A System Without DBDOC - Analysis II

This analysis focuses on the 219 errors in this site where TSTQ blocks test blocks inappropriately. There are 209 inputs to TSTQ blocks being tested that do not have quality to test. In addition, quality is being tested on ten AO/L blocks that do not have quality on their input signal.  I began this analysis in the earlier article: A System Without DBDOC - Analysis I and continue it here. Keep in mind that this is a running power plant!

TSTQ Testing Blocks Without Quality

To keep this brief, the images will show the block being tested. Be confident that it is feeding a TSTQ block input and that the intended protection for the plant is simply not present. Also, you might not be familiar with the feature of DBDOC that shows lines that can carry quality in blue, to contrast with lines that cannot carry quality in black.

Engineering Errors

It turns out that, in this system, somebody did not get the point about the TSTQ block. Half of the errors show places where the logic state of a function block is [1] in the alarm condition, but that state is fed into a TSTQ block instead of affecting the process by being input to an OR operation directly. 

TSTALM Block 8272 output does not have quality (note that it is a black line).  Therefore the TSTQ Block 8917 that tests it will never trigger due to this signal.  Nor will it trigger due to the actual situation the system designer presumably wanted to detect: that of TSTALM Block 8272 being [1].

The two instances of testing the low output (H//L Block 9763) are just as incorrect. The result should be OR'd, not tested for quality.

In these and similar situations, operational issues will fail to be detected as intended. There are 105 instances where a TSTQ tests a TSTALM [FC69] block, which does not have quality.  There two instances where a TSTQ Block tests a H//L [FC12]  block N+1, which also does not have quality

Blocks Not Propagating Quality

A common misconception is that AO/L [FC 30] and DO/L [FC 45] blocks are guaranteed to show bad quality. In fact, they only propagate the quality attribute. Thus, if the input to the block does not have the quality attribute, there will be no quality to test.

There are seven instances where a TSTQ tests an AO/L block, which is not propagating quality, and three instances where a TSTQ tests a DO/L block, which is not propagating quality.

A Sublime Example

Here is a sublime example of a class of error that occurs again and again. Good engineering is clutched from the jaws of victory! Here, TSTQ and REDAI blocks validly synthesize a picture of two versions of COMPENSATED GAS FLOW. However, the use of Transfer [FC9] Block 1835 destroys the quality chain, so bad quality will not be detected by the process. The problem would not have existed if a REDAI block had been used instead to propagate this signal.

More Flawed Quality Tests

In all the following instances, quality is checked to no end, and the actual quality information is lost.  In most cases, simply testing the input to the function block whose output is being tested would solve the problem and allow a bad quality signal to be detected and acted upon.

• 2 instances - TSTQ tests F(x) [FC1] which does not have quality
• 2 instances - TSTQ tests A [FC2], which does not have quality
• 2 instances - TSTQ tests H/L LIM [FC6], which does not have quality
• 2 instances - TSTQ tests SQRT [FC7], which does not have quality
• 20 instances - TSTQ tests T [FC9], which does not have quality
• 8 instances - TSTQ tests SUM(K) [FC15], which does not have quality
• 23 instances - TSTQ tests [NOT FC33], which does not have quality
• 3 instances - TSTQ tests S R [FC34], which does not have quality
• 33 instances - TSTQ tests OR (2-Input) [FC39], which does not have quality
• 1 instance   - TSTQ tests OR (4-Input) [FC40], which does not have quality
• 1 instance   - TSTQ tests REMSET [FC68], which does not have quality
• 4 instances - TSTQ tests M/A MFC/P [FC80], which does not have quality
• 1 instance   - TSTQ tests TRIG [FC171], which does not have quality

Conclusion

This analysis show a plant operating with hundreds of errors DBDOC has detected by flagging TSTQ block inputs that do not have quality to test. Half of them are especially worrisome because they show incorrect engineering that was never detected, i.e. it was the original intention to test a signal, not the quality of the signal, in the first place.  Was there a FAT (Factory Acceptance Test)? If so, it missed them all.

Alarm Management Needs Error Management

Does your system contain alarms that cannot actually ever occur?  Many do.

Alarm management focuses on understanding and controlling the alarms that can be generated in a system.  DBDOC provides techniques for walking through the configuration systematically to validate assumptions and look for problems. Effective alarm management is impossible without error management and configuration analysis.

