FOUNDATION PRINCIPLES

FAULT FINDING
TOPIC 5 CONTENT

Certificate IV in Engineering (Instrumentation)

MEM40105 (WT46)

© Challenger Institute of Technology

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 1 of 21
 TOPIC 5 – FAULT FINDING
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 3
2 EXAMPLE OF FAULTS SCENARIO ................................................................... 4
2.1 Review of Example of Faults Scenario ..................................................... 14
3 FAULT FINDING ............................................................................................... 16
3.1 Fault Finding Introduction......................................................................... 16
3.2 Solutions Desired not Faults .................................................................... 16
3.3 Fault Finding Toolbox .............................................................................. 16
3.4 Root Cause Analysis................................................................................ 16
3.5 Perception ............................................................................................... 17
3.6 Fault Finding Methods ............................................................................. 18
3.6.1 Look and Tug Method .......................................................................... 18
3.6.2 Ask Questions Process of Elimination Method ..................................... 18
3.6.2.1 Fault Finding Comment ................................................................ 20
3.7 Use the Maintenance Manual .................................................................. 21
3.8 Read Internet Document .......................................................................... 21

© Challenger Institute of Technology

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 2 of 21
1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of Topic 5 Fault Finding is to create a foundation of knowledge on which
the subsequent courses can further built upon to create the level of knowledge
required to successfully complete the Certificate IV in Engineering (Instrumentation).
This is the last topic in Foundation Principles. In this topic, our goal is to introduce
fault finding. In the other courses towards getting your Certificate IV, fault finding will
be discussed in relationship to common faults by type of instrument.
This topic starts with an example of faults, errors, mistakes, and bad decisions made
during the design, construction, commissioning, and operation of the plant. The
purpose of this example is to show you how mistakes, poor decisions, or simple
errors can combine to impact on plant instrumentation and operations control.
Depending on how you perceive the problem, you could say the injuries were
ultimately caused by a level transmitter. From another perception, this situation was
caused by costs saving methods, just bad luck or poor decisions?
A person needs to look beyond assumptions that „x‟ will be correct and you only need
to look at „y‟. The most powerful fault finding tool you have is your brain and
experience.
Continuing on from Topic 4, the Rosemount 3051S pressure transmitter manual is
used to look at fault finding from a manufacturer‟s perspective. Challenger Institute of
Technology is not advising that preference should be given to Rosemount or that
Rosemount is a superior product to other manufactures. Rosemount was simply
selected because it has extensive reference material on its web site and Rosemount
is available internationally.
Within this topic, we will be referencing the following document that is available free
of charge on the company website. The full website path is provided within the
reading table section.
Rosemount 3051S HART Reference Manual 00809-0100-4801
http://www.emersonprocess.com/rosemount/document/index.html

Good luck on this topic. If you have any questions, please contact your assigned
lecturer.

© Challenger Institute of Technology

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 3 of 21
2 EXAMPLE OF FAULTS SCENARIO
The best way to understand fault finding is by appreciating the way a minor mistake can occur and not be detected for some period of time. The example of
faults scenario, in chronological order, is not an actual case; these events did not happen and no one was injured. What is true is that each of these faults,
errors, mistakes, and bad decisions has occurred individually within the design, construction, or operation of a plant. As you read the scenario, you may find
that identifying a primary fault is difficult. It is usually the combination of faults that cause a problem.

# Person/Entity/ Design/Decision/Job Function Problem Consequence

Action

1 Application
Three highly corrosive chemicals were
mixed using an inline static mixer. The
outlet of the static mixer discharged into a
retention tank. The tank was designed to
allow time for the chemical reaction to
occur before being pumped into another
process line.
To save money there was only a flow If the tank level measurement was
meter on the tank discharge line. The flow wrong, the operator would not
meter was ratio controlled from the flow beware of a problem and the
rate of the main process line that the chemical positive displacement
chemicals were injected into. There was pumps would not shut off.
no control design feature allowing the
measurement of flow into the tank to be
compared with flow leaving the tank. The
three chemicals lines into the inline static
mixer were controlled by chemical positive
displacement pump on each line. The flow
rate for the positive displacement pumps
were manually set at the pump. Each
pump was interlocked to the retention tank
high level and low level interlocks.

2 Process Designer Determined the specific gravity was 1.18 At retention tank under operating If calibration calculated using 1.18,
conditions, the actual specific gravity was then transmitter would read 1%
1.2 lower than actual level.

