This disclosure relates generally to autonomous operating industrial plants. More specifically, this disclosure relates to systems and methods for accurate automatic determination of “alarm-operator action” linkage for operator assessment and alarm guidance using custom graphics and control charts.
Effective process alarm analysis and identification of corrective action sequences is important for efficient manual and autonomous operation of an industrial plant. Alarms often re-occur on the same device tag or, at times, groups of devices go into alarm state together. The operator actions to resolve the process alarms can be assessed from the system data to identify the competency gaps and guide the operators to resolve alarms faster and better.
This disclosure provides systems and methods for accurate automatic determination of “alarm-operator action” linkage for operator assessment and alarm guidance using custom graphics and control charts.
In a first embodiment, an apparatus provides for accurate automatic determination of alarm-operator action linkage for operator assessment and alarm guidance using custom graphics and control charts. The apparatus includes a memory and a processor operably connected to the memory. The processor receives process control system data regarding a field device in an industrial process control and automation system; extracts information from the process control system data; generates a tuple based on the extracted information; and performs a rectifying operation in the industrial process control and automation system based on the generated tuple of the field device.
In a second embodiment, a method provides for accurate automatic determination of alarm-operator action linkage for operator assessment and alarm guidance using custom graphics and control charts. The method includes receiving process control system data regarding a field device in an industrial process control and automation system; extracting information from the process control system data; generating a tuple based on the extracted information; and performing a rectifying operation in the industrial process control and automation system based on the generated tuple of the field device.
In a third embodiment, a non-transitory medium provides for accurate automatic determination of alarm-operator action linkage for operator assessment and alarm guidance using custom graphics and control charts. The instructions cause one or more processors to receive process control system data regarding a field device in an industrial process control and automation system; extract information from the process control system data; generate a tuple based on the extracted information; and perform a rectifying operation in the industrial process control and automation system based on the generated tuple of the field device.
Other technical features may be readily apparent to one skilled in the art from the following figures, descriptions, and claims.
For a more complete understanding of this disclosure, reference is now made to the following description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:
In
At least one network 104 is coupled to the sensors 102a and actuators 102b. The network 104 facilitates interaction with the sensors 102a and actuators 102b. For example, the network 104 could transport measurement data from the sensors 102a and provide control signals to the actuators 102b. The network 104 could represent any suitable network or combination of networks. As particular examples, the network 104 could represent at least one Ethernet network, electrical signal network (such as a HART or FOUNDATION FIELDBUS network), pneumatic control signal network, or any other or additional type(s) of network(s).
The system 100 also includes various controllers 106. The controllers 106 can be used in the system 100 to perform various functions in order to control one or more industrial processes. For example, a first set of controllers 106 may use measurements from one or more sensors 102a to control the operation of one or more actuators 102b. A second set of controllers 106 could be used to optimize the control logic or other operations performed by the first set of controllers. A third set of controllers 106 could be used to perform additional functions.
Controllers 106 are often arranged hierarchically in a system. For example, different controllers 106 could be used to control individual actuators, collections of actuators forming machines, collections of machines forming units, collections of units forming plants, and collections of plants forming an enterprise. A particular example of a hierarchical arrangement of controllers 106 is defined as the “Purdue” model of process control. The controllers 106 in different hierarchical levels can communicate via one or more networks 108 and associated switches, firewalls, and other components.
Each controller 106 includes any suitable structure for controlling one or more aspects of an industrial process. At least some of the controllers 106 could, for example, represent proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controllers or multivariable controllers, such as Robust Multivariable Predictive Control Technology (RMPCT) controllers or other types of controllers implementing model predictive control or other advanced predictive control. As a particular example, each controller 106 could represent a computing device running a real-time operating system, a WINDOWS operating system, or other operating system.
Operator access to and interaction with the controllers 106 and other components of the system 100 can occur via various operator consoles 110. Each operator console 110 could be used to provide information to an operator and receive information from an operator. For example, each operator console 110 could provide information identifying a current state of an industrial process to the operator, such as values of various process variables and warnings, alarms, or other states associated with the industrial process. Each operator console 110 could also receive information affecting how the industrial process is controlled, such as by receiving setpoints or control modes for process variables controlled by the controllers 106 or other information that alters or affects how the controllers 106 control the industrial process.
