ADVANCED MATERIALS AND CHEMICALS

Honeywell, Inc.

Abnormal Situation Management¹ for Industry

View PDF Document Text Only Version Patent Tree

In 1989, an explosion at a petrochemical plant caused $1.6 billion in damage and lost production. Until the New York City terrorist attack in 2001, this was the largest economic disaster in U.S. history, excluding natural causes. The 1989 accident resulted from the escalation of a series of minor and major manufacturing process disruptions (such as abnormal temperature and vibration), called abnormal situations. Although most abnormal situations do not result in explosions and fires, it has been estimated that they cost the U.S. economy $20 billion annually in the 1990s in terms of poor product quality, schedule delays, equipment damage, and other costs. The Abnormal Situation Management (ASM) Consortium, led by Honeywell, Inc., the largest U.S. distributed process control systems company, was formed in 1992 to develop collaborative technologies that would help plant operations staff control and prevent abnormal situations by relying on automated decision-support technologies. The consortium included the U.S. operations of the seven largest petrochemical companies (Amoco, BP, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, and Shell), two leading industrial process control software vendors (Applied Training Resources and Gensym), and a specialty chemical company (Novacor).

In 1994, the consortium applied to the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) for support to develop comprehensive, decision-support technology that would benefit manufacturers and service providers. The project would require high-risk innovations in human–machine interaction, system architecture, and system configuration. ATP awarded cost-shared funds for a project that began in 1995. The ASM Consortium developed a manufacturing strategy called ASM, which led to a paradigm shift in the industry. It has led to new work practices, software tools, approaches to operations, and specialized training for operators to reduce incidents and enhance efficiency. For example, in a simulated side-by-side comparison of traditional operator interfaces compared with an ASM solution, a typical 1.8 billion pounds/year ethylene plant would save approximately $800,000 per year. The ATP-funded technology earned eight patents and resulted in a significant number of industry publications and presentations. In addition, spillover technology products and services related to building and information technology security have also resulted from the ASM strategy and software tools.

COMPOSITE PERFORMANCE SCORE
               (based on a four star rating)
                * * * *

Research and data for Status Report 94-01-0169 were collected during August – November 2005.

Abnormal Situations Affect Safety and Efficiency Most oil refineries and petrochemical plants use distributed control systems to simultaneously control thousands of process variables, such as temperature and pressure. The major human role in this control

process is to supervise these highly automated systems, similar to controlling an airplane by looking at the cockpit instruments. Supervisory duties include monitoring plant status; adjusting control parameters; executing preplanned operations activities; and detecting, diagnosing, compensating, and correcting for

¹ Abnormal Situation Management and ASM are U.S. registered trademarks of Honeywell International, Inc.

abnormal situations. Global competition has increased the demands for higher efficiency and productivity of manufacturing plants, which requires increasingly sophisticated process control systems with advanced sensor and control technologies. However, sensor and control technologies alone cannot eliminate abnormal situations. The operations staff who monitor equipment must use the information from the automated systems to intervene and correct deviant process conditions before they escalate (for example, open a valve to reduce pressure and avoid an explosion). Abnormal situations in the petrochemical industry lead to increased costs, adverse environmental impact, and reduced operational safety. The largest single industrial accident in U.S. history was a 1989 plant explosion that cost $2 billion in damages and lost production. However, most abnormal situations are minor, resulting from suboptimal equipment settings, operating temperatures, and the like. Nevertheless, they are costly in terms of poor product quality, schedule delays, equipment damage, and other costs. In the 1990s, the total cost to the U.S. economy was estimated at more than $20 billion annually.^2 Abnormal situations in the petrochemical industry lead to increased costs, adverse environmental impact, and reduced operational safety. As automation technology increased in complexity and sophistication, operations staff faced increasingly complex decisions in managing abnormal situations. User support systems were not keeping pace with the variety and gradations of task demands. The following is an actual abnormal situation from 1994, which resulted in a fire and significant damage: A lightning strike on a refinery’s crude oil distillation unit had disrupted plant operations. Five hours later, operators were still handling alarms that were going off at a rate of one every two or three seconds. About 87 percent of these alarms had the same priority, so the operators did not know which one to

respond to first. During this alarm overload, operators overlooked a valve that had stayed closed, and liquid was accumulating in a drum. The drum overflowed and its contents ignited (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Abnormal situations range from suboptimal performance to production delays to costly fires and explosions. The example illustrates some of the manufacturing plants’ existing problems: · Inadequate precision of chronological information · Too many unnecessary alarms due to weak conditional alarming capabilities · Inadequate system anticipation of disturbances; symptom-based alarms, rather than real-time, root-cause analysis · Lack of distinction between instrument failures and true process deviations; poor integration of multiple information components · Limited capability to view interrelated process data; lack of adequate tools to measure, track, and access records of abnormal situations · Limited access to procedures and operating instructions · Cumbersome communications between and within plant units The fundamental problem is the “paradox of automation”; that is, better automation leads to more sophisticated processes, more sophisticated processes

² Honeywell project proposal, 1994, and on the ASM website, http://www.asmconsortium.com/asm/dashboard.nsf?Open. Harrold, D.
“Master Disaster: How to Avoid Abnormal Situations.” Control Engineering, Vol. 45, No. 12, pp. 68-70, September 1998.