Here are three example sets of alarms that do not work in a single powerplant configuration:

1. Intermittent failure caused by duplicated exception report imports
2. Detected failures to test blocks with quality
3. Problems that can be found by using DBDOC to walk through the configuration easily

If you do not manage your errors and use the tools DBDOC provides to audit the configuration, you will not be able to manage alarms. Even worse, you can spend a great deal of money fooling yourself about alarms.

Example 1 - Frozen Import Block Error

INFI 90 allows block values from one module to generate "exception reports" when the block value changes status or value. In the case of an analog exception report, the new value is transmitted when it changes by an amount that is specified as "significant".

If a an exception report block value is imported more than once into a module, only one of the import blocks works. The values of any other blocks importing the exception report block value will remain frozen. Furthermore, when an on-line configuration is done, a second import block will silently begin working (!) and the block that was working will freeze at its last value. This applies to both analog and digital exception reports.

DBDOC detects and reports this error. However, when the module is compiled using Composer, the error is not detected.

      Error: Frozen import block [093]

      Duplicate off-module reference (DI/L, DI/L) to Module 1,01,05 Block 1230: 1020324 and
      1020342 [1010536]

The source value above is imported in two places in one module. This instance on a spare block page might have the active connection.

The following shows the intended logic.

There is a 50/50 chance that the correct logic is not working at any time. Simply put, tags 0D0730 "COND RETURN TANK HIGH/LOW LEVEL" and 0D0727 "AUX DEA HIGH/LOW LEVEL" might alarm, but they might not. It is a crap-shoot!

Note: It would seem reasonable to assume that AI/L block 1675, now spare, actually started life feeding S3 of block 1676. The duplicate import situation was discovered and the logic changed properly to get both values of S3 from a single AI/L block somewhere in the past. The problem was that the spare block still can be the active one.

Example 2 - Test Quality of a block that does not have quality to test

Powerplant A has 7707 TSTQ blocks. These four input blocks give a binary [1] as a result if one or more of their inputs have bad quality. Actually, 8592 blocks are being tested in all. Of these, 316 do not have quality to test at all.

Here is one example of an alarm (and shutdown) that will not work, identified by the message here.

       Error: TSTQ tests block with no quality [063]

 
       TSTQ Module 4,05,03 Block 2273 tests Module 4,05,03 Block 6170 (FC 15), which does not
       have quality [4050378]

Obviously, the simple solution to the problem of no alarm on bad quality for 1 GROSS MW TRANSDUCER A is simply to test the quality of the input at IREF P1E0388A instead of the output of the fudge factor sum block 6170.

Example 3 - Misconfiguration of a DAANG Block

DBDOC also allows you to go looking for trouble. Walking through all instances of a Function Code will allow you to look for things that were missed long ago. This example shows bad quality that will not alarm.

DAANG blocks are powerful tools when configured competently. Powerplant A has 6227 of them, the second highest number we have seen in a single plant. I was curious to see how consistently programmed they were. The table shows how a value places on Specification S8 can set bad quality.

This plant uses this extensively. This example shows how the constant 32.0 is applied to S8 with the green highlights. When the raw signal is found by the TSTQ block to be bad quality, the DAANG block will be marked bad quality as intended.

The following example shows that undetected errors exist. The red highlights show that bad quality on this raw input will result in good quality being forced. Oops!

Being interested, I started walking through the 6227 DAANG blocks looking for this particular issue.  I got bored after 200, taking 16 minutes, about 5 seconds per block. I found (and flagged with DBDOC annotations) the following reality:

• 124 blocks with correct alarm configuration - setting 32.0 into S8
• 22 blocks incorrectly setting 1.0 into S8
• 1 block incorrectly setting 0.0 into S8
• 53 of the first 200 DAANG blocks did not set the quality attribute in this way.

The bottom line is that 12% of the first 200 DAANG blocks (all tagged, by the way) would not alarm on bad quality. I have no reason to think this is not representative, which suggests that perhaps 800 of these tags will not alarm on bad quality in this one system.

By contrast, I checked a system with 7980 DAANG blocks. There were no alarm errors in the first 150 instances, with all quality inputs being generated correctly. At least in this respect, good configuration work would make alarm analysis valid.

In a second system with 5084 DAANG blocks, I found that only 2042 of them used the S8 to set bad quality if needed. In fact, this simple walkthrough with DBDOC showed that that 60% of the blocks I sampled were fed from signals that had no quality to test, but did not reinsert bad quality. That could mean about 2000 simple errors - tag does not show bad quality when it should.