3 Civil Designer Assumed tank would not overflow very May not contain overflow if control system If tank overflows, the sump and bund
often built a low bund and small sump pit. interlocks are not functioning correctly. could overflow in 3 minutes at full
production rate.

4 Mechanical On tank general arrangement drawing, For level measurement, the plant uses If a height of 100 inches was used in
Designer stated instrument connections 0-100 bottom of overflow and not centre line of calculations, then tank will be
inches from centre line of pump to centre overflow. The instrument designer has to overflowing at 98.5% assuming
line of overflow. notice and correct. The actual height correct specific gravity was used.
should be 98.5 inches.
© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008
Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 4 of 21
 # Person/Entity/ Design/Decision/Job Function Problem Consequence
Action

5 Piping Designer
Designed as stated on P&ID with overflow
pipe discharging in sump.
The tank sump was located behind the An operator could not notice the tank
tank in an area difficult to see. Even overflowing and the sump filling up.
though it cost more, the piper should have
recommended running overflow pipe to
primary chemical drains. The overflow
pipe specification required an expensive
exotic material. The pipe specification from
a sump pump could be hose. The piper
figured the design was based on lowest
cost option and said nothing.

6 Electrical To cut costs, installed a small self Looked like a simple installation. Ball float The ball float was installed
Designer contained sump pump with a ball float to installed by electrician. Was tested by incorrectly and did not turn on pump
turn sump pump on and off. lifting float with hand and seeing if at high level.
contacts closed.

7 Instrumentation Designed using a pressure transmitter with
Designer a titanium diaphragm to measure level.
For calculation, used SG=1.18 and
H=100". Calibration = 0-118 "H2O. Chose
to do high level interlock in control system
rather than purchase a separate high level
switch. Sets high level interlock at 85%.
The instrument designer was a senior
designer and believes that he should not
have to do manual entry into the design
database. He writes his calculation on
paper and gives to data entry person.
Using a pressure transmitter for level
measurement is dependant on specific
gravity and correct calibration range. The
actual calculation should have been
SG=1.20 and H=98.5". Calibration = 0-
118.2 "H2O. There would be no notable
problem at start-up because the two errors
have the effect of cancelling each other
out. The designer was rushed and did not
personally check to ensure the correct
values were entered into database. As far
as he was concerned, he did his job
correctly and anything else is not his
problem.
Possible future problem once plant
determines correct specific gravity
and enters in their computerised
maintenance management system.
When transmitter is replaced, the
error in height is not noticed but the
SG is corrected years prior. During
replacement instrument technician
calibrates using Calibration = 100 x
1.2 = 120 "H2O. A week later tank is
actually overflowing although control
system display states 98.5%.

8 Operation Review The plant accepted the tank design even Operations cannot physically see if there The bund did overflow and
of Plant Design though they didn't like it much. They is an actual overflow until it is almost too operations were not aware.
figured that the risk factor was low. late. At that point, they only have a few
minutes before the bund is breached.

© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 5 of 21
 # Person/Entity/ Design/Decision/Job Function
Action
9 Instrument Data The job is to enter data as given.
Entry Operator
10 Procurement Purchasing was done with minimum
purchase orders using bulk purchases to
take advantage of the project volume
pricing. A smart database was used to
collate instrumentation requirements. For
pressure transmitters, the database was
designed to look at calibration and
diaphragm material to automatically select
model number using pre-programmed
parameters. This method saved money on
design, procurement, and plant future
spare parts requirements. The instruments
used HART and were all purchased with
factory calibration to save money and time
at site.
© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008
Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content
Problem Consequence
Previously, the data entry person had The database is the master
several upsetting discussions with the document in which all other design,
designer in question because the messy procurement, and construction
hand writing was hard to read. It was documents used the entered data.
Friday afternoon when the entry in
question happened. It looked like
calibration was 0-718 "H2O. The data
entry person did not want to have another
fight since he was going out after work and
wanted to be in a good mood. Entered as
0-718 "H2O.
Any error in entered data will be carried on The instrument arrived at site and
to the purchasing of the instrument. Since was just installed as is. The tank
the calibration range was entered wrong, would be actually overflowing at
the wrong transmitter range was specified. 16.5%.
Unfortunately, the actual transmitter
purchased could not be calibrated for the
correct range since values below minimum
span specifications of instrument. Also,
titanium is an expensive material with a
long delivery time. In this case, it was 12
weeks after receipt of order. Due to cost,
the recommended spare parts list did not
have any transmitters with titanium
diaphragms.
Page 6 of 21
 # Person/Entity/ Design/Decision/Job Function Problem Consequence
Action

