Six Sigma Project Alarm Management

Six
Six Sigma
Sigma Project
Project
Alarm
Alarm Management
Management
Brent
BrentJ.J.Thomas
Thomas
2005-2006
1
Alarm Management Define Measure Analyze Improve Control
Define
Define Phase
Phase
2
Identification
Green Belt: Brent J. Thomas
Black Belt Advisors: Aimee S. Anani, Mark L. Olson
Plant / Location: Soda Springs, Idaho
Project Title: DCS Alarm Management

Champion / Management Sponsor: Paul H. Kraus
Plant Manager: Bruce E. Pallante
Accounting Contact: Helen K. Smith
Start Date: 11-01-04
Completion date: August 31, 2006
3
Process Description
Target Operation =
Normal Operation =
Upset Condition = DCS
Intervention
Alarm Boundaries:
Low =
Medium =
High =
Operator
Intervention
Interlocks and
emergency
procedures
4
Problem Description
•Too Many Alarms
•Alarms that don’t mean anything desensitize operators to real ones
•Too Many Alarms At Once

•Alarm floods allow no reaction time
•Too Many Alarms Have No Defined Response

•Operators sometimes have no way of reacting to an alarm
•Poor Alarming Practices Blamed For Several Incidents

•Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are examples
5
Soda Springs Alarm Management Team:

Human Resources Doug Beauregard Manufacturing, Team Lead
Aimee Anani p4 production
Brian Kemmerer Burden Prep
Monsanto Alarm Management Team:
Reggie Kuzet Maintenance
Matt Rollinson Luling, Team Lead
Brent Thomas Process Control
Mark Gamel Luling
Andrew Johnson Luling Soda Springs Alarm Rationalization Team:
Edward McGinnis Luling Aimee Anani p4 Production, Team Lead
Jack Ahlers Muscatine Troy Carver Furnace Operations Specialist
Kurt Schlawin Muscatine Matt Kirby Furnace ESH Representative
Andre Divino Sao Jose dos Campos Brock Sherman Furnace Process Engineer
Luiz Dourado Camacari Kenny Rasmussen Furnace Control Operator
Jose Neto Camacari Vaughn Mickleson Furnace Control Operator
David Mourino Zarate Rick Hendricks Furnace Control Operator
Johnny Ollivier Antwerp Aaron Tarbet Furnace Control Operator
Brent Thomas Soda Springs Brent Thomas Process Control
6
7
Conclusions of Cause and Effect Analysis

• We do a good job of selecting and maintaining instrumentation.
• Our methods were the root cause of the alarm system state – we
had no philosophy or guidelines for configuring alarms
Solution
1) Develop an Alarm Management Philosophy
2) Select alarm metrics
3) Assess present alarm system (Measure - Analyze phases of this project)
4) Reduce nuisance alarms (Analyze - Improve phases)
5) Rationalize alarms by need and priority (Improve phase)
6) Develop alarm configuration database (Improve – Control phases)
7) Implement knowledge-based alarming where appropriate
8
Project Planning
Steps in an Alarm Management Project
1) Develop an Alarm Management Philosophy
1) Every alarm will be rationalized by need and priority
2) Every audible alarm will have a defined response
3) Each response will have an appropriate response time
4) Alarm system metrics will be defined, measured, and reported
5) A continuous improvement process will monitor alarm system
performance, identify meaningful opportunities for
improvement and implement them
9
Project Planning
2) Select Alarm Metrics

Monsanto established a corporate wide initiative to improve alarm system
performance at all locations after an incident occurred that was partly due to a
poor alarm system design. A corporate alarm team was chartered which agreed on
a set of metrics. The Average Alarm Rate is used most in this project.
Average Alarm Rate: Average number of alarms per hour per day.
Operator Loading: Number of 10 minute periods per day with 10 or more alarms.
Also reporting:
Standing Alarms – alarms that exceed 24 hours in duration.
Alarms per console point count
Alarms per plant process area
10
Project Planning
Project Scope: The scope of this project will be limited to alarms
generated by the electronic Distributed Control Systems at Soda Springs. It
will not include hardwire panel alarms although those are addressed by the
Alarm Team. It will be limited to the #9 furnace area of the Soda Springs
process. #9 furnace was chosen because it is scheduled for conversion
from PRoVOX to DeltaV control in early 2006. DeltaV has a number of alarm
management tools that would facilitate the redesigned alarm management
process.
Customers: Internal: Paul Kraus, P4 Production process owner, furnace

operations, and furnace maintenance.
Customer CTQ: Alarms that are meaningful and help operators avoid
upsets that impact safety, quality, and production.
11
Measure
Measure Phase
Phase
12
Assessment
3) Assess present alarm system