Error and Configuration Management Trump Alarm Management

Alarms cannot be managed if errors prevent them from working. DBDOC can be used to improve alarms both by looking at errors and by walking through the project carefully. Otherwise, any alarm analysis will be incomplete and unacceptable.

DBDOC: Reads the Manual and Checks Your Specs.

DBDOC is unique in giving you significant help in finding integrity issues in your system. Every INFI 90 system in the world would benefit from improving operational safety and reliability. Our Error Browser and Error Marker development was designed to make it possible to manage errors and improve the integrity of your systems.

Here you see our much loved copy of the function code manual, dog-eared and duct-taped. You've probably read it too, but possibly not as intensely as we have.

Based on studying the documentation and the experiences of our clients, we added new tests for function block specifications that violate the documentation in ways that seem significant. Read on to see what we found.

We reviewed test data for 229 systems around the world, and found 1160 new errors of note in 77 systems involving 33 function codes - 15 errors per system. Of course, this means that 68% of the systems had none of the specification errors we looked for. It also means that over 1/3 of the systems had these new errors Composer did not find, but that DBDOC will.

I expect this will be the most boring blog I ever write. Holy Understatements, Batman!

Here are example of errors found in various specification values for various function codes from real systems. Some could bite!  All are now reported by DBDOC in the Error Browser.

FC35 - 45 instances in 21 systems

• Module 5,65,02 Block 133 FC35 S2 value 005 is out of the valid range [000,102]

FC36 - 15 instances in 4 systems

• Module 5,26,05 Block 6441 FC36 S9 value 9 is out of the valid range [0,8]
• Module 7,101,06 Block 5800 FC36 S10 value -1 is out of the valid range [0,1]

FC45 - 22 instances in 6 systems

• Module 2,48,02 Block 854 FC45 S2 value 20 is out of the valid range [0,2]

FC50 - 1 instance in 1 system

• Module 3,01,04 Block 4082 FC50 S1 value -1 is out of the valid range [0,1]

FC69 - 9 instances in 4 systems

• Module 32,04,05 Block 3285 FC69 S2 value 5 is out of the valid range [0,2]

FC80 - 61 instances in 26 systems

• Module 2,78,02 Block 2151 FC80 S6 value 39 is out of the valid range [1-3 or 5-8]
• Module 2,15,05 Block 2039 FC80 S17 value 246 is out of the valid range [0,7]
• Module 1,11,02 Block 2494 FC80 S23 value 5 is out of the valid range [0,4]

FC82 - 4 instances in 3 systems

• Module 3,02,20 Block 1992 FC82 S5 value 30 is out of the valid range [0,2]
• Module 2,12,06 Block 15 FC82 S15 value 179 is out of the valid range [0,1]

FC83 - 501 instances in 4 systems

• Module 11,30,15 Block 463 FC83 S1 value 65 is out of the valid range [0,63]

FC84 - 5 instances in 4 systems

• Module 2,20,02 Block 6641 FC84 S2 value 10 is out of the valid range [0,1]
• Module 2,20,02 Block 6641 FC84 S2 value 10 is out of the valid range [0,1]

FC86 - 1 instance in 1 system

• Module 2,104,10 Block 1882 FC86 S6 value 013 is out of the valid range [000,101]

FC95 - 36 instances in 5 systems

• Module 1,62,03 Block 979 FC95 S7 value 2 is out of the valid range [0,1]
• Module 1,53,02 Block 9062 FC95 S12 value 7 is out of the valid range [0,1]

FC110, FC111, FC112 - 24 instances in 10 systems

• Module 5,12,04 Block 4015 FC110 S1 value 20 is out of the valid range [0,3]
• Module 5,23,02 Block 56 FC111 S1 value 10 is out of the valid range [0,3]
• Module 7,09,03 Block 4140 FC112 S1 value 10 is out of the valid range [0,3]

FC123 - 12 instances in 1 system

• Module 4,07,06 Block 3793 FC123 S7 value 22 is out of the valid range [0,11]
• Module 4,07,06 Block 3793 FC123 S8 value 22 is out of the valid range [0,11]

FC124 - 6 instances in 2 systems

• Module 5,33,03 Block 3194 FC124 S11 value 120 is out of the valid range [00,22]
• Module 5,33,03 Block 3194 FC124 S13 value 60 is out of the valid range [00,22]