11 Site Inspection of The construction contract stated the The correct level transmitter as purchased The fact that it was the wrong
Instruments and instruments would be given a check for was installed but it was the wrong instrument did not get picked-up
Site Calibration physical damage at construction instrument for the application. during the pre-install construction
Check warehouse and no check calibration phase. Many large engineering jobs
checks would be done. are fast tracked. This means that to
save time and money during the
design phase most work is not
independently checked prior to
issue. The designers do not
deliberately try to make mistakes but
an error rate of 5% is acceptable
with the understanding that the 5%
errors would be found during the
construction stage. The problem is
when the engineer firm designs with
this understanding but the
construction phase is now also
streamlined so they no longer have
the ability or obligation to find these
errors.

12 Installation Since a HART installation, the
manufacturer no longer stamped on the
instrument face plate the calibration
information just the instrument tag
number.
In the "old" days with a factory calibration, The level transmitter was installed as
the calibrated range was stamped on face received.
plate. This useful feature allowed the
installer to quickly look at values and
during installation to determine if it made
sense. For this installation, all the installer
knew was the tag number. If the installer
had seen 0-718 "H2O stamped for
calibration, the installer most likely would
have notified someone.

© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 7 of 21
 # Person/Entity/ Design/Decision/Job Function
Action
13 Pre- Their job is to ensure the plant is built as
Commissioning designed and punch list any items that did
Team (before not work or may have safety concerns. For
process fluid is the instrument wiring, only point checks
applied) were performed not full testing to confirm
calibration. This means a 4-20 mA signal
was applied to the field wiring and the
control system display and interlocks
verified. On check, the display was 0-
100% equal to 4-20 mA and the high level
alarm tripped at 85% equal to 17.6 mA.
The loop appeared OK and was green
tagged.
14 Commissioning The mixed chemical process fluid in the
Team (water or tank was not compatible with water.
air test prior to Therefore, during the water test
actual process commissioning phase this portion of the
fluids being plant was not pretested with water to
applied) ensure actual operation of equipment and
instruments before process fluid was
introduced.
15 Plant Operating The plant started operation at low flow
levels with actual process fluids.
© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008
Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content
Problem
This was a fast track job and getting the
plant running was number one priority.
The tank installation punch list items would
be addressed later. The instrument loop
was accepted even though once the plant
started the error in actual level
measurement would be found.
If the tank had been water tested, the error
in the level transmitter would have been
found prior to plant running with
dangerous chemicals.
The operators were making decisions
based on incorrect information.
Page 8 of 21
Consequence
The tank installation was punched
listed but due to financial restraints
due to cost overruns only the punch
list items identified as high priority
were addressed. As for the level
measurement, the measured value
had repeatability but was not
accurate. The high level interlock
could never be activated since it was
impossible for the tank to ever get to
85% equal to actual tank height of
508.6 inches to trip. Remember the
tank is only 98.5" to bottom of
overflow.
The level transmitter error in
calibration range not found.
The decisions made in regards to
the retention tank system were
wrong.
 # Person/Entity/ Design/Decision/Job Function Problem Consequence
Action

16 Politics The plant was built in a poor rural area of
the country with high unemployment. The
state government provided 30% funding.
When the cost overruns occurred, the
government stepped in and covered the
difference. The local people supported this
but the government was getting flak by the
press and the opposition party.
To stop the bad publicity and with the A operating plant tour with the public
election only two weeks away the member as arranged before plant fully
of parliament for the area was pushing proven.
hard get good PR. Once the politician was
advised the plant had passed the
commissioning phase and was now
actually running even at low flow rates, it
was seen as a good time to get positive
publicity. The politician had a child in year
twelve in that town and though it would be
great PR if their class of year 12 students
went on the PR tour. After all, the plant
was to give these students a future.

17 Plant Yellow As with most plant, this plant had yellow The yellow line safe area passed right in If the tank bund overflowed, then the
Lines Safety Area lines to mark off the safe area to walk front of the retention tank bunt. dangerous chemical would overflow
without safety equipment. As long as a into the yellow safe area.
person stayed within the yellow lines,
wears closed toe shoes and long sleeves
they should be safe.