Multiple operator consoles 110 can be grouped together and used in one or more control rooms 112. Each control room 112 could include any number of operator consoles 110 in any suitable arrangement. In some embodiments, multiple control rooms 112 can be used to control an industrial plant, such as when each control room 112 contains operator consoles 110 used to manage a discrete part of the industrial plant.
Each operator console 110 includes any suitable structure for displaying information to and interacting with an operator. For example, each operator console 110 could include one or more processing devices 114, such as one or more processors, microprocessors, microcontrollers, field programmable gate arrays, application specific integrated circuits, discrete logic devices, or other processing or control devices. Each operator console 110 could also include one or more memories 116 storing instructions and data used, generated, or collected by the processing device(s) 114. Each operator console 110 could further include one or more network interfaces 118 that facilitate communication over at least one wired or wireless network, such as one or more Ethernet interfaces or wireless transceivers.
In accordance with this disclosure, a technique is provided for accurate automatic determination of “alarm-operator action” linkage for operator assessment and alarm guidance using custom graphics and control charts. One or more components of the system 100 (e.g., an operator console 112) could be configured to perform one or more operations associated with this technique.
Although
As shown in
The memory 210 and a persistent storage 212 are examples of storage devices 204, which represent any structure(s) configured to store and facilitate retrieval of information (such as data, program code, and/or other suitable information on a temporary or permanent basis). The memory 210 may represent a random access memory or any other suitable volatile or non-volatile storage device(s). The persistent storage 212 may contain one or more components or devices supporting longer-term storage of data, such as a read-only memory, hard drive, Flash memory, or optical disc.
The communications unit 206 supports communications with other systems or devices. For example, the communications unit 206 could include at least one network interface card or wireless transceiver facilitating communications over at least one wired or wireless network. The communications unit 206 may support communications through any suitable physical or wireless communication link(s).
The I/O unit 208 allows for input and output of data. For example, the I/O unit 208 may provide a connection for user input through a keyboard, mouse, keypad, touchscreen, or other suitable input device. The I/O unit 208 may also send output to a display, printer, or other suitable output device.
In operation 305, the computing device 200 determines the events data 410 from the events data source 405. The events data 410 includes process alarms, alarm priority, process changes, process message, system alarms, time stamps, etc.
In operation 310, the computing device 200 calculates a first level event-action obtained using a predictability and significance. The information 415 extracted from the events data includes determining operators availability to respond, or operational constraints based on alarm priority, alarm grouping, and alarm-operator action linkage.
In operation 315, the computing device 200 performs event-action linkage. The data structure contains events and action sequences that are statistically likely to follow the event. One event may have multiple distinct sets of action sequences. The linkage is organized based on process context, i.e., shutdown/startup, grade change, abnormal condition, cyclically anticipated & planned activities. The use of the information extracted from the events data includes enabling context of event identification at a first level model and provides first level “alarm-operator response” linkage.
In operation 320, the computing device 200 determines the graphics data 425 from the graphics data source 420. The graphics data 420 includes a process tag, secondary process tag, upstream data and downstream data, process connection and control connection, device type, and graphic object type.
In operation 325, the computing device 200 derives asset group, control and process relationships. Graphics data is parsed to identify tags that are interdependent, independent and dependent in relation to other tags. A linkage type between tags is included—control linkage or process linkage. This linkage detail is added to the event—action linkage. Graphics data is used to validate the event—action linkage found using statistics. The manipulated variable-to-process variable relationship from the history data is also used in deriving the process relationship. Linkages that do not match are flagged for further investigation. The information 430 extracted from the graphics data includes interdependent, independent and dependent sequences of variables for each model representing a subsystem.
In operation 330, the computing device 200 tags linkages or process trees for each subsystem. This is a data structure containing events and action sequences based on linkage type. Linkages are organized based on subsystem and plant context to form process trees. The uses of the information extracted from the graphics data includes improving computational efficiency, providing process relationships, improving accuracy of control relationship, and improving the process context accuracy and enables “process context-alarm-operator action” linkage.
In operation 335, the computing device 200 determines the configuration data 440 from the configuration data source 435. The configuration data 440 includes a process tag, input connection, output connection, algorithm type, description, asset (grouping), parameter name, data type, parameter value, dynamic alarm suppression.
