16.422 Human Supervisory Control Nuclear and Process Control Plants Process Control Plants 16.422 ? Continuous or batch processing ? Examples: Electricity generation (nuclear power plants), refineries, steel production, paper mills, pasteurization of milk ? Characterized by: – Large scale, both physically and conceptually –Complex – High risk – High automation ? Remote vs. direct manipulation of plant equipment 16.422 Three Mile Island ?March 28 th , 1979 ? Main feedwater pump failure, caused reactor to shut down ? Relief valve opened to reduce pressure but became stuck in the open position – No indication to controllers – Valve failure led to a loss of reactant coolant water ? No instrument showed the coolant level in the reactor ? Operators thought relief valve closed & water level too high – High stress – Overrode emergency relief pump Three Mile Island 16.422 ? Automation worked correctly ? Confirmation bias: people seek out information to confirm a prior belief and discount information that does not support this belief – At TMI, operators selectively filtered out data from other gauges to support their hypothesis that coolant level was too high Process Control Human Factors Challenges 16.422 ? Control room design ? Increasing automation requires cognitive support as opposed to manual control support ? Human-machine interface design ? Team decision making ? Standardized procedures vs. innovation ? Trust & confidence Supervisory Process Control Tasks 16.422 ? Monitor process ? Detect disturbances, faults, & abnormalities ? Counter disturbances, faults, & abnormalities ? Operating procedures must be followed ? Communications – A log must be kept – Other team members (shift changes) ? Emergency procedures ? Training and retraining 16.422 Cognitive Demands When Monitoring Process Control Plants ? Vigilance – Continuous vs. time share – Active vs. passive monitoring ?Memory ? Selective attention ? Visual attention/perception ? System complexity ? System reliability – Critical vs. non-critical components Cognitive Demands, cont. 16.422 ? Display and control design – Lack of referent values – Lack of emergent features – Lack of integrated information ? Alarm system design – Nuisance alarms – Cycling around limits ? Desensitization ? Automation design – Lack of appropriate feedback – Direct vs. indirect cues 16.422 Coping Strategies ? Increase desired information salience and reduce background noise – Clearing and disabling alarms – Cross checking with other reactors ? Create new information – Operators manipulated set points for earlier alarms ? Offload cognitive processing onto external aids – Leaving doors open & sticky notes ? Deviations from “approved” procedures 16.422 Advanced Displays in Process Control ? Classical displays (bar graphs, meters, annunciators) are being replaced with computerized displays – Keyhole effect – Temporal considerations – Integration of information ? Flexible & adaptable displays – Local vs. global problems ? Configural & Ecological displays Configural Displays 16.422 ? Separable vs. integral vs. configural ? Gestalt principles in design ? Emergent features 16.422 A Process Control Design Case Study ? Model-Based Predictive Control (MPC) of a refinery plant ? Multi-input & multi-output automatic controllers – Optimize the process based on maximizing production and minimizing utility cost. – Higher levels of automation – human less in the loop ? Three variable types – CVs - Controlled Variables – process variables to be kept at setpoints or within constraints (20-30 variables). – MVs - Manipulated Variables – Variables (typically valves) that are adjusted to achieve CVs while optimizing (6-8 variables). – DVs - Disturbance Variables - Variables that can measured but not controlled, e.g., ambient air temp. (2-3 variables) ? Humans have difficulty monitoring, diagnosing, controlling these advanced systems 16.422 REGEN BED TEMP Detail Display CV DETAIL RX / REGEN CTL ON OFF WARM OPTIMIZING TAG 25ATCV01 DESC REGEN BED TEMP SOURCE 25ATCV01.PV LINEAR OBJ COEF -1.00 QUAD OBJ COEF 0.00 PV VALUE 579.3 STATUS GOOD DESIRED CV VAL 