18 Chemical Room The three chemical positive displacement
pumps were located in a separate
chemical building designed for truck tanker
unloading. The chemical lines ran through
the wall of the chemical building into the
process area were the retention tank was
located. There was a safety shower in the
chemical room but none in the process
area. To get to safety shower took 2
minutes if running.
The operator who adjusts the flow rate on
the positive displacement pumps could not
see what was happening at the tank and
only had radio communication with the
control room. There should have safety
shower between the tank and the chemical
injection into the process line only 15
metres away.
No positive feedback on what was
going on with each adjustment made
to flow rate from pumps. If there was
an incident at the tank and the
chemical injection area, permanent
skin damage could happen in the
time it took to get to the safety
showers.

© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 9 of 21
 # Person/Entity/ Design/Decision/Job Function
Action
19 The Political Tour The day of the tour was perfect. There
were four people from plant management,
three politicians, one photographer, one
TV news reporter, one TV camera person,
and ten year 12 students. At the plant
entrance there was a sausage sizzle and
welcome signs.
20 Desire to Impress During the tour, the plant manager wanted On the control system display, the tank
to impress and ordered the operators to go level was 19% but was actually at 98%.
up to full production rate.
21 Chemical Flow The control room operator using a radio
Rate Increased called the operator in the field to go and
adjust the flow rates at the chemical
pumps. The only people trained in safety
were the operators.
© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008
Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content
Problem Consequence
The plant manager owed a duty of care to If there was a problem on tour, it
others and should not have allowed a tour would be difficult to control such a
in an operating plant that was not fully large group in a working plant. The
operational and tested. A higher duty of shoes and exposed arms would not
care also existed when allowing minors on provide adequate protection and
tour since children often do stupid things. chemicals could come in contact
There were too many people in one tour with the skin.
group. The politician's child technically had
closed toes shoes but the shoes were
running shoes with an open weave for
ventilation and no socks were worn. The
sleeves were only 3/4 length and not down
to the wrist.
The wrong decision was made to go
to full operating capacity for political
reasons.
The operator planned to quickly rejoin the The tour group should have had
tour. He was the only person in the tour someone there at all times with a
with a radio. He asked the plant manager radio.
who was leading the group to just wait
there until he returned. The operator knew
this was a safe area with little risk. He
should be back in six minutes and it gave
time for pictures to be taken. On the way
back, the control room asked him to take a
quick look at a piece of equipment on the
way.
Page 10 of 21
 # Person/Entity/ Design/Decision/Job Function
Action
22 Tank Overflowed The field operator moderately adjusted the
chemical flow rates. When the control
room did not immediately observe any
change in level, they ordered the field
operator to adjust to a higher flow rate
before he left the area.
23 Tour Moved On The pictures were taken and the kids were
starting to get distracted and loud. The
manager felt it was his plant and an
operator could not tell him what to do. It
looked bad in front of the politician and he
could not see any reason why they should
not move forward.
24 Injury Occurred The child fell in the bund and started
screaming. The bund overflowed. The
chemical in addition to being corrosive
was also very slippery.
© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008
Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content
Problem Consequence
The operators had no idea what was A dangerous situation was
actually happening. As soon as flow rates developing and no one knew.
were increased the tank overflowed. The
small sump quickly filled but the sump
pump did not turn on since ball float
installed incorrectly. The bund was almost
overflowing.
The one child said something to another The child was covered in dangerous
and they started to knock each other in the corrosive chemicals.
shoulder. No one noticed since the kids
were at the end of the tour line. Just in
front of the tank the, the politician's child
was knocked and fell down. Unfortunately,
the fall direction was towards the bund.
Another kid tried to pull him out, but fell The operator should have called for
knocking down some other kids. The help immediately. This caused a
adults ran towards the kids and slipped; delay in first aid arriving and greater
falling into the chemicals on the floor. The injury occurred.
TV camera person was standing on the
other side of the walkway and caught
everything on film. The field operator could
not immediately hear the screams since
he was at the end of the building. When
the operator finally did see and hear the
commotion, he did not know what was
going on and ran to the area rather than
immediately call for help. He also slipped
and fell hitting his head on a pipe on the
way down and blacked out. The radio was
in his front pocket and was now located
under his body.
Page 11 of 21
 # Person/Entity/ Design/Decision/Job Function Problem Consequence
Action

25 First Aid Arrives The plant manager used his cell phone to There were too many injured people. The The original child that fell in the bund
call the front desk and yelled for help. The safety officers just went to the first person and was the most injured did not get
switch board operator at first thought it they saw rather then the most injured. immediate help.
was a joke until he heard the screams.
The control room was finally contacted
and the plant went into emergency
shutdown. All safety officers ran to the
scene.