lead to more opportunities for error, and the increasing errors are “fixed” with still more automation. As a result, when things go wrong, even well-trained workers find it increasingly difficult to accurately envision the actual situation and to promptly intervene to correct the problem. Manufacturers needed a means for organizing and applying existing knowledge to avoid possible incidents. ASM Consortium Proposes Innovative Process Control A group of companies joined to form the Abnormal Situation Management (ASM) Consortium in 1992. These companies included provider members and user–manufacturer members. Providers were Honeywell, Inc. (the largest U.S. distributed process control systems company) and Applied Training Resources (ATR) and Gensym (independent training software companies with unique process control technologies). User–manufacturer members were Amoco, BP, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, and Shell (seven of the largest petrochemical companies), and Novacor (a chemical company). The ASM Consortium conducted 18 months of preliminary work to identify more than 30 opportunities to address situation management. Combining the elements into a comprehensive, automated decision-support system would require an intensive effort to address high-risk innovations in human-machine interaction, system architecture, and configuration. Therefore, in 1994, the ASM Consortium applied to ATP for funding to support collaborative efforts to determine the feasibility of early ASM software technology to provide manufacturers with decision-support tools. None of the members could do this work alone, but each consortium member was committed to applying ASM concepts. Honeywell would develop and provide a monitoring system, called Abnormal Event Guidance and Information System (AEGIS), testing environments, and infrastructure. The user consortium members would provide access to their refineries and chemical plants in order to demonstrate AEGIS technology. They would also provide real process data and historical incidents to test and refine AEGIS strategies. ATP awarded cost-shared funding to the ASM Consortium in 1994 to enhance safety and efficiency in U.S. manufacturing. The ATP-funded project began in 1995.

The ASM project began at an opportune time because software sophistication and computing power were increasing rapidly in the early 1990s. The next generation of process-control systems was being designed to replace analog systems with digital technology (for example, a mechanical temperature gauge was replaced with a digital reader). ATP support would facilitate advances in human–computer interfaces, control-system architecture, and control-system-development tools. The ASM Consortium members would apply the test results in parallel to develop a series of increasingly capable prototypes of control systems. They would work with plant personnel to assess and control process disturbances and would field test the new strategies. Collaborative decision-support technologies would lead to improved performance of industry operations personnel. The goal was to reduce the impact of preventable abnormal situations by a factor of 10 (from $20 billion to $2 billion annually) through clearer and more effective decision support for operations staff. If successful, ASM technology would assure continued U.S. technology leadership in both petrochemical processing and computerized process control. ASM Technology Holds Risks ASM technology was an entirely new concept. The existing digital control systems were being used by manufacturers in the same ways as the previous analog (electronic, such as in conventional broadcast or telephone transmissions) and mechanical (pneumatic or pressure-based) systems. Digital results can be more precise, and the technology provides many more options, such as windows-based operating systems and links to supporting electronic documentation. However, plant operators needed to use data in more innovative ways, and making a dramatic shift in approach had three significant technical risks: · Human–machine interaction. The Honeywell team needed a comprehensive approach to designing human–machine system interactions. Operations staff needed to receive information appropriate to their needs without distracting information that was not relevant at the time, and manufacturing operations staff needed to be able to collaborate to solve problems.

· System architecture. System architecture needed to include multiple processing modules, databases, and knowledge bases. These various software modules had to communicate their conclusions with each other in real time, and they needed to coordinate among themselves and with human operators. Many past efforts had failed due to lack of coordination. · System customization. The system needed to be customizable to consider the idiosyncratic and dynamic nature of plant processes and operations. The team needed to customize software modules so that the needs of specific operations, equipment, personnel, and procedures were addressed. Solutions had to be self-adaptive or easily customized by plant staff. Machine operations needed to be presented to the operator visually. Optimal Conditions Provide Higher Quality and Quantity Production plants establish and maintain numerous process conditions (for example, temperature, pressure, quality of raw materials, throughput, equipment condition, and wear) in order to ensure quality, consistency, and high production rates. Maintaining optimal conditions requires computerized decision making, which manipulates process variables to maintain safe environments as well as desired product quality and quantity. The ASM Consortium established the following ambitious, measurable goals for this project: · Reduce the $20 billion impact of preventable abnormal situations by a factor of 10 through better decision support for operations staff · Reduce the cost of preventable abnormal situations in field test sites by a factor of 10 in test scenarios · Decrease response time by a factor of five in a specified set of test scenarios · Develop generic ASM capability as a suite of software applications to support plant operations · Reduce the cost of developing and configuring systems to support ASM practices by a factor of five