In operation 340, the computing device 200 derives operating limits and alarm grouping. The computing device 200 parses the configuration data 420 to group tags and action sequence by assets. Magnitude of the actions and values of the tags are validated with the operating limits specified in the configuration data. Control configuration is also used to derive the alarm grouping based on the dynamic alarm suppression configuration. The information 445 extracted from the configuration data includes control relationships, operating limits for model parameters, asset grouping, parameter types (numeric, enumeration, Boolean), and alarm grouping or process connection based on “dynamic alarm suppression.”
In operation 345, the computing device 200 determines the logical tag groups. This is a data structure containing sets of logical tag groups. This data enables further event definition & analysis. The uses of the information extracted from the configuration data include improving the accuracy of the analytics model and enable identification of the process context.
In operation 350, the computing device 200 determines process historian data 455 from a process historian data source 450. The process historian data 455 includes configuration of sampling intervals and history process variables (PV)/operating parameters (OP) data.
In operation 355, the computing device 200 calculates the mathematical models. Logical tag groups and process historian data for those tags are used with methods of system identification to form mathematical models. The information 460 extracted from the process historian data includes critical loops; deviation from operating limits, cost impact due to deviation from operating loops.
In operation 360, the computing device 200 determines the behavior of PV based on OP change. This is a data structure containing sets of logical tag groups and changes in tag values resulting from sequences of actions. The use of the information extracted from the process historian data includes providing manipulated variables to process variables relationships.
In operation 365, the computing device 200 organizes the results. This is a data structure containing accurate 3-tuples of: process context—event—sequence of corrective action. Each tuple is a benchmark set of corrective actions to respond to an event in a specific process context.
In operation 370, the computing device 200 determines accurate 3-tuples of process context, event, sequence of corrective action. Accurate tuples enable the effective implementation of the following objectives (1) training simulator for process operations, (2) prescriptive and optimal guidance for corrective action sequences, (3) platform for autonomous operation.
In operation 505, the computing device 200 receives process control system data regarding a field device in an industrial process control and automation system. The process control system data can include events data, configuration data, graphic data, and process historian data.
In operation 510, the computing device 200 extracts information from the process control system data. For events data, the extracted information can includes process alarms, alarm priorities, process changes, process messages, system alarms, time stamps, etc. For configuration data, the extracted information can include input connections, output connections, algorithm types, descriptions, asset (grouping), parameter names, data types, parameter values, dynamic alarm suppression, etc. For graphic data, the extracted information can include secondary process tags, upstreams, downstreams, process connections, control connections, device types, graphic object types, etc. For process historian data, the extracted information can include configurations of sampling intervals, history of process variables, operating process data, etc.
In operation 515, the computing device 200 generates a tuple based on the extracted information. The tuple is generated to connect the process context, the event occurrence, and a sequence of corrective actions. The process context includes relationships between variables and effects on the automation system. The events are typical actions that occur based on the operating of the process controls. The sequence of corrective actions are the typical rectifying operations to correct the events that are disrupting the system.
In operation 520, the computing device 200 performs a rectifying operation in the industrial process control and automation system based on the generated tuple of the field device.
Although
It may be advantageous to set forth definitions of certain words and phrases used throughout this patent document. The terms “transmit,” “receive,” and “communicate,” as well as derivatives thereof, encompasses both direct and indirect communication. The terms “include” and “comprise,” as well as derivatives thereof, mean inclusion without limitation. The term “or” is inclusive, meaning and/or. The phrase “associated with,” as well as derivatives thereof, may mean to include, be included within, interconnect with, contain, be contained within, connect to or with, couple to or with, be communicable with, cooperate with, interleave, juxtapose, be proximate to, be bound to or with, have, have a property of, have a relationship to or with, or the like. The phrase “at least one of,” when used with a list of items, means that different combinations of one or more of the listed items may be used, and only one item in the list may be needed. For example, “at least one of: A, B, and C” includes any of the following combinations: A, B, C, A and B, A and C, B and C, and A and B and C.