26 Safety System Safety system not designed to handle a The safety shower were too far away for Greater injury occurred.
large group of injured people. the most seriously injured to walk to. A
safety officer did finally lead the walking
injured to the safety showers but the
distance caused great pain and suffering.
Only a few people could fit under the
shower at once. The chemicals float on
the water which is OK in the safety shower
with a grating; the water just lifts the
chemical off the body. Another operator
thought of using the plant overhead water
filled fire sprinkler system to try and
provide some degree of hose down, when
the sprinklers turned on the chemical
floating on the water pooled on the smooth
concrete floor and made things worse.

© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 12 of 21
 # Person/Entity/ Design/Decision/Job Function Problem Consequence
Action

27 End Result The whole incident made international Who is actually to blame? These injuries ???
news, the plant was closed for weeks did not occur as a result of only one bad
during the investigations, the politician did decision or error but from a combination of
not get re-elected, the child in bund was errors.
badly scarred for life over 23% of the body
and lost sight in one eye, ten others
suffered minor scarring on hands and
face, and the operator injured was not
scarred but was in a coma for two days
and still suffers from stress injury. The
incident will be in the courts for years
determining blame and compensation.

© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 13 of 21
2.1 Review of Example of Faults Scenario

From the Example of Faults Scenario, lets review what an instrument designer or
technician could have done differently.

# Person/Action Instrument Input

1 Application In the P&ID development stage and during the hazop,

instrumentation should be present to identify
instrumentation related risks in the design. A hazop is a
multidiscipline meeting that evaluates the process control
and safety system of a plant or new design. I have seen
existing plant have a hazop to ensure best practice is
occurring or after an incident has occurred. The basic
question of a hazop is „what if‟.

2 Process An instrument person should double check, when possible,

Designer to confirm the process specific gravity/density is correct
and makes sense.

4 Mechanical Always check general arrangement to confirm correct

Designer height is used and instruments are in correct position.

5 Piping Designer Always check piping isometrics or actual installation to

confirm instrument is mounted or installed correctly. If
there are straight run requirements for the instrument,
make sure the installation is right. I have seen many times
a nice long run straight run of pipe but the flow meter is
installed near the bend. I don‟t know why pipers do that but
they do. I have also seen the instrument department insist
on an instrument being relocated due to poor original
installation locations. You have power to influence; use it
when necessary.

6 Electrical For some applications, it is better to have a separate

Designer switch/transmitter for interlocking backup. Look at the risks
if the instrument with interlocks fails.

7 Instrumentation Check your own work. If possible, have checked by

Designer another.

9 Instrument Data Do your own data entry.

Entry Operator

10 Procurement Check correct instruments actually purchased.

11 Site Inspection Don‟t just check for physical damage on instruments you
of Instruments purchase. Confirm the instrument actually works and
and Site makes sense for the application.
Calibration
Check

© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 14 of 21
 # Person/Action Instrument Input

12 Installation When you do an installation look at calibration and

application do see if it makes sense. If a tank, is the height
about right? If flow, does it make sense to have that
much/little flow in the line? Install as per manufacturers
instructions. Just because a process connection is on the
line, does not mean you can‟t get it fixed if wrong.

13 Pre- If you are on a pre-commissioning team and have any say,

Commissioning don‟t just verify you have the correct wires to the control
Team system. If possible, do more detailed checking.

14 Commissioning Check that all instruments are working. If possible look at

Team actual height of fluids in tanks.

15 Plant Operating Where possible check the control system is displaying

actual process values and not just an instrument mistake.

© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 15 of 21
3 FAULT FINDING
3.1 Fault Finding Introduction

To find a fault you are going to have to call upon all your resources both internal and
external. This means use your brain, experience, listening, ask questions, use of
proper communication devices, have basic tools available, and refer to various
documents. The most interesting part of your job should be to find out what is wrong
then find a solution/s to fix the problem.

