MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965419735 · doi:10.5339/qfarf.2010.eep35

A new risk-based approach for alarm system design

2010· article· en· W1965419735 on OpenAlexaff
Salim Ahmed, Faisal Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueQatar Foundation Annual Research Forum Proceedings · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsALARMRisk analysis (engineering)Process (computing)Set (abstract data type)Variable (mathematics)Computer scienceOperator (biology)Control (management)Psychological interventionReliability engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Increasing demands for higher efficiency and strict environmental regulations for process industries have led to the development of sophisticated control technologies and smart sensors. However, improved control mechanisms and better sensors have not been able to eliminate abnormal operating conditions. As a result operator interventions are routinely required. Alarms are at the forefront of the safety system in a plant to indicate the need for such interventions. The main purposes of an alarm is to warn of a possible critical condition and to seek the attention of an operator and thus to prevent, control and mitigate the effects of an abnormal situation. However, on many occasions, alarms have been reported as a contributor to abnormal events and the single variable based alarm system design has been identified as a main reason for that. In this article, we present a systems approach to design, analyze and prioritize alarms. By a system, we refer to a set of variables within a process. An alarm is activated based on the risk associated with the state of the variables in a system. The objectives are to integrate risk estimation with alarm design and to reduce the number of alarms. First, the process variables are grouped to be represented by a number of systems. Alarms are then assigned to each system instead of individual variables. From the measured value of the variables, the risk associated within the individual system is estimated. Also from the relationships among the variables, future risk associated with each system is evaluated. Finally, the overall risk for a particular system is obtained from the current and predicted risk and comparing the overall risk with a predefined threshold value, a decision regarding alarm activation is taken. Once a set of alarms are activated, they are prioritized based on their severity. Also for the analysis of an alarm, the risk associated with individual variables under a system is analyzed and, finally, proper operator action is suggested to mitigate the abnormal situation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQatar Foundation Annual Research Forum ProceedingsSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207