FC126 - 3 instances in 1 system

• Module 1,14,11 Block 8501 FC126 S2 value 115 is out of the valid range [0,2]

FC129 - 92 instances in 33 systems

• Module 1,15,02 Block 3405 FC129 S7 value 003 is out of the valid range [000,111]
• Module 1,15,06 Block 3133 FC129 S8 value 1000 is out of the valid range [000,111]
• Module 1,20,05 Block 7810 FC129 S9 value 002 is out of the valid range [000,111]
• Module 1,23,03 Block 3995 FC129 S10 value 1000 is out of the valid range [000,111]
• Module 5,15,04 Block 2559 FC129 S11 value 20002 is out of the valid range [0000,2222]
• Module 1,44,04 Block 2509 FC129 S13 value 0003 is out of the valid range [0000,2222]
• Module 1,24,03 Block 1808 FC129 S14 value 222 is out of the valid range [000,142]
• Module 1,04,03 Block 3993 FC129 S15 value 23 is out of the valid range [0,1]
• Module 3,54,04 Block 7764 FC129 S19 value 5 is out of the valid range [Any or All of 0,1,2,3]

FC132 - 64 instances in 14 systems

• Module 1,01,15 Block 1346 FC132 S3 value 2 is out of the valid range [0,1]
• Module 1,60,02 Block 448 FC132 S3 value 4 is out of the valid range [0,1]
• Module 11,26,04 Block 1106 FC132 S3 value 7 is out of the valid range [0,1]
• Module 34,46,03 Block 8150 FC132 S10 value 78 is out of the valid range [0,5]
• Module 1,03,04 Block 1211 FC132 S13 value 50 is out of the valid range [0,5]
• Module 2,01,02 Block 244 FC132 S16 value 150 is out of the valid range [0,5]

FC136 - 28 instances in 3 systems

• Module 1,07,03 Block 1258 FC136 S16 value 3.0 is out of the valid range [0.0, 1.0, 2.0]

FC140 - 34 instances in 4 systems

• Module 10,02,07 Block 1076 FC140 S4 value 8078 is out of the valid range [00,11]
• Module 7,103,02 Block 3250 FC140 S5 value 212 is out of the valid range [0,63]

FC143 - 1 instance in 1 system

• Module 1,20,09 Block 8872 FC143 S1 value 3 is out of the valid range [0,2]

FC149 - 60 instances in 10 systems

• Module 5,41,02 Block 232 FC149 S3 value 8 is out of the valid range [0,1]
• Module 11,01,04 Block 161 FC149 S11 value 5 is out of the valid range [0,2]
• Module 11,01,04 Block 161 FC149 S12 value 5 is out of the valid range [0,2]
• Module 11,01,04 Block 161 FC149 S13 value 5 is out of the valid range [0,2]
• Module 11,01,04 Block 161 FC149 S14 value 5 is out of the valid range [0,2]
• Module 11,01,04 Block 161 FC149 S15 value 5 is out of the valid range [0,2]
• Module 11,01,04 Block 161 FC149 S16 value 5 is out of the valid range [0,2]
• Module 11,01,04 Block 161 FC149 S17 value 5 is out of the valid range [0,2]

FC151 - 6 instances in 3 systems

• Module 1,65,05 Block 4531 FC151 S6 value 4532.0 is out of the valid range [0.0,127.0]
• Module 2,30,03 Block 7180 FC151 S7 value 3 is out of the valid range [0,1]

FC156 - 5 instances in 4 systems
Module 1,18,03 Block 6438 FC156 S19 value 32 is out of the valid range [0,1]

• Module 3,03,02 Block 7284 FC156 S20 value 40 is out of the valid range [0,1]
• FC166 - 8 instances in 3 systems

Module 4,05,07 Block 3697 FC166 S2 value 120 is out of the valid range [0,2]

• Module 3,01,04 Block 3807 FC166 S8 value 32767 is out of the valid range [0,1]
• FC182 - 19 instances in 1 system
• Module 1,07,14 Block 56 FC182 S1 value 000 is out of the valid range [001-009, 020-124, 040-041, 064]

FC190 - 6 instances in 3 systems

• Module 2,32,07 Block 2280 FC190 S2 value 7200 is out of the valid range [1,6553]