3.2 Solutions Desired not Faults

The desire is not to find a fault for the sake of finding a fault but to recommend or find
solutions to the problem. Your goal is to GET THE PLANT BACK RUNNING. Once
you find the fault, the fun stuff is finding solutions to fix the problem.
In the Example of Faults Scenario, if the level transmitter over range fault had been
found a possible solution would be to calibrate for the instrument minimum span and
then apply a factor in the control system to compensate so display was representing
true value. To do nothing and wait 12 weeks for a new transmitter to arrive is not a
solution because it does not get the plant up and running.

3.3 Fault Finding Toolbox

Your fault finding toolbox is comprised of:

The most powerful Your handheld You need The plant

item in your toolbox communicator or physical tools. documents,
is your brain, calibrator is very manufacturer
experience, and important. Please manuals, and text
asking for help or take care in handling books are all useful.
more information. and storage.

3.4 Root Cause Analysis

If you are ever given the opportunity to attend root cause analysis or similar training, I
recommend you take it. It will help you in fault finding by teaching you skills to look
beyond the apparent problem to determine the real problem. In the assignment
section, you will be asked to come up with some root causes and solutions to the
Example of Faults Scenario.
Formal root cause analysis is a documented proceedings to establish all known
causal relationships between the root cause/s and the defined problem. The goal is
to find effective solution/s and the root cause/s are just a method to get there. For
root cause to be effective, it is important to have people from a variety of

© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 16 of 21
backgrounds with different perspectives attend the analysis. The purpose is to
document only the actual facts and not speculation. Then following those paths that
may lead towards a solution that can be implemented.
With root cause analysis, you start with the present time and systematically work
backwards asking “why” and “but for” questions until there are no more “but for”‟. A
“but for” question will usually have several answers. Only the answers with the most
likely ability to change a situation would be followed. For example:
Problem: The wind blows the car door closed on my hand.
Why was my hand there?
 1: But for the slippery grass, I would not have had my hand there in the first
place.
 2: But for getting into car my hand would not be there. This is a dead end
since people need to get into cars.
Why was the car on the grass slippery?
 1: But for the automatic sprinkler just shut off, the grass would not be wet.
This path is actually a dead end since a practical solution cannot be found to
address the issue of wet grass when it rains. Rain is beyond your control.
 2: But for the main parking lot being full, I would not of parked on the grass.
This might have some value in exploring.

3.5 Perception

We do not all see the same thing or perceive a problem the same why. The reason
for this is we each have different experiences and view a problem from a different
perception and relevancy. What do you think when you look at the combined figure?

Combined Blue Box Red Circle Yellow Triangle

Different Perceptions:
 If you viewed combined head on, might say combined was just one figure.
 If you viewed combined from side, you might find that there are three figures
all nicely aligned.
 If looking at the combined figure, you might think the yellow triangle is most
important.
 If looking at each separately, you might think the blue box is most important.
 If you are colour blind, you might not even see the red circle.
 If you were young, you might say they were primary colours.
 If you were older, you might say square, circle, and triangle stacked.
When you are assigned to find a fault, often the actual fault is not the reported fault.
Sometimes it is, but not always. When approaching fault finding, try to have an open

© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 17 of 21
mind and don‟t be afraid to ask questions. By asking questions, you will see how the
problem is perceived from that persons view point. Remember, different groups will
look at the problem from their perception. The process engineer may be worried
about the production rates and cost impact. The operator just wants to know what is
actually going on and have a reliable measurement. The instrument supervisor might
wonder if overtime will be required to fix the problem. It is the same problem but each
department will have different concerns.

3.6 Fault Finding Methods

There are many methods to find a fault, look and tug, ask questions, use manuals,
etc. There is no one correct way. It all depends on the situation and the reported
fault. The most common fault are operator error, calibration error, and physical
hardware problem.

3.6.1 Look and Tug Method

Often a problem can be found quickly but just looking at the instrument, it may be
obvious. For example, a fork lift knocked the transmitter off the stand and it is just
dangling. Many problems have been resolved by just gently tugging on the
instrument wire connections and having the wire fall out of the terminal. Once
tightened, the problem went away. Don‟t become so dependant on your computer
generated tools that you don‟t go and take a look.