To monitor safety, quantity, and quality, the ASM Consortium needed to consider numerous production aspects. AEGIS would do this by delivering the following six interrelated, modular components for a simulated plant: · State Estimator. The State Estimator provides a concise, dynamic estimate of what is actually happening in the plant, including trend information that can predict future states. It asks, “What is our current status?” It quickly and accurately identifies and diagnoses existing or impending abnormal situations. · Goal Setter. The Goal Setter examines the Estimator’s result and proposes a prioritized agenda of high-level goals to pursue. It asks, “What is the next best thing to do?” It identifies desired changes in the process state in order to achieve the target or safe state. · Planner. The Planner creates a plan to achieve the goals given the current plant state. It asks, “How can we do it?” It finds and schedules a set of actions to satisfy the established goals and resolves choices between alternative courses of action in terms of feasibility, risk, and cost. · Executor. The Executor makes sure the plan is executed properly. It carries out the plan, ensuring that each step is completed at the right time. It asks, "Has each action been executed and confirmed?" It modifies actions to fit available resources (including between system and humans). · Communicator. The Communicator provides a common user interface between the other AEGIS components and the plant staff. The Communicator asks, “Who needs to be included?” It brings to the attention of appropriate users the critical items such as the plant state, goals, and context-appropriate actions in order to improve response times and minimize human error. · Monitor. The Monitor learns from experience. It examines the operation of the other components and regulates their activities. It tracks and documents activities, so staff and AEGIS components can adapt and respond to future situations in a more effective manner. It identifies

bottlenecks and inefficiencies in the overall system performance and provides feedback to the other AEGIS components, so the operators can adapt and improve. ASM Consortium Develops Concepts for a Simulated Plant The consortium built the first prototype in 1996. It had six State Estimators, which were independent process diagnosis applications that collaborated to identify impending process problems and present appropriate notifications to operators. Using a simulation of an oil refining plant, the team evaluated its response to a variety of deliberately introduced disruptions. AEGIS consistently identified a variety of problems, such as sudden and unexpected malfunctions, problems that developed over time, and problems originating in process equipment or in control devices, well before they became significant. As the ASM program grew, the consortium invited experts from Michigan Technological University, University of Wisconsin, and University of Toronto to join technology experts from Purdue University and Ohio State University to evaluate and improve the system. Honeywell recognized the value of the program and had already launched the first ASM-derived service: ASM site audits and analyses of member companies' manufacturing plants. In consultation with the user members, the company began considering other future product launches. In 1997, the consortium developed a system prototype that validated AEGIS distributed architecture. Multiple software applications shared responsibility for keeping the operator informed about the state of the plant, helping the operator navigate key information about potential problems and causes, and coordinating actions with the other AEGIS components. Two additional manufacturer–user companies, Celanese and Union Carbide, joined the consortium that year. The consortium demonstrated the system for the first time at a simulated plant in 1998, using the plant’s control system, AEGIS "blackboards," and AEGIS State Estimators. Located far away, in another state, was the AEGIS Communicator application. Based on historical

incidents, a malfunction was introduced in the lube oil pump of one of three air blowers (in an actual incident, this would lead to blower trip and loss of air to the unit, causing it to overheat). AEGIS correctly identified the root cause of the problem and developed a plan to minimize its effects; the team then initiated a recovery. This demonstration marked a major milestone: the first time all six AEGIS functions were demonstrated end to end. Highlights of the simulation included the following: · Designed and deployed prototype collaborative field operations software on wireless, wearable PCs · Explored user-interface options for multivariable controllers, which were challenging to operate at the time · Identified key end-user needs and priorities for information and communication · Studied the appropriate organization of knowledge, the scope of State Estimators, and tools for further development In the same year, Honeywell established a product and service called @sset.MAX to help customers make strategic decisions about the fixed assets or equipment in their manufacturing facilities and the facilities themselves. Data are reduced to either symptoms or faults to facilitate identification and repair. The goal was to reduce the impact of preventable abnormal situations by a factor of 10 (from $20 billion to $2 billion annually) through clearer and more effective decision support for operations staff. Honeywell also announced UserAlert in 1998, the first software product derived from the ASM program. The ASM Consortium continued developing the ASM concepts and tools until the end of ATP funding in 1999. Prototypes focused on the following: · Developing a prototype tool kit to demonstrate implementation for individual plants · Developing a diagnostic strategy to update goals based on diagnosed situations and to respond to those situations

· Enhancing and extending State Estimators · Developing a notebinder application to aggregate notifications to operations personnel All of these efforts were completed successfully. The project continued with the field testing of AEGIS State Estimator technology at a petrochemical plant, field testing of dynamic procedures to support collaboration of field operators, and integrating decision control with AEGIS. These efforts were promising, but behind schedule. The ASM Consortium agreed to continue collaborative development after ATP funding ended in 1999 through 2002 using internal funding. The team planned to extend field testing of AEGIS technologies to additional sites. The demand for ASM site assessments continued to grow. AEGIS architecture permits a variety of specialized applications to work together to identify problems and aid in resolution. The system aggregates evidence from a set of applications to diagnose a wide variety of problems. The consortium earned eight patents and shared knowledge through numerous publications and presentations. They met all of their technical goals and proved ASM’s viability. Prototypes Deliver Value The ASM “airplane cockpit” concept supports the operator’s workflow and daily tasks.^3 The consortium developed universal guidelines for effective operator displays, such as content, font type and style, layout, navigation, and use of colors. The guidelines recommend using auditory and visual effects, training the operators, and addressing human factors, such as making systems accessible and user friendly to minimize human error. The operator can access online documentation, such as analysis documents and procedures, with right-click mouse access. Color coding is used only for critical information, like alarms, so these alarms will not be overlooked. In addition, online instructions address best practices, such as shift handover, routine operations, and best response to alarms. ASM goes beyond technology and addresses