FC216 - 61 instances in 10 systems

• Module 1,09,07 Block 8172 FC216 S3 value 19 is out of the valid range [1,16]
• Module 20,38,07 Block 650 FC216 S4 value 051 is out of the valid range [000-109, 010-113, 020-125, 040-144, 060-161, 099-199]
• Module 1,03,04 Block 1428 FC216 S5 value 2 is out of the valid range [0,1]
• Module 6,60,08 Block 162 FC216 S11 value 0 is out of the valid range [16,24]

FC222 - 1 instance in 1 system

• Module 1,09,02 Block 1023 FC222 S2 value 1022 is out of the valid range [0000-1209, 0010-1115, 0210-1214, 0300-1302, 0400-1400, 0500-1500, 0900-1900]

FC224 - 18 instances in 4 systems

• Module 1,09,02 Block 1048 FC224 S2 value 1047 is out of the valid range [0,2]
• Module 1,09,02 Block 1048 FC224 S3 value 1046 is out of the valid range [0,255]

FC226 - 8 instances in 2 systems

• Module 20,10,31 Block 8358 FC226 S3 value 10 is out of the valid range [0,4]

FC247 - 4 instances in 2 systems

• Module 1,13,04 Block 953 FC247 S5 value 5 is out of the valid range [1-4 or 6-8]

Holy Complications, Batman! A number of expressions in http://holysmokesbatman.com/directory apply. DBDOC helps improve your system's integrity.

Light Rung Humor

These examples are taken from current projects being engineered at this time. I offer them for amusement and comment. You can decide if they are good engineering or not.

First some prototype logic that works, but might not be termed "nice". The block will serve as a 5-input OR block, but the second input is wired, not the first. It works. It is also booby-trapped, as proven by how this logic was cleaned up in the same project.

Next (below), you can see how that logic got cleaned up. Not nice at all, eh? The output is always Boolean 0 and the input on S8 is always ignored.

Why did  this client not get burned? DBDOC gives a message when the input on S8 is not being used, as is the case here. Note also that only DBDOC shows the ladder logic diagram based on what is there. Close call for this client, but no harm done. 

Finally, where it was done nicely in a different system. It is absolutely natural and works. The unused specifications have been cleaned up correctly.

You might ask why leave the rung block in there at all? Good question. It allows for changes to be made later to add more conditions. I do not know if people get paid by the block, but that would also justify it. Also, why clean up the specifications. In the ugly case, it changed working logic into non-working. Left alone, any additional inputs would be OR'd in as expected.

If this were your system, would you insist on S7 being used for the first input? Would you let the specifications be changed to make it work?

Funny? What do you think? What would you accept?

50% of Systems Have Certain Function Blocks Unintentionally Disabled. Is Yours One of Them?

DBDOC is unique in giving you significant help in finding integrity issues in your system. Every INFI 90 system in the world will benefit from improving safety, reliability and operation with DBDOC's Integrity Plus approach. Our Error Browser and Error Marker development was designed to make it possible to manage errors and improve the integrity of your systems. 

 

In our most recent versions, we have added tests for three function blocks that are disabled by default.

• FC 3 - Lead / Lag - S2 defaults to 0 disabling the function
• FC 8 - Rate Limiter - S2 defaults to 0 disabling the function
• FC 166 - Integrator - S4 defaults to 0 disabling the function

For a function block to be disabled by default is horrific. Only three of the 200 types or so are (the rest are enabled by default). The hapless users put function blocks in place, but they do nothing that they were intended to do, because they are disabled. Now and forever, they are booby-trapped.

What do you think? Can there be any justification for most function blocks being enabled by default, with only these three exceptions?

Am I wrong? Are there other booby-traps we have missed? Please let us know.

In my review of test data for 228 systems around the world, I found

• Lead / Lag - 605 disabled in 83 systems
• Rate Limiter - 392 disabled in 86 systems
• Integrator - 50 disabled in 26 systems

In actuality, 75 systems had one of these; 42 systems had two and 8 hit the TriFecta! In total 125 of the 228 systems had one to three of these errors - 55% of them.

What about the "real world" - places where DBDOC checking has not been used yet? Here is what this test detected in a small power plant being worked on now by extremely competent people:

• Module 1,02,02 Block 8507 FC8 disabled by spec values
• Module 1,02,02 Block 9541 FC8 disabled by spec values
• Module 1,02,02 Block 10295 FC8 disabled by spec values
• Module 1,02,02 Block 11049 FC8 disabled by spec values
• Module 1,02,02 Block 11803 FC8 disabled by spec values

 

Holy Rate Unlimiter, Batman! http://holysmokesbatman.com/directory contains 350 actual sayings, perhaps the best being "Holy Time Bomb".

