Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abnormal
Situation
Management
Defining the way things
will be.
The birth of ASM...
Lost Revenue
Loss
Fixed Costs
Additional Shutdown (Idl ePlant)
Efficiency
unplanned costs
Accident Equipment
Plant Performance damage, etc.
Losses due to
Savings fromreducing the comfort
incidents, accidents
margin
(about 10% of
operating costs)
A Look At Plant Operations
A typical Production
Profile for an Asset 95 days
Intensive Facility for a
calendar year. 79 days
62 days
47 days
23 days
30 days
Days per Year
16 days
8 days
5 days
Production
Plant Incidents
Days per Year
Effectiveness
Asset Utilization
Plant Capacity Limit
Agility/Flexibility
Frequency Frequency
# Days
# Days
1
1
2
2
3
0
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
15
20
100
150
200
250
300
0
5
5
50
0
10
12
14
16
18
0
0
2
4
6
8
0
280
280 112
457
290
290
115
300 463
300
310 118
310 468
320
320
121
474
330
330
340 124
480
340
350
350 127
486
360
360
130
370 492
370
3.2%
380 133
380 497
$33.5 M
390
2
390
136
503
σ
400
2
400
4.2
410 139
509
410
M
420
420 142
515
24.2M
5.8%
430
5.8%
430
145
520
440
F
ee
440
d
H
is
t
R
at
o
e
g
r
$38.5 M
450 148
a
526
Productionrate
450
m
Histogram
460
Rate
Rate
460
Total Feed
151 532
Total Feed
470
470
154
480 538
1
480
σ
490
490 157 543
500
500
160
549
510
510
520 163 555
520
530
530 166 561
540
540
169 567
550
550
560
172 572
560
570
570 174 578
580
580
590 177 584
590
600
600 180 590
1
503
610
610
183 595
620
620
Real Life Examples
$38.5M!
capacity!
incidents!
5.8% in lost
lost $33.5M!
And this plant
This plant had
This plant had
DCS/APC/
Asset Management Optimization efforts
Reliability & CMMS
Plant Capacity Limit
lost capacity!
Days per Year
About 2-1/2 hours later, the debutanizer vented to the flare a third time AND
CONTINUED VENTING FOR 36 MINUTES. The high level alarm for the flare
drum was activated at this time. But with alarms going off every 2 to 3 seconds,
there appears to be no evidence that that alarm was ever seen. By this time, the flare
KO drum had filled with liquid well beyond its design capacity. The fast-flowing gas
through the overfilled drum forced liquid out of the drum’s discharge pipe. The
discharge line was not designed for liquid, so the force of the liquid caused a rupture
at an elbow. This released over 20 tons of highly flammable hydrocarbon.
continued
Organization Individual
Stylistic or Cultural General Failure Poor workplace Near miss
Indicators Types design Auditing
Top Down: Accidents High workload
Unsociable hours Du Pont
Commitment Incidents
Inadequate Training
Competence Near-Misses training Workspace
Cognizance 1-10 hit list Poor perception
Motivation
data collected & of hazards
Proactive Design Attitude
analyzed Alarms
SI Projects Human Factors
Safety Information System
Control room Group Factors
Diagnostic and
Best Practices design Working Practice
remedial measures
Various cost elements
Theoretical Limit
Future upgrades (e.g., Theoreticallypossible; currently unsustainable
Advanced Control) Current Li mit
Comfort Margin
Lost opportunity Operating Target
(Cost of comfort)
Profit
Lost Profit
Incident Break-even
Lost Revenue
Loss
Fixed Costs
Additional Shutdown (Idl ePlant)
Efficiency
unplanned costs
Accident Equipment
Plant Performance damage, etc.
