarms should be reviewed to ensure consistent priorities, but it is

inefficient, costly, and irresponsible to correct minor nuisances when problems remain that pose serious

risk to plant safety. Beyond simple analysis, tools that enable automatic change control, punch-list

generation, discrepancy reporting, and project tracking are available. Forethought needs to be given to how

alarm information will be used once this knowledge is in a repository, however. Although these tasks can be

performed without special software tools, it is not practical to do so. The ef fort is of ten so daunting that

alarm management initiatives collapse under the weight of their own logistics. I t is bes t to do away with

paper trails for change control and spreadsheets posing as master alarm databases.

Blunder #4: Neglecting to benchmark

Benchmarking is vital to any serious improvement initiative. If current performance is not measured,

progress cannot be accurately determined. The first step is to keep track of alarm rates for several weeks inorder to obtain a baseline measurement. Once that is done, it is important to assess how the plants current

alarm levels measure up to industry standards. Once benchmarking and assessing current performance is

complete, the next step is identifying opportunities for improvement. Below, in order of importance, are the

key questions that need to be answered when performing this assessment.

Is the dynamic (real-time) alarm load acceptable for all operators?

Does the dynamic alarm prioritization meet industry standards?

What are the troublesome tags on the system during steady-state operation?

How does the configured distributed control system (DCS) alarm count compare to standards (alarms

per tag)?

What does the configured alarm distribution look like compared to s tandards?

Tracking key performance indicators indicates when alarm rates are improving or deteriorating, but the true

measurement of a successful alarm management system is the reduction of unplanned outages, safety

incidents, and environmental discussions.

Blunder #5: Only tracking alarms

Often, and mistakenly, all required data is not tracked, and tracking only alarms is not sufficient. Alarm

rationalization requires more than one type of data. For example, when an alarm occurs, it is necessary to


4 06/09/2013 22:19


3/4

know if an operator actually responded to it. Tracking operator actions is an effective way to identify control

problems and automation opportunities and audit the effectiveness of the alarm strategy. If the operator did

not respond, it is likely that the alarm is a nuisance alarm. Examine the ratio of operator actions to audible

process alarms in order to identify poor alarm strategies. The approach requiring that every alarm expects

operator intervention demands that this ratio exceed 2 :1.

Other data to track are related to operator actions, including controller setpoint, mode changes, and system

errors. If a controllers mode or output is repeatedly changed, it is a c lear sign the loop needs f ixing. If

action data is coupled with controller performance data, an understanding of the loops problems can be

quickly diagnosed, saving time. I f a controllers setpoint is f requently changed, and the controller has no

supervisory control, then the automation engineer must solve the discrepancy. Installing new automation

strategies can free the operator to focus on pushing limits rather than maintaining process stability. In

addition, process variable history is important for determining some deadband alarm settings and for

performing engineering reviews prior to implementation. It is also worth considering if a loop is poorly

performing and the operator is manipulating the output to keep the process in control. Typically, these loops

are not a priority, and the work order is placed on the bottom of the maintenance list, yet the operator

spends s ignificant time managing this loop.

Blunder #6: Assuming users will read documentation

It is nave to expect personnel to thoroughly read and examine all manuals and handbooks. In fact, handing

operators proper documentation is not a valid substitute for practical training. The easiest way to undermine

effective alarm management is to implement a solution without giving personnel the hands-on training they

need. This point is perhaps best illustrated with a real-world example: A large petrochemical plant went to

great efforts to improve their alarm system performance through alarm rationalization. Once the new

settings were designed, changes were uploaded to the control system over the span of 45 minutes. Even

though the operator was aware of the rationalization process and that the changes were being made, he d id

not understand the ramifications of the changes. After the changes, the console was quiet, and he was very

concerned that something was wrong with the computer control system or that the changes made were too

radical. It took multiple shifts for him to become comfortable knowing that he would get an alarm for an

issue with enough time to respond. W ith such a culture shift, extra time for training should be expected.

Blunder #7: Cutting resource corners

Alarm rationalization is an intensive manpower effort that will yield great results when executed correctly.

This being said, facilities try to minimize costs by reducing the alarm rationalization team. If the correct

personnel are not in the room, then the determination of alarms will be incomplete. It is disturbingly common

for companies to exclude the most important resource f rom rationalization meetings: the operator.