0.00 PRED VAL 579.36 SCALING FACTOR 0.329 FUTURE 579.38 SP.LIM TRACKS PV YES NO SS VALUE 581.36 UPDATE FREQUENCY = < CV LO ERROR WEIGHT 1.00 CRITICAL CV YES NO CV HI ERROR WEIGHT 1.00 SETPOINT CONTROL THIS CV YES NO PERFORMANCE RATIO 1.00 LO LIMIT 400.00 # OF BAD READS ALLOWED 5 CLS LOOP RESP INT 54.800 ACTIVE 400.00 FF TO FB PERF RATIO 0.50 LO LIMIT RAMP RATE 10.000 HI LIMIT 600.00 HI LIMIT RAMP RATE 10.000 SETPOINT GAP 0.00 ACTIVE 600.00 UNBIASED MODEL PV 379.35 NUMBER OF BLOCKS 10.0 APPLCN PROCESS CV MV DV STATUS MV CV GAIN/ TREND MENU DISPLY DISPLY DISPLY DISPLY MESG TUNING TUNING DELAY DISPLY 16.422 Gain/Delay Matrix – The Goal State ONLINE GAIN AND DELAY CHANGE RX / REGEN CTL ON WARM OPTIMIZINGOFF CV DESCRIPTION MV01 MV02 MV03 MV04 MV05 MV06 MV07 MV08 MV09 MV10 DV01 REACTOR BED TEMP 1 -1.0 2.0 -3.5 4.2 6.1 -0.5 0.25 REGEN BED TEMP 2 4.0 5.9 REGEN EXCESS O23 4 0.3 -1.0 2.0 -3.5 4.2 6.1 -0.5 0.25 RX/REGEN DELTA P .12 -1.0 2.0 -3.5 4.2 6.1 -0.5 0.25 REGEN CAT SLV DP 5 10.0 -3.0 1.0 -2.5 4.2 6.1 -0.7 0.70 SPENT CAT SLV DP 6 -0.4 7.2 9.0 STRIPPER LEVEL7 12.0 -8.0 -2.0 6.9 BLOWER AMP's8 -.60 3.0 5.2 -2.5 9.0 1.5 3.6 WET GAS RPM's9 1.2 -3.5 FEED HDR-PRESS 10 3.0 -5.5 .02 6.2 -8.3 2.1 FRAC BTMS TEMP11 12 2.2 -7.3 4.5 FRAC DELTA PRESS .04 BLOWER VLV OP13 14 5.1 4.4 2.6 -9.0 -.06 5.5 WET GAS VLV OP 3.2 6.3 4.0 6.2 -.25 RX PRED OCTANE 15 -0.4 4.3 7.0 -8.2 Gain Multiplier 1.000 Gain 3.750 Deadtime 0.000 2.00 APPLCN PROCESS STATUS MV CV GAIN/ TREND MENU MESG DELAY DISPLY Deadtime Bias 0.000 Max Deadtime CV MV DV DISPLY DISPLY DISPLY DISPLY TUNING TUNING The Display Redesign 16.422 Supporting Monitoring 16.422 ? Overview display –Alerts ? Easy recognition of problems – Summary – Direct manipulation ? Representation Aiding – Trend information depicted graphically ? Variable state as well as optimization history – Color important Supporting Diagnosing 16.422 a) Normal, Operator Set and Engineering Hard Limits shown. b) Normal, Operator Set limits at Engineering Hard Limits. c) Normal, Engineering Hard Limits not defined. d) Current Value within 0.1% of the Operator Set Limit. e) Current Value more than 1% beyond the Operator Set Limit. f) Normal, Variable constrained to sepoint. g) Variable wound up. h) Negative linear coefficient (variable maximized). i) Positive linear coefficient (variable minimized). j) Non-zero quadratic coefficient (variable seeks resting value). 16.422 Representation Aiding in Diagnosis a. b. c. d. e. f. Normal state, variable constrained to setpoint. a d e f h i jb c g Normal, no engineering hard limits defined Current state within 1% of operator limits Current state exceeded operator limits Normal state, both operator and hard engineering limits shown Normal state, operator limits = engineering limits g. Value “wound-up”, valve fully closed or open h. Negative linear coefficient (maximize value) i. Positive linear coefficient (minimize value) j. Non-zero quadratic coefficient (resting value) Supporting Interaction 16.422 ? Performance over time ? Important to provide “logging” ability ?What-if Decision Aid Design 16.422 ? An assistant versus a coach – What-if’s (a form of preview) – Narrowing a solution space – Recommendations –Critiquing ? Problems – Clumsy automation? ? Will they work in all situations? – Codifying rules and updating them ? Plant upgrades & system evolution ? Especially tricky in intentional domains – Automation bias ? Interactivity in decision support 16.422 References N. Moray, “Human Factors in Process Control,” in Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, edited by G. Salvendy, pp.1944 - 1971, 1997. C. Burns, “Putting It All together: Improving Display Integration in Ecological Displays,” Human Factors, vol. 42, pp. 226-241, 2000. R. Mumaw, E. M. Roth, K. Vicente, and C. Burns, "There is more to monitoring a nuclear power plant than meets the eye," Human Factors, vol. 42, pp. 36-55, 2000. S. Guerlain, G. Jamieson, P. Bullemer, and R. Blair, "The MPC Elucidator: A case study in the design of representational aids," IEEE Journal of Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 32, pp. 25 40, 2002.