Losses due to
Savings fromreducing the comfort
incidents, accidents
margin
(about 10% of
operating costs)
Managing Abnormal Situations
Anatomy of a Disaster from Operations Perspective
250
Unexpected Upsets Cost 3-8% of Capacity 3.2%
Histogram
5.8%
Frequency
200
150
100
50
0 H
is
tog
ram
115
118
124
127
142
145
148
154
163
172
174
112
121
130
133
136
139
151
157
160
166
169
177
180
183
1
503
3
00
2
00
$
24.2
M
1
50
1
00
5
0 503
515
457
463
468
474
480
486
492
497
509
520
526
532
538
543
549
555
561
567
572
578
584
590
595
0
F
ee
dRa
te
Total Feed
18
16
14
12
10 $38.5 M
# Days
420
490
560
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
360
370
380
390
400
410
430
440
450
460
470
480
500
510
520
530
540
550
570
580
590
600
610
620
Total Feed
20 Rate
Planning Constraints
15
$33.5 M
# Days
10
0
280
350
360
370
390
400
470
480
550
560
590
600
290
300
310
320
330
340
380
410
420
430
440
450
460
490
500
510
520
530
540
570
580
610
620
Operational Constraints
Rate
Optimization efforts
t
System internal Time for Time for reaction of the Process
diagnostic time corrective action on the corrective action
Risk reduction achieved by all SRSs & External Risk Reduction Facilities
SAFETY INTEGRITY LEVELS
Limit at which
Time for operator B protection operates
to respond to alarm
and correct fault Abnormal Operating Region
Alarm Setting
A
Limit of largest normal
operational fluctuation
EMMUA Alarm Systems Guide page 17
120 Explosion
Lower Explosive Limit (LEL)
Gas Concentration (Percentage of LEL)
100
Actual Gas
Concentration
80
Actual trip point
Normal
60 operating Level Error Measured Gas
Set trip point Concentration
Gas concentration
prior to fault
40
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time after onset of fault (Seconds)
Redesign Choices
• Redesign - the plant or its controls to provide greater margin between the normal
operating limits & the trip limits. This is the most desirable solution but is often
impractical or too expensive;
• Setting within normal operating limits - setting the alam within the limits of normal
operating fluctuations & accepting that spurious alarms will occur during large normal
disturbances. This is ergonomically very undesirable and will tend to increase alarm rates
and reduce the operator confidence in the alarm system. In effect it increases the Average
Probability of Failure on Demand (PFDavg ) for the alarm system as a whole;
• setting nearer trip limits - setting the alarm closer to the trip limits and accepting that some
fast transients will not be corrected by the operator before they reach the trip level. This
will increase the production losses due to plant trips, & because there are more demands
on the protection system, tend to make the plant less safe. It also implies an increase
PFDavg for the alarm system.
Potential
Impact
of
Initiating
Abrupt/Catastrophic
Event
Manageable
Insidious
Time
Impact of DCS Alarm System
Awareness of Disturbances
With typical alarm systems,
orienting begins after an event Incident
creates an abnormal plant state.
The extent of the problem can
impact operator’s ability to be fully
aware of the locations of process
Potential disturbances.
Impact As disturbances propagate the
number of conditions to be aware of
of increases as well as the response
Initiating requirements and the likelihood of
missing important information.
Event Failure is
Detected
Safe status of the
Process assured
Failure Occurrence in the
Process or in the Safeguarding System Time
Time
• Increases likelihood of
awareness of disturbances
Potential • Reduces time to awareness
• Hence, reduces the average
Impact impact of initiating events
of
Initiating
Event
Time
UN-SAFE
Incident
Trip SAFE
Emergency Alarm Loss
Impact
of
Initiating Quality
Event High Alarm
Operator
diagnostic time
Profit
Time FTT
Process Safety Time
Trip from SIS Emergency High FTT= Fault Tolerance Time
No response
Incorrect
Potential
Impact
of
Initiating
Event Suboptimal
Best
Time
Impact of Decision Support System
Support for Optimal Response
• Reduces errors
• Decreases time to implement
response
Potential • Manages side effects
• Increases awareness
Impact
of
Initiating
Event
Time
ASM Alarm Management Solutions
Education for Management, Engineers, Technicians
and Operators.
Collect
Collect Data
Data
Change
Change
Management
Management Analyze
Analyze
Develop Plant
Alarm Management
Standards & Philosophy
Identify
Identify
Implement
Implement Enhancements
Enhancements
Verify
Verify Against
Against
Standards
Standards
Alarm Management Optimization
Alarm Management Before - 30 Points Account for ~ 85 %
of All Alarms
• Increase the effectiveness of the existing 100
K