Operators are the end user and the primary stakeholder in alarm optimization. And if the operator is

excluded from the rationalization process, the pro ject will fail. Instrument technicians, automation engineers,

process engineers, and field operators are not operators. It should be noted that the only person who can

be the operator is an experienced operator. This person f ights alarms and unit problems throughout the

day and across shifts. Their knowledge is very valuable during the rationalization process .

Alarm rationalization is the process of applying operational experience to alarm system design. Although

operators are the most important participants in this process, they cannot carry this burden alone. Without a

facilitator who is familiar with alarm rationalization, the rationalization project will take longer than it should,

yield poor results, and most likely have to be repeated.

Finally, alarm rationalization requires an engineering review prior to implementation. This is required to

ensure results are consistent with hazard and operability studies (HAZOP) and safety integrity level (SIL)

studies. The process, unit, or contact engineer owns this role.

Blunder #8: Incorporating alarm rationalization in incident investigations/HAZOPs/LOPAs

The biggest offender in creating nuisance alarms after rationalization is incident investigations, HAZOPs,

and layer of protection analyses (LOPAs). After investing time and effort in rationalizing the alarms, these

procedures are allowed to add alarms without proper rationalization because they have identified a safety

issue, loss of production, or an environmental excursion. Yet with all the right personnel in the room, at leasttwo topics have likely been covered: causes and consequences. However, it is also important to review

corrective action, time to respond, alarm setpoint, and severity. These topics will only add a few more

minutes and result in rationalized alarms. The solution is to modify the procedures for incident

investigations, HAZOPs, and LOPAs, and incorporate the alarm rationalization when an alarm is defined.

Blunder #9: Adding dynamic alarming too early

The advancement of dynamic alarm techniques has facilities believing that the solution to the alarm problem

is through dynamic alarming. It is easier to suppress alarms than to determine the cause and execute the

correction. Rationalization needs to be completed prior to applying dynamic alarming and, in most cases,

rationalization will resolve the alarming issue itself. Part of the rationalization process is to identify

opportunities for dynamic alarming. What needs to be considered is how to maintain the dynamic alarms

strategies, which are part of the system and will need to be evaluated when the control strategy or process

changes.

Blunder #10: Lack of accountabilityFailure to ass ign roles and responsibility is the mos t common and most deadly oversight in an alarm

management project. Advocate resolving this issue by encouraging accountability through visibility. In

other words, ensure everyone has access to each others project data, which encourages p lant personnel

to work together. There may be resistance to this, but the end result is improved plant operations. While it

may sound intense, such an approach is effec tive in practice.


4 06/09/2013 22:19


4/4

It is best to define maintenance tasks and assign responsibilities in the alarm philosophy document. This

must be done in a simple manner, both textually and in actual day-to-day practice, to ensure sustained

support of the idea. This will also give personnel an opportunity to participate in the system installation

and/or verification. They are more inclined to use the new technologies since they have ownership from

participating in the initial configuration.

An alarm management program can significantly improve plant safety, reliability, and profitability, but will only

succeed if deployed properly. By following the recommended life cycle methodology and avoiding common

mistakes, operators will have an effective and successful alarm management program that will undoubtedly

ensure plant personnel are more productive, making the plant and operations more reliable.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Kevin Brown ([email protected]), global alarm management best practices leader, Honeywell

Process So lutions, has 20 years of process control experience and has spent considerable time

developing control and safety systems to optimize and improve process reliability.

Post a Comment

Rahul2013-04-28 13:32:45

Do we have international standard alarm tones (For Fire detec tion,H2s Detection, Gas

Detaction, Temperature High/Low,etc...) ? If so please send the download link

Kent2013-04-26 10:43:12

My facility is under going a alarm rationalization effort right now. This was a timely light read

on some very good points. Thanks.

Related Files

Factory Automation rotate

All contents copyright of ISA 1995-2012 All rights reserved.

Find Local Sections | ISA Home | Report a Problem | Privacy & Legal Policies | Site Map | Help | Contact Us

ISA | 67 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 USA | (919) 549-8411


4 06/09/2013 22 19

factory automation_ top ten alarming blunders

Documents