3.6.2 Ask Questions Process of Elimination Method

The process of elimination method is similar to a game were a person has to guess
the correct dollar amount in defined time and are only told higher or lower to each
question. If advised the range was between $0 and $1000, then a good guess would
be $500. If higher, then you now know between $500 and $1001. You have
eliminated 50% of the original possible wrong guesses. This is a big improvement
with only one question.
Using the same approach in instrumentation, there are basic questions you should
ask to define the problem before trying to solve the problem. The repair call may
have been made in relation to just one instrument but there may be other instruments
affected also. By defining the actual problem up front you will save time later. If there
are other instrument problems that occurred at the same time, you will have a
different approach then just trying to solve a problem in relationship to one
instrument. In the table, are examples of questions that may be asked to help define
the problem.

© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 18 of 21
 Sample Questions YES NO

Ask Operator: Time is of the essence. If not important or low

Management should impacting on production,
Is this situation critical to
expect you to do what is then you have time to sort
process operations?
necessary even if you out.
miss your scheduled
break.

Ask Operator: If they are all on the same Then fault is most likely
rack, then the rack might related to just one
Are there any other
be faulty. instrument. Use your
instruments reading a fault
communicator, calibrator,
that have not been
or look at the instrument to
reported?
see if there is anything
obviously wrong.

Ask Operator: Look at the instrument Look at the wiring

first. If X‟mitter OK, then connections, instrument,
Is the instrument fault
look at wiring. process, and then
continuous?
environment.

Ask Operator: Use your communicator, Ask more questions and

calibrator, or look at the
Was the process stable
instrument to see if there
when the fault occurred?
is anything obviously
wrong.
look at process trends and
what equipment turned on
at near the time of the
fault.

Ask Yourself: Fix the problem Use communicator to see

if fault can be found. If not,
Can I physically see what
start at instrument in field.
the problem is without
If no solution, then check
using tools?
junctions box, check rack,
check control system,
check process, etc.

© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 19 of 21
3.6.2.1 Fault Finding Comment

 Common Fault: Ground shield touching inside the field instrument case because
they were not cut and taped but just folded back and taped. Over time, the tape
falls off and the ground shield make contact with the housing.
 Common Fault: Wires requiring tightened at termination points.
 Common Fault: Wrong type of instrument selected for application.
 Common Fault: Wrong calibration range.
 Actual Case: I was being given a tour for a design change. I noticed an
instrument and asked if part of the package. Was advised no, that instrument was
good and not a problem. When I looked closer at the display, I saw salt crystals
actually coming out from the enclosure threads. I advised that I did not think this
instrument could be function correctly. I checked later in the control room. The
instrument sure did have a nice smooth signal of about 50%. The problem was
the output had not changed for who knows how long. The instrument was actually
completely packed internally and at process connection with salt but somehow a
fixed signal was still be transmitted. Unfortunately, the signal had no resemblance
to the actual process variable. Solution: In this case, the plant determined they
could run without this measurement and the instrument loop was
decommissioned. They based this decision on the fact no one noticed or cared
when it was not displaying correctly.
 Actual Case: The reported fault is intermittent affecting several temperature
transmitters. First I looked at what was common. They all went to the same
junction box. On looking at the box on first impression, everything appeared OK
and I had the terminals tightened. The problem still occurred. I asked questions
about what else was happening when the sporadic faults occurred. Operator did
not know of a common thread at different times. I then used observation. I noted
that when a very large piece of equipment on the floor above started the whole
area around the junction box shook. This also turned out to be when there was a
fault. The operator did not make the connection since the large equipment was in
a different process area and not on his screen. The question then became why
was the vibration causing problems? The fault was caused because the
construction contractor used 14 AWG cable to the RTD temperature sensors in
the field and the terminal strip was only rated for 24 – 16 AWG. With the
oversized wire, the terminal screw was not in far enough and the vibration
allowed the screw to work loose. Solution: The cheapest solution was to replace
the terminal strip with one rated for 14 AWG since this cost less then replacing
the field twisted single pair cabling to about twenty loops.

© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 20 of 21
3.7 Use the Maintenance Manual

Manufacturers of instruments usually will have some form of trouble shooting in their
maintenance manual. The reading below uses the same Rosemount pressure
transmitter manual as used in Topic 4 Calibration.

3.8 Read Internet Document

3051S Reference Manual HART 00809-0100-4801 Rev CB

Read Document
January 2007

Company Rosemount

http://www.emersonprocess.com/rosemount/document/man/48
Website
01b00j.pdf

Pages Section 5 and 7 all pages.

Comment Focus on table page 5-2

© Challenger Institute of Technology 2008

Printed 27 January 2010 05 Foundation Principles Topic 5 Fault Finding Content Page 21 of 21