soft skills, such as training and maintaining up-to-date maintenance procedures. AEGIS correctly identified the root cause of the problem and developed a plan to minimize its effects; the team then initiated a recovery. In a side-by-side comparison against “traditional” control windows (see Figure 2), operators using the new ASM operator interface (see Figure 3) responded faster and more consistently to abnormal situations (6.5 to 9.7 minutes faster, which was a 35- to 48-percent improvement). Operators recognized that an abnormal situation was present before the first alarm in 48 percent of scenarios (a 38-percent improvement over existing control consoles). Operators resolved 96 percent of abnormal situations successfully (a 26-percent improvement). Figure 2. Example of a traditional interface used by a plant operator. To calculate the value of improved solution times and higher success rates, the consortium developed an annual baseline of incident data from six years of history. These data came from consortium member companies. Comparing an ASM control console with a traditional console for a 1.8 billion pounds/year ethylene plant, ASM generated an average savings of $870,000 per year. The median savings for a single plant was $800,000 per year. Rigorous application of ASM technologies and principles allows plants to run closer to full capacity (increasing from approximately 95 percent of capacity to almost 99 percent).

³ Reising, D.V. “Improved Operation through Advanced Operator Interfaces.” June 14 2005, Annual Honeywell Users’ Group, Phoenix, AZ.

Figure 3. On the top is an example of an ASM-designed interface used by a plant operator. It provides multilevel, simultaneous views of increasing plant detail. ASM principles support proactive monitoring behavior in operators. This behavior leads to performance improvements. Shown on the bottom, the second sample screen clearly displays an alert, highlighted in yellow at the bottom of the screen, to indicate a deviation from normal process operations. ASM Leads to Commercial Products and Services Until 1999, ASM tests were run at simulated plants using virtual data from historical incidents. Applying the technology to an operating refinery was much more difficult. Plant operators are very busy, and developers have to work around their schedules. Furthermore, plants are not easily automated because conditions are constantly evolving, implementation of new automated processes must allow for time lags between operations caused by shift changes, automation requires

customized knowledge, and each plant represents a unique work environment. Funding is another challenge, because the petrochemical industry is sometimes reluctant to invest money to improve safety and production when the process is thought to be safe, and the return on the investment in each project cannot be accurately calculated. Nevertheless, ASM products are beginning to be implemented. The primary commercial ASM products have resulted from the State Estimator (for event detection) and Communicator (for user interface) portions of AEGIS. The other AEGIS modules will take much more money and development. All are considered viable, but have not yet been commercialized. Honeywell offers a number of products and services that incorporate ASM technologies and principles, such as Scyllarus, a data and infrastructure protection system. Other companies have also commercialized aspects of the ATP-funded technology. For example, Applied Training Resources (ATR) released a software product called Vanguard Interactive in 2004 (see Figure 4), which provides flexible and portable access to interactive procedures in the plant (for example, electronic desktop, laptop, or hand-held devices could contain training guides, safety information, installation instructions, or procedure steps). Vanguard’s primary benefit is to reduce the risk of human performance errors by allowing easy navigation to the level of detail needed. Designed for maximum flexibility, the software allows an operator to quickly download hundreds of procedures to a hand-held device, including background information and illustrations. Animated warning icons reduce the likelihood of accidents. In addition, the operator can interact with each step of the procedure, checking service dates, recording data, or signing off steps for compliance requirements. Anticipated benefits are reduced staff requirements for procedure writers and documentation, improved communication between operators, greater flexibility, and more accurate data, leading to reduced human error and equipment failure. Manufacturing plants are beginning to adopt this technology. For example, Constellation Energy signed a fleet-wide agreement in 2004 to implement the Vanguard system at its nuclear and fossil power stations.

Figure 4. ATR’s Vanguard Interactive software: sample screen shot from an operator’s procedure manual on a hand-held device. The device is web enabled, so the operator can ask questions of a coworker or supervisor and procedures can be updated promptly as needed. The operator can scan barcodes, perform calculations, record data, and sign off as steps are completed. ASM Members Experience Changes The ASM Consortium has experienced a number of member changes since the project began. BAW Architecture joined in 1997, Gensym left in 1999, and ATR left in 1999 and was replaced by TTS Performance Systems Inc., a process industry management consulting, training, and development company. Because of the technical progress and mutual benefits gained, the consortium members renewed their collaborative research agreement after the ATP-funded project ended, for nine additional years through 2008.^4 Most of the original user members are still in the ASM Consortium, although there have been some changes. The following companies joined in 2000: ExxonMobil (formerly Exxon and Mobil, the companies merged in 1999); Chevron (formerly Chevron and Texaco, they merged in 2001); Equilon (they merged with Shell in 2001); and ConocoPhillips (formerly Phillips Petroleum, they merged with Conoco in 2002). BP (formerly BP and Amoco, they merged in 1998) dropped out in 2001, and Novacor (formerly Nova Chemicals) dropped out in 2004. Honeywell Specialty Materials joined as a user member in 2003. Two new provider members joined in 2005: Human Centered Solutions, a consulting firm that addresses human needs and capabilities; and Nanyang Technological University of Singapore, which is