While this disclosure has described certain embodiments and generally associated methods, alterations and permutations of these embodiments and methods will be apparent to those skilled in the art. Accordingly, the above description of example embodiments does not define or constrain this disclosure. Other changes, substitutions, and alterations are also possible without departing from the spirit and scope of this disclosure, as defined by the following claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5255354 | Mahoney | Oct 1993 | A |
5287390 | Scarola et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5347449 | Meyer | Sep 1994 | A |
5353315 | Scarola et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5404411 | Banton et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5568568 | Takizawa et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5581242 | Arita et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5617311 | Easter et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5768119 | Havekost et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5821440 | Khater et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
6088483 | Nakano et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6134690 | Ivaturi | Oct 2000 | A |
6308141 | Saito et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6356282 | Roytman et al. | Mar 2002 | B2 |
6437812 | Giles et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6462652 | McCuen et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6535122 | Bristol | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6690274 | Bristol | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6774786 | Havekost et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6845336 | Kodukula et al. | Jan 2005 | B2 |
7000193 | Impink, Jr. et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7151854 | Shen et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7250856 | Havekost et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7352279 | Yu et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7388482 | Dousson et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7428300 | Drew et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7496591 | Mets et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7502519 | Eichhorn et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7593780 | Mann et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7653238 | Stentiford | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7679504 | Wang et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7920935 | Knipfer et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
7945817 | Usery et al. | May 2011 | B1 |
7961087 | Hoveida | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8229579 | Eldridge et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8447076 | Yamamoto et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8516383 | Bryant et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8629877 | Bakalash et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
9256472 | Kakade et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9342859 | Ayanam et al. | May 2016 | B2 |
9547291 | Tran et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9551986 | Lo | Jan 2017 | B2 |
20010019328 | Schwuttke et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20020012011 | Roytman et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020022894 | Eryurek et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020055790 | Havekost | May 2002 | A1 |
20020085020 | Carroll | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099786 | Chun | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020101431 | Forney | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020154009 | McCuen et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020174083 | Hellerstein et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020186261 | Giles et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20040176926 | Edie et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20050012608 | Havekost et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050062598 | Akamatsu et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050197806 | Eryurek et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050235356 | Wang | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050248781 | Tin | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060106797 | Srinivasa et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060168013 | Wilson | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20070008099 | Kimmel et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070033632 | Baynger et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070142934 | Boercsoek et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070194920 | Hollifield | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070211079 | Nixon et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070268122 | Kow et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080104003 | Macharia | May 2008 | A1 |
20080165151 | Lemay et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080189637 | Krajewski et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080189638 | Mody et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080300698 | Havekost et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090006903 | Devitt et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090109860 | Cinato et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090153528 | Orr | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090299827 | Puri et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100156654 | Bullemer et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100289638 | Borchers et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110166912 | Susumago | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20120188592 | Handley et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20130002697 | Ashley et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20140277612 | Justin et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140335480 | Asenjo et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140349255 | Watt et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20140364969 | Timsjo | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150105876 | Tran et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150105893 | Tran et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150149134 | Mehta et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150220080 | Nixon | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150254957 | Wilson et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150277404 | Maturana et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150338836 | Law | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20160155309 | Watson et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160300027 | Jensen et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20180157641 | Byron | Jun 2018 | A1 |