 

The 5 errors out of 152 Rate Limiter blocks show that only DBDOC can protect you from these problems.

 

Here are examples of each from real systems.

 

The objective of this FC 3 Lead/Lag block is to apply a time constant of 60 seconds to changes in the PV as applied to the APID control algorithm. This is not happening here because, unbeknownst to (or unnoticed by) the DCS specialist, the block is disabled and feeds the input directly to the output.

 

The first Rate Limiter example looked like it was booby-trapped in the sense that sometime in the future an unsuspecting body would put meaningful values on the limits and expect them to work. As you can see here, the negative going rate limit of 0.00333 per second presumably is intended to prevent larger drops in the value from affecting the process. However, the block does not function.

 

 

 

In the case of the integrator, it is S4 that is the trap. Clearly, nobody puts an integrator and tag into a system not intending to get data. This one will not get data because S4 is not wired to a constant value 1.

 

Only DBDOC can improve your system integrity by detecting these relatively common oversights.

 



System Integrity — DBDOC Detects Bad TSTALM Blocks

DBDOC is unique in giving you significant help in finding integrity issues in your system. Every INFI 90 system in the world will benefit from improving safety, reliability and operation with DBDOC's Integrity Plus approach. Our Error Browser and Error Marker development was designed to make it possible to manage errors and improve the integrity of your systems.

 

In August 2014, we showed examples of detectable TSTALM errors from one system, but we continue to find this error being made. We have been reporting it for a decade, since 2006. DBDOC is the only valid way to identify this problem.

 

We report Function Code 69 TSTALM blocks that test the same block and mode. This usually happens when a TSTALM block is copied without S1 the specification that tells what block is being tested being made to match the new block numbers. Any of these TSTALM problems could have an adverse affect on a plant.

 

I did a review of test data for 228 systems around the world:

• 22 had no TSTALM blocks - basically small systems averaging 1219 sheets each.
• 206 systems had 3 or more - average size was 4022 sheets.
• 90 had from one to 111 multiple TSTALM messages - average 8.2 errors.

The three systems with the largest number of messages looked like this:

• 111 errors - 114 actions missed, 114 actions falsely triggered
• 100 errors - 10 actions missed, 10 actions falsely triggered, 96 duplications
• 84 errors - 84 actions missed, 84 actions falsely triggered

 

Holy Crossfire, Batman! This is from http://holysmokesbatman.com/directory.

 

The problem is that good logic gets cloned to do the same job again and again. The block numbers get changed and the changes compile cleanly. However, S1 must be changed when the logic is cloned in the same module, because the cloned value of S1 is guaranteed to be the only block in the module that is wrong. The failure to do this is not caught by Composer or WinCAD compilers, so the error does not get corrected.

 

Let's start with an example. Here is our message, as shown in Error Browser, with the good stuff circled in green:

 

 

 

Block 2614 is clearly expected to be asserted when block 2609 is put into Auto mode.

 

DBDOC shows you the block index for block 2609, which you see here with the green highlight for the intended and correct logic.

 

 

 

  

What do you make of the purple, red and blue highlighted references? Click on each of them to go to the TSTALM block that is strangely testing block 2609.

 

 

 

 

 

S1 of block 2115 (purple) obviously should be 2111, not 2609.

S1 of block 2365 (red) obviously should be 2361, not 2609.

S1 of block 2490 (blue) obviously should be 2486, not 2609.

 

Count the errors:

• Blocks 2116, 2366 and 2491 will be asserted when MSDVDR block 2609 goes into automatic mode - three errors.
• Blocks 2116, 2366 and 2491 will NOT be asserted when MSDVDR blocks 2111, 2361 and 2480 respectively go into automatic mode - three more errors

 

Six errors for the price of one! Good value from DBDOC, eh?

 

Composer should be made to set the value of S1 to -1 when a TSTALM FC 69 block is placed on a page. The illegal value should force the user to enter one that would work.

 

Note also that the warning triangles (Error Markers) are in front of you when you get to the dysfunctional logic, so you can see right away that there is possibly a problem. The two messages they show are:

 

Tested block on different page (which should be a clue), and

TSTALM block tests subsequent block, which means they are out of natural sequence.

 

I have found as many as seven such duplications (that is, 14 errors) that came from the cloning of a single set of functioning blocks. Clearly, this error can be made and missed. DBDOC can find it for you.