developing a potential export product, adapting user interfaces for the Asian culture and addressing ergonomics and human factors. User member Sasol joined in 2006. UOP LLC, a supplier of process technology and a consultant to the petroleum refining and petrochemical industries, was 50-percent owned by Honeywell. In 2003, Honeywell and UOP announced that they would integrate petroleum refinery solutions into Honeywell’s software. Honeywell would use a real-time UOP plant as a sample in order to develop an ASM manufacturing plant showcase. The initial release focused on fluid catalytic cracking units (to convert gas, oil, and heavier fuel streams to lighter, more valuable products via high-temperature catalytic cracking). Graeme Donald, President and CEO of UOP said, “The… alliance allows us to… make the most of the information existing throughout the operation—meaning that now [UOP] can use that information to safely and effectively execute the right decisions at the right time—every time.” Additional process units were planned for the future. Honeywell acquired full ownership of UOP in 2005. ASM Spillover Applications In addition to petrochemical and energy plants, Honeywell has applied ASM technology to address cyber security, physical security, and control in other areas. As a direct result of early ATP support, ASM strategies and technologies have become accepted and common in manufacturing. A Google search on the term yields more than 400,000 hits as of October 2005. Honeywell and other ASM Consortium provider members continue to develop and market products and services that rely, at least in part, on ASM. Honeywell holds Federal Government contracts with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and other agencies for several indirect ASM-derived services. Honeywell’s Homes and Buildings division released a high-end commercial building security system, Enterprise Buildings Integrator, in 2000. The company’s Process Solutions division provides data and infrastructure confidentiality, availability, and integrity, relying on Scyllarus, which the company released in 2002. Cyber defense is similar to

⁴Petrick, I.J, A.E. Echols, S. Mohammed, and J. Hedge. Sustainable Collaboration: A Study of the Dynamics of Consortia, NIST ATP
economic case study, GCR06-888, August 2006. http://www.atp.nist.gov/eao/gcr06-888/gcr06-888report.pdf

a manufacturing plant’s ASM strategy. Cyber security firewalls function like fences in the physical plant. Scyllarus’ intrusion-detection systems correlate to alarm systems in a plant. As of 2005, Honeywell was developing a program to fully integrate Scyllarus into a new program named CORTEX. ASM technology is also applied to research and development programs for “Sentient Office,” which detects physical intrusions. Sentient Office also tracks people’s locations and activities to detect potential security issues. Honeywell continues to develop new ASM-based products. For example, ONYX FIRSTVISION (see Figure 5), released in October 2005, is an interactive system that provides navigation assistance for firefighters. It helps firefighters and emergency responders identify fire origin and migration, building hazards, and exit routes. The PC-based touch screen graphically displays critical information, such as building floor plans, locations of fire alarms, water supplies, access routes, fire barriers, and gas, power, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning shutoffs. Figure 5. Honeywell’s ONYX FIRSTVISION is an interactive navigation system for firefighters and emergency responders. It displays a fire’s origin and movement and provides access to floor plans, water supplies, exit routes, and more. Honeywell also provides a graphical workstation for facility managers to coordinate security and fire systems (see Figure 6). Called ONYXWorks NOTIFIER, the PC-based system, released in November 2005, integrates fire alarms, security, card access, and closed-circuit television systems into a single point of control. Managers have remote access to facility floor

plans and event history. Emergency situations are immediately displayed on screen as priority events. As a direct result of early ATP support, ASM strategies and technologies have become accepted and common in manufacturing. Figure 6. Honeywell’s ONYXWorks NOTIFIER enables facility managers to monitor and control systems in a particular building, city, state, or worldwide enterprise over a local or wide area network. The manager views facility floor plans and event history. Emergency situations are immediately displayed on screen as priority events. Honeywell and the other ASM Consortium members continue to develop and enhance systems. As of 2006, the consortium budget was about $2 million per year. Conclusion In 1994, the Abnormal Situation Management (ASM) Consortium proposed a plan to ATP to test the feasibility of a quality management system called Abnormal Event Guidance and Information System (AEGIS). The consortium consisted of provider members (Honeywell and two industrial process control software vendors, Applied Training Resources and Gensym) and user members (Amoco, BP, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Shell, and a specialty chemical company, Novacor). By the end of ATP funding in 1999, the consortium had demonstrated the feasibility of all six AEGIS modules and planned to commercialize two of them: the “State Estimator,” which monitors numerous performance criteria such as temperature,

pressure, and flow rate; and the “Communicator,” which delivers custom reports to operators. The consortium will continue through 2008 by relying on internal funds. By 2005, consortium members had developed a number of commercialized ASM products and services and had implemented a new quality management approach to the manufacturing environment. ASM concepts and tools have become commonly used in manufacturing and have spawned a number of competitors. Consortium participants published numerous papers, made formal presentations, and earned eight patents. ASM strategies have spilled over into network security and commercial building security systems.

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS
Honeywell, Inc.