First the present alarm management system needed to be upgraded. LogMate, from
TiPS, Inc., had been in use since 1992 but was little more than an event historian. It
was not compatible with DeltaV or the new DVOP (DeltaV Operate for PRoVOX)
consoles that were in development.
A new network-based version compatible with PRoVOX, DVOP, and DeltaV was
available. The new version also posessed considerable analysis capability and the
ability to document and manage the alarm configuration in the control system.
Resources from TiPS, Inc., the company that produces LogMate were used often
during the project. Training was conducted for the Alarm Management Steering
Team in March of 2005 and March of 2006. The product was upgraded three times
during the project to enable it to provide tools for the analysis, improvement, and
control phases. Some tools were added to LogMate by TiPS, Inc. at Monsanto’s
request.
13
Alarm Alarm
Generated
in PRoVOX
Measurement System Generated
in DeltaV
DVOP Console ASCII Capture Event_Journal

OPC Capture port
*.csv files port (Access database)
LogMATE Capture
TRAC - Data NetView – SOE

ACE – Bad Actors Alarm
Historian (sequence of
(80/20 Rule) Rationalization
Integration events)
TRAC – Key
Performance
indicators
PRoVOX and
Automated Alarm Alarm
DeltaV
Activity Reports – Knowledge
Email Notice configuration
Base
databases
14
Measurement System
15
Process Characterization
Furnace roof
pressure
5 of the 10 most common

events are network
integrity errors
16
Measurement System
17
Furnace roof
pressure
Duplicate point
18
Pareto Chart of Furnace 9 Alarms
4000
100
3000 80
More than half are
Percent
furnace roof pressure
Count
60
2000
Duplicate point 40
1000
20
0 0
Tags 1 7 4 5 er
- 5 0- 1 2-1 7- 6 6- 3 9-1 5- 3
36- 00- 66- 35- M 6 th
C 9 96 95 I9 35 C 9 S 97 S93 I9
5 4
I9 TI9
3 O
P I P I E I9 P E Z P L
T E
Count 1888 355 313 153 152 146 140 112 108 65 58 155
Percent 51.8 9.7 8.6 4.2 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.1 3.0 1.8 1.6 4.3
Cum % 51.8 61.5 70.1 74.3 78.5 82.5 86.3 89.4 92.4 94.2 95.7 100.0
19
furnace pressure A furnace pressure C
alarm (deviation) alarm (high)
pressure deviation of those 83, the high alarm

activated 83 times activated 61 times within 10
seconds
20
furnace pressure A
alarm (deviation)
duplicate point
furnace pressure C
alarm (high)
21
4000
100
3000 80
Percent
Count
roof pressure high and 60

2000
deviation alarms
separated 40
1000
20
0 0
Tags v h 7 4 5 5 1 1 6 3 1 3 r
. de .hig 00- 66- 35- 5M - 60- 72- 37- 56- 49- 35- the
1 6 5 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 O
3 6- 6- 1 T I9 PI9 EI I93 PC ES ZS PI LI TI
9 9 3 E
PC PC
Count 1083 795 355 313 153 152 146 140 112 108 65 58 155
Percent 30 22 10 9 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 4
Cum % 30 52 61 70 74 78 82 86 89 92 94 96 100
22
1800
1600 100
1400
80
1200
Percent
1000
Count
60
800 roof pressure
600 alarms removed 40
400 from data

20
200
0 0
Tags 7 4 -5 0-1 2-1 7- 6 6- 3 9- 1 5- 3 4- 1 A -1 er
0 0- 6 6- M 6 7 3 5 4 3 4 9th
5
I96 I95 I93 PC 9 ES 9 ZS 9 PI9 L I9 T I9 L I9 I95 O
T P E I
Count 355 313 152 146 140 112 108 65 58 54 51 50
Percent 22.1 19.5 9.5 9.1 8.7 7.0 6.7 4.1 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.1
Cum % 22.1 41.6 51.1 60.2 69.0 75.9 82.7 86.7 90.3 93.7 96.9 100.0
23
Analyze
Analyze Phase
Phase
24
Alarm Alarm
Generated
in PRoVOX Analysis System Generated
in DeltaV