20180322770 | Srinivasan et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
105512425 | Apr 2016 | CN |
0156343 | Oct 1985 | EP |
0717866 | Nov 1997 | EP |
0959398 | Nov 1999 | EP |
0906629 | Feb 2003 | EP |
2275564 | Aug 1994 | GB |
2372365 | Aug 2002 | GB |
2395831 | Jun 2004 | GB |
2412449 | Sep 2005 | GB |
2419723 | May 2006 | GB |
2426355 | Nov 2006 | GB |
6242169 | Sep 1994 | JP |
2004192543 | Jul 2004 | JP |
10-2010-0043507 | Apr 2010 | KR |
3001343 | Jan 2003 | WO |
3023711 | Mar 2003 | WO |
2005067403 | Jul 2005 | WO |
2005109126 | Nov 2005 | WO |
2006000110 | Jan 2006 | WO |
2006058090 | Jun 2006 | WO |
2013003165 | Jan 2013 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Litt, “Steve Litt's PERLs of Wisdom: PERL Regular Expressions (With Snippets)”, 2003, 8 pages. |
Klemettinen et al., “Interactive exploration of interesting findings in the Telecommunication Network Alarm Sequence Analyzer TASA”, Information and Software Technology 41, 1999, 11 pages. |
Klemettinen et al., “Rule Discovery in Telecommunication Alarm Data”, Journal of Network and Systems Management, vol. 7, No. 4, 1999, 29 pages. |
De Amo et al., “First-Order Temporal Pattern Mining with Regular Expression Constraints”, Data & Knowledge Engineering, vol. 62, 2007, 15 pages. |
Zheng et al., “Intelligent Search of Correlated Alarms for GSM Networks with Model-based Constraints”, 2002, 8 pages. |
Stanton et al., “Alarm-initiated activities: an analysis of alarm handling by operators using text-based alarm systems in supervisory control systems”, Ergonomics, vol. 38, No. 11, 1995, 18 pages. |
Kvalem et al., “The Simulator-Based Halden Man-Machine Laboratory (HAMMLAB) and its Application in Human Factor Studies”, OECD Halden Reactor Project, Institute for Energy Technology, Norway, 2000, 7 pages. |
“Experion Operator's Guide”, EP-DSXX44, Release 300, Honeywell International Inc., Jun. 2006, 183 pages. |
Gordon et al., “Alarm Presentation System”, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, 2007, 23 pages. |
Errington et al., “ASM Consortium Guidelines, Effective Alarm Management Practices”, Version 5.02, May 2007, 130 pages. |
Bullemer et al., “ASM Consortium Technical Report, Addressing Alarm Flood Situations: Stage 2 Experimental Design”, Version 1.02, Jan. 2008, 51 pages. |
Bullemer et al., “ASM Consortium Technical Report, Addressing Alarm Flood Situations: Operator Interface Design Considerations”, Version 1.00, May 2007, 31 pages. |
Bullemer et al., “ASM Consortium Guidelines, Effective Operations Practices”, Version 5.00, May 2008, 128 pages. |
Brown et al., “Advanced Alarm Systems: Revision of Guidance and Its Technical Basis”, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Nov. 2000, 132 pages. |
Bristol, “Improved process control alarm operation”, ISA Transactions 40, 2001, 15 pages. |
Tuszynski et al., “A Pilot Project on Alarm Reduction and Presentation Based on Multilevel Flow Models”, Proceedings of the Enlarged Halden Programme Group Meeting, 2002, 12 pages. |
“ASM Consortium QRM, Alarm Trend Development Update”, Honeywell International Inc., Jun. 2010, 20 pages. |
Mannila et al., “Discovery of Frequent Episodes in Event Sequences”, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 1, 1997, 31 pages. |
Haigh et al., “Machine Learning for Alarm System Performance Analysis”, ASM Consortium, 2000, 4 pages. |
Hollifield et al., “The Alarm Management Handbook, A Comprehensive Guide”, 2006, 11 pages. |
Colombe et al., “Statistical Profiling and Visualization for Detection of Malicious Insider Attacks on Computer Networks”, Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Workshop on Visualization and Data Mining for Computer Security, Oct. 2004, 5 pages. |
Frost et al., “Analyzing Alarm and Trend Data”, Schneider Electric, Jun. 2008, 11 pages. |
Winer, “Vienna Sampler Software: The AWE 64's Well-Kept Secret”, Aug. 2015, 8 pages. |
Extended European Search Report for European Patent Application No. 12804871.7 dated May 22, 2015, 7 pages. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/170,833 dated Sep. 16, 2014, 28 pages. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 13/170,833 dated Sep. 17, 2015, 30 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority for PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2012/043425 dated Dec. 27, 2012, 9 pages. |
Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 12/634,425 dated Jul. 30, 2015, 27 pages. |
Arjomandi et al., “Development of an efficient alarm management package for an industrial process plant”, 2011 Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), Aug. 2011, 6 pages. |
EEMUA, “Alarm Systems: A Guide to Design, Management and Procurement”, The Engineering and Materials Users' Association, 2007, 191 pages. |
“Management of Alarm Systems for the Process of Industries”, Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society, ANSI/ISA—18.2—2009, Jun. 2009, 82 pages. |
“DynAMo Alarm Suite R100—Advanced Solutions”, Honeywell Process Solutions, Nov. 2013, 2 pages. |
“DynAMo Metrics & Reporting R120.1 Software Change Notice”, Honeywell Process Solutions, Oct. 2015, 16 pages. |
Niemiec et al., U.S. Appl. No. 16/049,372 entitled “Process Performance Issues and Alarm Notification Using Data Analytics” filed Jul. 30, 2018, 35 pages. |
Ganapathi et al., U.S. Appl. No. 15/987,542 entitled “Competency Gap Identification of an Operators Response to Various Process Control and Maintenance Conditions” filed May 23, 2018, 53 pages. |
Ganapathi et al., U.S. Appl. No. 15/953,072 entitled “System and Method for Translation of Graphics to Newer Format Using Pattern Matching” filed Apr. 13, 2018, 33 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20190384267 A1 | Dec 2019 | US |