Project Title: Abnormal Situation Management for Industry (Collaborative Decision Support for Industrial Process Control) Project: To demonstrate the technical feasibility of collaborative decision-support technologies that can enhance the performance of operations personnel who supervise industrial process control. Duration: 6/1/1995 - 1/31/1999 ATP Number: 94-01-0169 Funding (in thousands): ATP Final Cost              $8,139    48.8% Participant Final Cost        8,525    51.2% Total                            $16,663 Accomplishments: The Abnormal Situation Management (ASM) Consortium developed a successful prototype software system, called Abnormal Event Guidance and Information System (AEGIS), which they demonstrated at a simulated plant. The consortium accomplished 100 percent of their technical goals to demonstrate the feasibility of AEGIS’ six modules in a simulated plant: · State Estimator measures the current state of operations. It recognizes existing or potential abnormal situations. · Goal Setter evaluates the Estimator’s result and recommends goals to pursue in priority order. If ideal conditions are not attainable, it measures potential risks and offers alternative solutions. · Planner finds and schedules a set of actions to satisfy the established goals. It resolves choices between alternative courses of action in terms of feasibility, risk, and cost. · Executor carries out the plan, ensuring that each step is executed at the right time. It indicates the status of actions and manual responses needed, views the status of action commands, and verifies the appropriateness of action. · Communicator provides a common user interface between the other AEGIS components and the plant staff. Each operator quickly receives customized information on the plant state, goals, and context-appropriate actions in order to improve response times and minimize human error.

· Monitor examines the operation of the other AEGIS components and regulates their activities. It tracks and documents activities, so the operators can adapt and improve. It tracks success and failure; any plans or actions that routinely fail are flagged for plan remediation or removal. As a result of this success, the ASM Consortium renewed its research commitment with internal funding for nine additional years, from 1999 to 2008. Only the State Estimator and Communicator were selected for commercialization, although the consortium considers all modules viable. Honeywell scientists were awarded the following eight patents for ASM technology developments: · “Method and apparatus for user-initiated alarms in process control system" (No. 6,414,594: filed December 31, 1996, granted July 2, 2002) · “Process variable generalized graphical device display and methods regarding same” (No. 6,901,560: filed July 1, 1999, granted May 31, 2005) · “Multivariable process trend display and methods regarding same” (No. 6,577,323: filed July 1, 1999, granted June 10, 2003) · “Multivariable process matrix display and methods regarding same” (No. 6,587,108: filed July 1, 1999, granted July 1, 2003) · “Content-based retrieval of series data” (No. 6,754,388: filed July 1, 1999, granted June 22, 2004) · “Sensor placement and control design for distributed parameter systems” (No. 6,772,044: filed April 13, 2000, granted August 3, 2004) · “Resin transfer molding” (No. 6,856,856: filed April 13, 2000, granted February 15, 2005) · “Control system and method for detecting plugging in differential pressure cells” (No. 6,904,386: filed October 7, 2002, granted June 7, 2005)

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS
Honeywell, Inc.

Commercialization Status: ASM technologies have led to numerous commercial products and services. Honeywell products have gone through several re-bundlings and re-namings over the years. Clearly ASM knowledge has gone into a significant number of Honeywell products for industrial manufacturing: · Alarm Improvement Services (1997) are based on Honeywell’s customized ASM assessments of user–manufacturer member plants. · @sset.MAX (1997) is a product and service to help users make strategic decisions about the fixed assets or equipment that make up their manufacturing facilities and the facilities themselves. Data are reduced into either symptoms or faults to facilitate identification and repair. · User Alert (1998) software notifies plant operators of selected conditions, freeing them from tedious monitoring tasks as well as heading off situations before they turn into alarms. UserAlert can also notify other plant personnel of situations using its monitor client, or it can forward those notifications as e-mail messages or pages. · Alert Manager (1998). Subsequently rolled into Asset Manager (see below). · Event Monitoring (1998) software detects, records, and communicates operating events in a process plant. The application automatically highlights unusual operating conditions and notifies staff when events occur. · ASM Operator Display Design & Building Services (1998) are operator graphics developed in accordance with ASM principles to assure the best operator effectiveness. Those guidelines include: display contents (organization, information to include, level of detail), and user guidance (how to identify information content required, and appropriate staff). · Event Analyst (1999). Subsequently rolled into Alarm and Event Analysis (AEA, see below). · ShadowPlant (1999) Subsequently rolled into UniSim. UniSim is a simulator to train operators and engineers to react more quickly and diffuse process situations before incidents occur.

· ProfitSuite (2000) is a comprehensive collection of advanced process control and optimization products and services to manage all aspects of control and optimization from improving regulatory loop control, to globally optimizing the entire process plant. · Alarm Configuration Manager (2000) assists in the initial design or improvement of an alarm system to support peak operator performance for safeguarding processes and plant. · Enterprise Buildings Integrator (EBI, 2000) is a comprehensive commercial building security system to integrate and automate 90 percent of all building systems, including HVAC and lighting control. EBI can be customized to the needs of virtually any facility. · ProTrends (2001). Subsequently rolled into the Experion system. · ProMenus (2001). Subsequently rolled into the Experion system. · GuspRO (2001). Subsequently rolled into the Experion system and OMPro. · HMIWeb Solution Pack & ASM Graphics Library (2001) is a graphic web display tool. · Alarm Scout (2001) collects performance data on a system’s alarms and events, and returns e-mail reports to key stakeholders. Alarm Scout reveals the alarms that continually demand operator attention, so that users can develop a remedy. · Experion Process Knowledge System (PKS, 2002) is an automation system that consists of alarm, event- and alert-management tools. It consists of scalable computer, network and field instrument hardware, embedded software, and optional software packages asset and information management. Experion enables users “to manage knowledge faster and easier, to realize measurable profitability and productivity results,” according to Terry Sutter, president of Honeywell Industry Solutions. · Asset Manager PKS (2002) connects the right people across the supply chain to improve operational effectiveness and reduce maintenance costs up to 30 percent. It continuously and efficiently monitors, troubleshoots and maintains control loops and field devices, as well as the traditional process-based assets.