 

When you review these using DBDOC Error Browser, you simply hide any that are of no consequence. You flag ones like this that affect the process. When they are fixed, they will disappear from the diagnostics. If you create such an error, it will show up as a new error, highlighted in yellow.

 

DBDOC helps improve your system integrity.

How Safe Is Your System From These 56 Dangers (That Your Infi 90 Tools May Never Warn You About)?

Why 56?  That is the current number of types of serious configuration errors that DBDOC routinely detects and reports.  An example of one of these issues is explained in detail later in this article.  Your system almost certainly harbors a few of these significant errors.

Read on for a review of DBDOC's ever expanding integrity management capabilities.

Since the beginning, DBDOC has been helping users find and fix system configuration issues. However, understanding and navigating the somewhat arcane log files involved was always something of an ordeal for most DBDOC users. The more intrepid among you might recognize this sort of log content, and breathe a sigh of relief that there is now an easier way. And if you've never worried about these issues before, you will see that it's now far easier than it used to be.

Dealing with errors DBDOC found (the "old" way):

Viewing issues these days, inside the interactive Error Browser:

It has taken us a dozen years, but we have finally created a system to manage these "issues". We called it Error Browser, but you can think of it as Integrity Browser, because some people take exception to using bad words. We could run a poll or survey on a new name, but the spectrum of perspectives ranges from clear to rose-tinted:

• some people that say DBDOC found an issue, and they fixed it and saved a lot of grief,
• some people that say DBDOC found an issue, but they did not fix it, and it hurt them,
• some people that say they do not have any issues,
• some people that say if their INFI 90 tools say there is no problem, there is no problem.

We run into all the above and more.

The Error Browser makes it extremely easy to view and manage errors.

Anyhow, the Error Browser was invented to give you the ability to view issues very easily, access integrated documentation to explain them, study them and mark them as "starred," "reviewed," or "hidden" (and combinations).

You can the share the work of reviewing errors among a group of users.

The next enhancement was to allow sharing of the "starred" and "reviewed" status among members of your DCS team. This also happened to solve the problem of working on more than one computer as yourself, or working on the data on your laptop. It synchronizes nicely if you connect and have new error data information.

However, I have been told that people do not have time to study the "issues" we raise, even once. So now we have made it even easier:

New in 10.6: Error Markers right on documents alert you to the presence of errors.

DBDOC Version 10.6 has "Error Markers" that show, as well as we have managed so far, where
issues exist. This means that, when you get to a configuration CLD or CAD sheet with issues, you will see the error markers.  Simply mousing over an error marker will immediately tell you something about the problem it is flagging.

A fabulous client asked: "I want to know if it is possible to turn on and off the error markers. Some areas may get quite cluttered if there are multiple error markers for a block."

Yes, indeed, on the View menu. But we suggest letting people see them, because the idea is to add our diagnostics to your trouble-shooting approach.

Some examples may be helpful.   Below are examples (from actual systems) of two of the 56 types of serious errors DBDOC detects.  DBDOC also detects on hundreds of other less serious sorts of issues, some of which are cosmetic, and some of which are generally not serious, but should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Error Example: The Case of The Broken Timer

So here you are. You expect a timer to be working (Block 3103 in the image), but it is not. What do you see (ignore my orange oval for a moment)?



There are two warning triangles on the sheet! What could they be telling you? Click on the first one to see what it is telling you.




What? Didn't Composer flag that sort of thing? I dunno, maybe it did. Click on the second one (because it is trivial and might add some context to the issue).



Now, to get more information, you can right-click on the text [FC86] above the ETIMER Block 3102, or on the ETIMER Block itself (new in 10.6) and get access both to our "thumbnail sketch" and also to the Function Code PDF documentation.

I circled another way to get to the PDF documentation. However, our sketch is enough here.

Anyway, looking back at the misconfigured ADAPT Block 3095, you can see that it is adapting S3 (the Time units spec) of Block 3102, which is illegal. 

S5 is the Timer reset value of Block 3102, which is what it should be adapting, i.e. S3 of ADAPT Block 3095 should be 5.

The point of this is that the issue pops into view when you get to the problem sheet. Of course, you should have already gone through the issues we identified and hidden ones you found to be inconsequential. But the error markers put the issues we have found right in front of you..

Error markers are the latest enhancement to integrity management for INFI 90. You need them to step on problems before they step on you, your plant and the people in your path.