Section 19

Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS)
& Layers of Protection
Section 19
Practical Examples
Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 1

Practical Examples
TABLE of CONTENTS
▪ Determination of SIL by Risk Graph Method
▪ Determination of SIL by Risk Matrix Method
▪ Multiple Layers of Protection

Practical Examples
Practical Exercise No: 1
Determination of SIL by Risk Graph Method

Practical Examples
DETERMINATION OF SIL BY RISK GRAPH METHOD
▪ This practical exercise requires participants to

determine the required SIL of a proposed safety-
instrumented system using the basic principles
described in session 11 of the workshop

Practical Examples
▪ The next diagram shows a reactor with a continuous
feed of fuel and oxidant. Two flow control loops are
operated under a ratio controller set by the operator
to provide matching flows of fuel and oxidant to the
reactor.
▪ An explosion can occur inside the reactor if the
mixture becomes explosive and a source of ignition is
found. In this case we might suppose the source is a
hot catalyst inside the reactor. The mixture can
become explosive if the fuel flow becomes too high
relative to the oxidant flow.
Practical Examples
Flow Ratio High Trip
FFC
FFSH
02
03
SP
FC-01
FT-03 FT-01
Fuel
Feed FC FC
FC-02 Reactor
FT-02
FT-03
Oxidant FO
Feed
Supply Fan

Practical Examples
▪ A safety-instrumented system is proposed with a
separate set of flow meters connected to a flow ratio
measuring function that is designed to trip the process
to safe condition if the fuel flow exceeds the oxidant
flow by a significant amount.
▪ The tag number for this function is FFSH- 03.

Practical Examples
▪ Assume that the following information has been
decided for the reactor.
▪ The total frequency of the events leading to an

explosive mixture is approximately once every ten
years. The consequence of the explosion has been
determined by a study to be a vessel rupture with a 1
in 5 chance of death or serious injury to 1 person.

Practical Examples
▪ The occupancy in the exposed area is less than 10% of
the time and is not related to the condition of the
process.
▪ The onset of the event is likely to be to be fast with a

worst-case time of 10 minutes between loss of oxidant
and the possible explosion.

Practical Examples

Practical Examples
IEC 61511 Risk Parameters Chart (part 3 Annex D)
Risk Parameters:
C – Consequence
CA:
CB:
The chance of death is
CC : 0.2 per event (Range
CD : >0.1 to 1.0) = Cc
Starting
F – Occupancy point
FA:
Occupancy is less
FB: than 0.1 = FA
P – Hazard avoidance probability
PA: The explosion has a rapid onset (< 10
PB: minutes) (Range >0.1 to < 1.0) = PB
W – Demand rate in the absence of - = No safety requirements
the SIF under consideration a = No special safety requirements
b = A single E/E/PES is not sufficient
W1: Demand rate is estimated at 0.1/yr Gives 1,2,3,4 = Safety integrity level
W2: W2 (Range >0.03 to < 0.3) Obtained by
W3: setting D = 0.3 in table 5.2

Practical Examples

Determination of SIL by Risk Matrix Method

Practical Examples
▪ Use the starting information given on the next slide
and the Risk Matrix table to classify the given risk and
its frequency.

Practical Examples
▪ Decide the maximum tolerable risk frequency to
reduce the risk to class 3 (considered to be
acceptable).
▪ Calculate the target risk reduction factor, PFDavg
values and safety availability required from the
proposed Safety Instrumented System to achieve the
tolerable risk frequency.
▪ State the target safety integrity level required from
the SIS by reference to the SIL tables.

Practical Examples
▪ A chlorine electrolyser plant presents a major leak
hazard due to loss of pressure control.
▪ The estimated frequency of occurrence is once per 10
years.
▪ The estimated consequence without any protective
measures is that the operating team of 3 people will
be likely to suffer serious injury or they may be killed.

Practical Examples
Risk Reduction Factor

Practical Examples

Practical Examples

Practical Examples
From the matrix, we see that Class 3 means that the

tolerable risk becomes 1 every 5000 years
On this basis, Fnp = 5000

Practical Examples
Assume that we have estimated the risk frequency to be

1 in 10 years.
So Ft = 10
This gives an overall RRF of Fnp/Ft = 5000/10
RRF = 500

Practical Examples
Consequence
of Hazardous
event
Other
External E/E/PE
technology Tolerable risk
EUC risk Safety-
safety-
Risk Reduction related target
related
facilities system
systems
Frequency
of Hazardous
Necessary risk reduction
event
Process and the

Process control system
Overall RRF = 500

Practical Examples
Safety Availability

Practical Examples
SIL Determination
-2

Practical Examples

Multiple Layers of Protection

Practical Examples
MULTIPLE LAYERS OF PROTECTION
Trip Alarm

Practical Examples
▪ This exercise considers the application of multiple
layers of protection
▪ The basic tank control system shown previously will be
used for this purpose
▪ The intention is to use an Event Tree approach to
analyse the safety requirements

Practical Examples
H PSV
LC 1 ATM
1
I/P
LV
1
Raw
Material
Feed LT
1
BASIC TANK LEVEL CONTROL WITH OVER-PRESSURE RELEASE HAZARD

Practical Examples
▪ The first action is to draw an Event Tree diagram
identifying the cause of the hazardous condition and
estimating the consequences of a possible fatality with
estimated Fatal Accident Rate (FAR).