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS
Honeywell, Inc.

· IntelaTrac PKS (2002) is an integrated software and hardware solution for wireless field data collection and intelligent asset management. It integrates field data with data from multiple other sources, including production, process control, and work management systems. · Mobile Station (2002) is a wireless mobile solution that extends access to critical process information, historical data, graphics and other key functions to the field. It relays control system information to remote users where and when needed. · Scyllarus (2002) provides data and infrastructure protection. · Safe and Profitable (2003, subsequently renamed Operations Management Pro, OMPro) is a suite of tools and services to enable best-in-class work practices for control room and field-based operators to improve operational reliability and avoid incidents. · Early Event Detection (2004) acts as an intelligent assistant to minimize the number and impact of abnormal situations by providing early awareness and a measured response. · Operations Logbook (2004) is a software application for operators and others to keep an electronic record of what happens during a shift. It facilitates smooth shift handovers, and enables operators to coordinate activities. · Procedural Operations (2005) provides management of procedures through their complete lifecycle. Execution is handled with the interactive instruction functionality to seamlessly execute integrated automatic and manual steps. · Alarm & Event Analysis (AEA, 2004) provides analysis of alarm (and process change) events and configuration, as well as enforcement actions. AEA supports identification of problem alarms requiring corrective action. · ASM Design Services (2004) provides display features (use of color, symbols, flow and navigation). · ONYX FIRSTVISION (October 2005) is an interactive navigation system for emergency responders. It displays a fire’s origin and movement and provides access to floor plans, water supplies, exit routes, and more.

· ONYXWorks NOTIFIER (November 2005) is a graphical workstation that coordinates security and fire systems. The system links fire alarm, security, card access, and closed-circuit television systems into a single point of control. Authorized facility managers can monitor and control systems in a particular building, city, state, or worldwide enterprise over a local or wide area network. A workstation displays facility floor plans as well as event history, and emergency situations are immediately displayed on screen as priority events. · Sentient Office (2006) detects physical intrusions. Sentient Office also tracks people’s locations and activities to detect potential security issues. Applied Training Resources (ATR) · Vanguard Interactive software (2004) provides flexible and portable access to interactive procedures in the plant. Outlook: The outlook for ASM technology is strong. Manufacturing plants are adopting ASM strategies, products, and services. ASM Consortium provider members (and their competitors) continue to enhance existing software and training products, and they are developing new ones based primarily on the State Estimator and Communicator modules. The other modules (Goal Setter, Planner, Executor, and Monitor) are still considered viable, but they will require additional research and investment. Composite Performance Score: * * * * Company: Honeywell Process Solutions 2500 West Union Hills Drive Phoenix, AZ 85027-5139 Contact: Kevin Harris Phone: (602) 313-5985 Company: Chevron 100 Chevron Way Richmond, CA 94802-0627 Contact: Tim Montgomery Phone: (510) 242-1388

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS
Honeywell, Inc.

Company: BP Mail Code C-7150 West Warrenville Road Naperville, IL 60563 Contact: Michael J. Clark Phone: (219) 926-6372 Company: ExxonMobil 3225 Gallows Road Fairfax, VA 22037 Contact: Dr. Kenneth F. Emigholz Phone: (703) 846-1246 Company: Applied Training Resources 1734 Theiss Mail Route Spring, TX 77379 Contact: Elliott P. Lander Phone: (800) 846-0099 Publications: The ASM Consortium gained public attention through the following publications: · “Industry Leaders Look to Small Firms for Innovation.” Houston Chronicle, May 15, 1995. · Nimmo, I. “Adequately Address Abnormal Situations.” Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 36, No. 45, September 1995. · Emigholz, K. F. “Improving the Operator’s Capabilities during Abnormal Operations; Observations from the Control House.” Process Safety Progress, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 154-158, 1996. · Bullemer, P., and I. Nimmo. “A Training Perspective on Abnormal Situation Management: Establishing an Enhanced Learning Environment.” Proceedings of the AIChE 1996 Process Plant Safety Symposium, Houston, TX, pp. 236-246, April 1996. · Cochran, E., and P. Bullemer. “Abnormal Situation Management: Not by New Technology Alone.” Proceedings of the AIChE Process Plant Safety Symposium, Houston, TX, pp. 218-223, April 1996. · Ramesh, T., B. Kral, and J. A. Freeman. “Generic Real-Time Monitor for Detecting Abnormal Events in Continuous Processes.” Proceedings of the AIChE 1996 Process Plant Safety Symposium, Houston, TX, pp. 209-217, April 1996.