OPC Capture port
LogMATE Capture

Integration events)
TRAC – Key
Performance
indicators
PRoVOX and
DeltaV
Base
databases
25
Process Capability
Summary for Furnace 9 Alarms
A nderson-Darling N ormality Test
A -S quared 2.04
P -V alue < 0.005
M ean 61.272
S tD ev 20.249
V ariance 410.024
S kew ness 0.049607
Kurtosis -0.235195
N 293
M inimum 13.194
1st Q uartile 49.306
M edian 59.028
15 30 45 60 75 90
3rd Q uartile 74.306
M aximum 100.000
95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean
58.944 63.600
95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian
56.944 61.806
9 5 % C onfidence Inter vals
95% C onfidence Interv al for S tD ev
Mean 18.732 22.036
Median
56 58 60 62 64
Project: Alarm-management-04.MPJ; Worksheet: Worksheet 1; 6/5/2006
26
Process Capability
Autocorrelation Function for Furnace 9 Alarms
(with 5% significance limits for the autocorrelations)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
Autocorrelation
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Lag
27
Process Capability
Time Series Plot of Furnace 9 Alarms
100
90
80
70
%periods
60
50
40
30
20
10
1 29 58 87 116 145 174 203 232 261 290
Index
Project: Untitled; Worksheet: Worksheet 1; 6/5/2006
28
Process Capability
I-MR Chart of Frunace 9 Alarms
11111111 1 1 1 11 11 1 11 1
1 1 11 11 11
1 1 1
1
11 1 1 111 11 1 11 1
90 1 1
UCL=84.28
Individual Value
_
60 X=61.27
LCL=38.26
30 111 11111 1
1 111 1
11 1 11 1
11 11 111 11
1 1 1 1
1 30 59 88 117 146 175 204 233 262 291
Observation
1
1
45 1
1 111
1 1
Moving Range
1 1 11
1
30 UCL=28.27
15
__
MR=8.65
0 LCL=0
1 30 59 88 117 146 175 204 233 262 291

Observation
Project: Alarm-management-04.MPJ; Worksheet: Worksheet 1; 6/5/2006
29
Process Capability
Process Capability of Furnace 9 Alarms
USL
P rocess Data Within
LS L 0 Ov erall
Target *
USL 71 P otential (Within) C apability
S ample M ean 61.2723 Cp 1.54
S ample N 293 C P L 2.66
S tD ev (Within) 7.67023 C P U 0.42
S tD ev (O v erall) 20.2664 C pk 0.42
O v erall C apability
Pp 0.58
PPL 1.01
PPU 0.16
P pk 0.16
C pm *
15 30 45 60 75 90 105
O bserv ed P erformance E xp. Within P erformance E xp. O v erall P erformance
% < LS L 0.00 % < LS L 0.00 % < LS L 0.12
% > U S L 27.99 % > U S L 10.24 % > U S L 31.56
% Total 27.99 % Total 10.24 % Total 31.69
30
Alarm Management Definition Measure Analysis Improve Control
Improve
Improve Phase
Phase
31
Alarm Alarm
Generated
in PRoVOX
Improvement System Generated
in DeltaV

OPC Capture port
LogMATE Capture

Integration events)
TRAC – Key
Performance
indicators
PRoVOX and
DeltaV
Base
databases
32
Rationalization Step 1
Soda Springs Alarm Rationalization Team:

Aimee Anani Furnace Process Engineer, Team Lead
Troy Carver Furnace Operations Specialist
Matt Kirby South Area Compliance Representative
Brock Sherman Furnace Process Engineer
Kenny Rasmussen Furnace Control Operator
Ray Shurtz Furnace Control Operator
Rick Hendricks Furnace Control Operator
Aaron Tarbet Furnace Control Operator
Brent Thomas Process Control Engineer, MT
33
Rationalization Process
Implement changes in control system,

alarm database, and alarm catalog
Y
Identify top MOC

Review with Submit MOC
ten worst approved
Rationalization Team for changes ?
alarms
34
Improvements
12000 86% reduction in

integrity errors
10000
61% reduction in
8000 audible alarms
March-06
6000
August-06
4000
2000
0
Integrity Errors Audible Alarms
35
Process Capability of March Integrity Errors
USL
LS L
Target
*
52
Ov erall Improvements
S ample M ean 124.78 Cp *
S ample N 82 C PL *
S tDev (Within) 92.1329 C P U 0.42 Data from March, 2006 compared
S tDev (O v erall) 210.64 C pk 0.42
to data from August, 2006
Pp *
PPL *
PPU 0.18
P pk 0.18
C pm 0.28
Process Capability of August Integrity Errors

0 120 240 360 480 600
O bserv ed P erformance E xp. Within P erformance E xp. O v erall P erformance USL
% < LS L * % < LS L * % < LS L * P rocess Data Within
% > U S L 18.29 % > U S L 10.55 % > U S L 29.22 LS L * Ov erall
% Total 18.29 % Total 10.55 % Total 29.22 Target 52
S ample N 82 C PL *
S tDev (Within) 5.63655 C P U 13.22
S tDev (O v erall) 8.47927 Scaled to C pk 13.22
1/10 Pp *
PPL *
PPU 8.79
P pk 8.79
C pm 1.70
0 120 240 360 480 600