Practical Examples
EVENT TREE FOR UNPROTECTED HAZARD

Practical Examples
▪ This diagram represents the logic or sequence of
conditions leading to the event
▪ At this stage, the tolerable risk frequency can be set
by establishing the FAR target
▪ For this exercise, we have set the FAR target at 0.2
▪ Note that the expected FAR target given in the
example is 30. This means 30 fatalities in 100 million
hours of exposure ( 10-8)

Practical Examples
▪ We now can add an external means of risk reduction
in the form of a fence around the potentially
dangerous vessel so that the probability of an operator
being nearby when the explosion occurs is
substantially reduced.
▪ It should be noted that this action does not change the
hazard event pate but it does reduce the risk
frequency of a fatality – hence the FAR drops to 3

Practical Examples
ADDING AN EXTERNAL PROTECTION LAYER (MITIGATION LAYER)

Practical Examples
▪ It can also be seen that the FAR is still well above the
target and this leads us to suggest that an SIS is
required to reduce the frequency of the explosion
threat.
▪ The suggested SIS is a high-level trip system designed
to reduce the risk of over-filling or over-pressurizing
the vessel

Practical Examples

Practical Examples
ADDING AN INTERNAL SIS PROTECTION LAYER

Practical Examples
▪ We can calculate the desired RRF for the SIS using this
Event Tree Analysis.
▪ Alternatively, we can draw a risk reduction model or
diagram as shown in the next slide.
▪ It should be noted that the Risk Reduction Factor (RFF)
can be calculated for each component of the safety
system.

Practical Examples
Tolerable Residual
Risk Risk

Practical Examples
Overall Risk Reduction = 150
Consequence
0.2 fatality/ex.
RRF = 15 RRF = 10
Tolerable 0.2 fatality/ex. SIS 0.2 fatality/ex. Tolerable

Fence off 0.02 fatality/ex.
Risk High level area
Risk
FNP = 0.015/yr. trip FP1 = 0.001/yr. FP2 = 0.001/yr. Target
FAR = 30 FAR = 2 FAR = 0.2

Target FAR = 0.2
Explosion
.015/yr SIL = 1 FAR based on 104 hrs exposure/yr.
FAR = .02 x 10-3 x 103
104
= 0.2
RISK REDUCTION MODEL FOR THE PROTECTED HAZARD

Practical Examples
▪ Now that we have isolated the Risk Reduction factors,
we can see how the Safety Integrity Level (SIL) can
simply be obtained from the tables and standards.
▪ This exercise results in a requirement for a SIL of 1 to
be met by the SIS (lowest value prevails).
▪ Assuming experience confirms that this reasonable and
flexible for the required task, the result would be
acceptable and the requirement would be written into
the Safety Requirements Specification (SRS) for this
application.
Practical Examples

Practical Examples
Examples

EXAMPLE OF AN EVENT TREE FOR A HAZARD WITH SIL2 PROTECTION

TYPICAL RISK REDUCTION DIAGRAM

AN EXAMPLE OF AN EVENT TREE ANALYSIS

Residual
Tolerable Risk
Risk
EXAMPLE OF PROTECTION LAYERS APPLIED TO A PROCESS

COURSE RECAP

Section 19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Section 19

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Section 19

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS)

& Layers of Protection

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 1

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 2

Practical Exercise No: 1

Determination of SIL by Risk Graph Method

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 3

▪ This practical exercise requires participants to

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 4

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 6

▪ The tag number for this function is FFSH- 03.

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 7

▪ The total frequency of the events leading to an

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 8

▪ The onset of the event is likely to be to be fast with a

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 9

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 10

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 11

Practical Exercise No: 2

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 12

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 13

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 14

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 15

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 16

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 17

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 18

From the matrix, we see that Class 3 means that the

On this basis, Fnp = 5000

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 19

Assume that we have estimated the risk frequency to be

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 20

Process and the

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 21

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 22

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 23

Practical Exercise No: 3

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 24

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 25

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 26

BASIC TANK LEVEL CONTROL WITH OVER-PRESSURE RELEASE HAZARD

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 27

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 28

EVENT TREE FOR UNPROTECTED HAZARD

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 29

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 30

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 31

ADDING AN EXTERNAL PROTECTION LAYER (MITIGATION LAYER)

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 32

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 33

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 34

ADDING AN INTERNAL SIS PROTECTION LAYER

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 35

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 36

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 37

Tolerable 0.2 fatality/ex. SIS 0.2 fatality/ex. Tolerable

FAR = 30 FAR = 2 FAR = 0.2

RISK REDUCTION MODEL FOR THE PROTECTED HAZARD

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 38

Section 19 Haward Technology Middle East 40