· Rothenberg, D., and I. Nimmo. “The Concept of Abnormal Situation Management and Mechanical Reliability.” Proceedings of the AIChE 1996 Process Plant Safety Symposium, Houston, TX, pp. 193-208, April 1996. · Nimmo, I. “Abnormal Situation Management.” Process & Control Engineering, Vol. 49, No. 5, p. 8, September 1996. · Bullemer, P. and I. Nimmo. “A New Training Strategy: Design the Work Environment for Continuous Learning.” Chemical Engineering Progress, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 43ff, January 1998. · Harrold, D. “Master Disaster: How to Avoid Abnormal Situations.” Control Engineering, Vol. 45, No. 12, 68-70, September 1998. · Nimmo, I. “Industry Initiative Addresses ‘Abnormal Events.’” Hydrocarbon Processing (International edition), Vol. 77, No. 10, pp. 71-73, October 1998. · Harrold, D. and I. Nimmo. “Is a New Control Room in Your Future?” Control Engineering, p. 81, May 1999. · Alarm Systems: A Guide to Design, Management and Procurement. Engineering Equipment and Materials User’s Association (EEMUA), 191, 1999. · Cochran, E., and P. Bullemer. “Advanced Technology in Complex Systems: Automation, People, Culture.” In T. Samad and J. Weyrauch (Eds.), Automation, Control, and Complexity: An Integrated Approach. Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, 2000. · Spear, M. “Don’t Panic; Avoid Alarm Overloads.” Process Engineering, Vol. 81, No. 2, p. 24, February 2000. · Kane, L. A. “Why Visit MyPlant.com?” Hydrocarbon Processing (International Edition), Vol. 79, No. 10, p. 17, October 2000. · Harrold, D. “Transitioning from a Control Room to an Operations Center.” Control Engineering, Vol. 47, No. 12, p. 50, November 2000. · Process Plant Control Desks Utilising Human-Computer Interfaces: A Guide to Design, Operational and Human Interface Issues. EEMUA 201, 2002. · Guerlain, S., G. A. Jamieson, P. Bullemer, and R. Blair. “The MPC Elucidator: A Case Study in the Design for Human-Automation Interaction.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 25-40, 2002.

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS
Honeywell, Inc.

· “Process, Asset and Abnormal-Situation Management in One Integrated Computer Platform.” Chemical Engineering, Vol. 109, No. 5, p. 17, May 2002. · Lander, E. P., and J. Hardy. “An Evolution in Human Error Reduction via ‘eProcedures’.” Nuclear Information and Records Management Association (NIRMA) Newsletter, p. 12, Spring 2005. Presentations: · Cochran, E. “User Interface Challenges in Automated Manufacturing Systems: Normal and Abnormal Operations.” Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Nashville, TN. Abstracted in Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, p. 480, 1994. · Emigholz, K. “Improving the Operator's Capabilities During Abnormal Operations: Observations from the Control House.” American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) Summer Meeting, Boston, MA, June 1995. · Beach, David W. and M.J. Knight. "Refinery Implementation of an Operator Advisor System for Procedure Management." Intelligent Systems for Process Engineering (IPSE) Conference, Snowmass, CO, July 1995. · Ramesh, T., and B. V. Kral. “Plant Monitor: An On-line Advisory System for Monitoring Polyethylene Plants.” International Society for Process Engineering, Snowmass, CO, July 1995. · Nimmo, Ian. “Abnormal Situation Management.” Instrument Society of America, New Orleans, LA, October 1995. · Beach, David W. “Operator Advisor System for Procedure Management.” National Petroleum Refiners Association Computer Conference, Nashville, TN, November 1995. · Rothenberg, Douglas H. and I. Nimmo. “The Concept of Abnormal Situation Management and Mechanical Reliability.” International Conference on Process Plant Reliability, Houston, TX, November 1995.

· Cochran, E., and D. Rowan. “[Human] Supervisory Control and Decision Support: State of the Art." International Conference on Intelligent Systems in Process Engineering. Snowmass, CO, July 1995. In Davis, J. F., G. Stephanopoulos, and V. Venkatasubramanian (Eds.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Systems in Process Engineering, AIChE Symposium Series, vol. 92, 1996. · Cochran, E., C. Miller, and P. Bullemer. “Abnormal Situation Management in Petrochemical Plants: Can a Pilot's Associate Crack Crude?” Proceedings of the National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (NAECON), Dayton, OH, pp. 806-813, May 1996. · Cochran, E. “Abnormal Situation Management in Process Control Environments.” Instrument Society of America Lake Superior Section Symposium, Eveleth, MN, June 1996. · Guerlain, Stephanie, and Peter Bullemer. “User-Initiated Notification: A Concept for Aiding the Monitoring Activities of Process Control Operators.” Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Philadelphia, PA, September 1996. · Cochran, E. “Managing Abnormal Situations in the Process Industries I: Automation, People, Culture.” Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Technology Conference, Ann Arbor, MI, October 1997. · Nimmo, I., and E. Cochran. “The Future of Supervisory Systems in Process Industries: Lessons for Discrete Manufacturing.” Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Technology Conference, Ann Arbor, MI, October 1997. · Millner, P., E. Cochran and P. Bullemer. “Central Control Rooms and Petrochemical Plants: Costs and Benefits.” Proceedings of People in Control: International Conference on Human Interfaces in Control Rooms, Cockpits and Command Centres. The Institution of Electrical Engineers, Bath, England, June 1999. · Bullemer, P. "Managing Abnormal Situations: A New Operations Paradigm." Honeywell IC User's Group Symposium, June 10-14, 2001.

---

Research and data for Status Report 94-01-0169 were collected during August – November 2005.