% < LS L * % < LS L * % < LS L *
% > U S L 0.00 % > U S L 0.00 % > U S L 0.00
36
Process Capability of March Alarms
USL
LS L
Target
*
*
Ov erall Improvements
S ample N 82 C PL *
S tDev (Within) 13.3635 C P U 0.42 Alarm activations in March, 2006
compared to August, 2006
Pp *
PPL *
PPU 0.33
P pk 0.33
C pm *
Process Capability of August Alarms

0 20 40 60 80 100
O bserv ed P erformance E xp. Within P erformance E xp. O v erall P erformance USL
% < LS L * % < LS L * % < LS L * P rocess Data Within
% > U S L 14.63 % > U S L 10.33 % > U S L 16.46 LS L * Ov erall
% Total 14.63 % Total 10.33 % Total 16.46 Target *
S ample N 82 C PL *
S tDev (Within) 7.33298 C P U 1.55
Pp *
PPL *
PPU 1.20
P pk 1.20
C pm *
0 20 40 60 80 100
% < LS L * % < LS L * % < LS L *
% > U S L 0.00 % > U S L 0.00 % > U S L 0.02
37
Confidence of Improvement
No question that the

network integrity errors
were reduced
No question that
audible alarms are
fewer
38
Confidence of Improvement
Integrity
Errors
Audible
Alarms
39
Definition Measure Analysis Improve Control
Control
Control Phase
Phase
40
Alarm Alarm
Generated
in PRoVOX
Control System Generated
in DeltaV

OPC Capture port
LogMATE Capture

Integration events)
TRAC – Key
Performance
indicators
PRoVOX and
DeltaV
Base
databases
41
Control Plan
•Long term control will be achieved by the following:

•Comprehensive alarm philosophy (completed by AMST)
•Established alarm knowledge base

•Configuration for DCS alarms and locations and access of hardwired alarms (done)
•Automatic nightly update from DeltaV (done)
•MOC approval system (done)
•Defined action for each audible alarm (AMST work in progress)
•Assigned responsibility for action required:

•The CIM Group will be responsible for maintaining the tools
•Engineering and manufacturing will ensure adherence to policies and

philosophy
42
43
44
45
Project Title: DCS Alarm Management

Plant / Location: Soda Springs, Idaho
Presently implementing the same improvements for 7 and 8

furnaces and working on additional improvements for all three.
Project to be completed August 31, 2007
Burden prep will be addressed when furnaces are complete
Questions?
46

Six Sigma Project Alarm Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Six Sigma Project Alarm Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Six

Project Title: DCS Alarm Management

Completion date: August 31, 2006

•Too Many Alarms At Once

•Too Many Alarms Have No Defined Response

•Poor Alarming Practices Blamed For Several Incidents

Soda Springs Alarm Management Team:

Conclusions of Cause and Effect Analysis

2) Select Alarm Metrics

Customers: Internal: Paul Kraus, P4 Production process owner, furnace

3) Assess present alarm system

DVOP Console ASCII Capture Event_Journal

TRAC - Data NetView – SOE

5 of the 10 most common

pressure deviation of those 83, the high alarm

roof pressure high and 60

400 from data

DVOP Console ASCII Capture Event_Journal

TRAC - Data NetView – SOE

Project: Alarm-management-04.MPJ; Worksheet: Worksheet 1; 6/5/2006

Time Series Plot of Furnace 9 Alarms

1 30 59 88 117 146 175 204 233 262 291

Project: Alarm-management-04.MPJ; Worksheet: Worksheet 1; 6/5/2006

DVOP Console ASCII Capture Event_Journal

TRAC - Data NetView – SOE

Soda Springs Alarm Rationalization Team:

Implement changes in control system,

Identify top MOC

12000 86% reduction in

Process Capability of March Integrity Errors

Process Capability of August Integrity Errors

0 120 240 360 480 600

Process Capability of March Alarms

Process Capability of August Alarms

No question that the

DVOP Console ASCII Capture Event_Journal

TRAC - Data NetView – SOE

•Long term control will be achieved by the following:

•Established alarm knowledge base

•Automatic nightly update from DeltaV (done)

•MOC approval system (done)

•Defined action for each audible alarm (AMST work in progress)

•Assigned responsibility for action required:

•Engineering and manufacturing will ensure adherence to policies and

Project Title: DCS Alarm Management

Presently implementing the same improvements for 7 and 8

Burden prep will be addressed when furnaces are complete

You might also like