Safety integrity analysis

General References Guidelines for Hazard Evaluation Procedures, Second Edition with Worked Examples, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 1992 Layer of Protection Analysis A Simplified Risk Assessment Approach, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, 2001 ISA TR84.00.02, Safety Instrumented Functions (SIF)—Safety Integrity Level (SIL) Evaluation Techniques, Instrumentation, Systems, and Automation Society, N.C., 2002. 

Brock GB, McMahon CG, Chen KK, et al. Efficiency and safety of tadalafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction results of integrated analysis. J Urol 2002 168 1332-1336. 

A consideration under Task 5 of a list of topical problems and bottlenecks for every object became a logic continuation of Tasks 3 and 4 of the SMP Report. Both the bottlenecks and the problem issues were identified on basis of integrated analysis of a variety of factors with emphasis on safety factors and the general logic of process technologies. 

Has the facility adequately implemented a job hazard analysis procedure for work plarming Is chemical safety integrated into this process Is identification (and reduction) of waste generation integrated into this process ... 

Addition of layer of protection analysis (LOPA) in PHA to determine the safety integrity level (SIL) gap for safety instrumented systems (SIS)... 

The required safety integrity level of the instrumented function shall be derived by taking into account the required risk reduction that is to be provided by that function. For those SILs, the target PFDj,yg on demand and the target frequencies of dangerous failure are hsted in Table 3.8 [ANSI/ISA-84.00.01(2004) Part 3] for each SIF. Several risk analysis methods ranging from qualitative to fully quantitative can be deployed based on the severity and complexity of the scope, as listed in Table 3.9. 

Marszal, Edward M., and Scharpf, Eric W., Safety Integrity Level Selection Including Layer of Protection Analysis, NC Research Triangle Park, ISA, 2003. 

Considering the results of the SIF verification analysis it appears that an alternative design could not only save capital expense but could provide higher safety integrity and a lower false trip rate. The proposal for this design is shown in Figure 13-17. The ZS sensor subsystem is ehrninated and the ESDI subsystem is eliminated. 

Note that the example SIL levels provided in this chapter are only examples. They are not to be assumed recommended levels of protection. The selection of an appropriate Safety Integrity Level (SIL) is site-specific and the analysis requires selecting criteria for tolerable risk, and evaluating process conditions, specific chemicals, equipment design-limits, control schemes, process conditions, and unique hazards. Experts in process engineering, instrumentation, operations, and process safety should imdertake SIL selection. 

The requirements for safety functions are determined based on hazard identification, while the safety integrity requirements resnlt from risk analysis. 

A basic concept of functional safety analysis related to a process of determining required safety integrity level (SIL) is described as below ... 

Thns, the requirements for safety functions result from hazard analysis, while requirements for the safety integrity level are determined from the risk analysis. 

One of the main part of computer-aided functional safety analysis is a module for determining required safety integrity level of chosen safety function. 

Signoret, J-P. Dutuit, Y. Rauzy, A. 2007. High Integrity Protection Systems (TUPS) Methods and tools for efficient Safety Integrity Levels (SIL) analysis and calculations. 

Control System (BPCS), including functions of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system, the alarm system (AS) and Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS) performing defined Safety Instrumented Frmetions (SIF). Proper design of layers of protection is based on hazards analysis and risk assessment with consideration of human and organizational factors. It is essential to ensure required safety integrity level (SIL) for each of these layers. 

The reliability performance of the SIS is referred to as safety integrity in the lEC-standards. This is the probability that the SIS satisfactorily performs the required SIFs, under stated conditions and for a stated period of time (lEC 61511 2003). In an early design phase, a hazards and risk analysis is performed to establish the required level of safety integrity of each SIF that is performed by the SIS, and in design and operation, it is necessary to demonstrate that this level of safety integrity is met. 

The structure of the paper is as follows In Section 2, some of the factors that may influence the predicted and the actual safety integrity are discussed. Section 3 gives a brief overview of some of the challenges related to failure rate estimation, including an overview of relevant literature. The new approach, comprising four steps, is presented in Section 4. Some case examples are also included here. In Section 5, the authors share some experience from some industry projects involving analysis of SIS related failures. Section 6 gives some conclusions and final remarks. 

In order to determine the required SIL level, a detailed hazard analysis is performed for the equipment under control (EUC). From the hazard analysis, all safety functions are identified (example—Detect failure of braking). A target safety integrity level is assigned to each of the safety functions (example—detect failure of braking—SIL 3) in order to ensure the residual risk is lower than the acceptable risk (in other words, the risk is sufficiently reduced). The outcome will be an EUC safety function specification detailing the function and target SIL level (between 1 to %) required for each safety function identified in the hazard analysis. 

The results of the application software integration testing shall be documented. If there is a failure, the reason for the failure and corrective action shall be included in the test results documentation. Any change to the software shall be subject to a safety impact analysis. 

In [lEC 62061] the result of the risk analysis is that the risk reduction requirements on the E/E/PE-based safety functions end up in a certain SIL (Safety Integrity Level). Three levels exist from SIL 1 (lowest risk reduction) up to SIL 3 (highest risk reduction). 

Phases 1 to 5 deal with concept and analysis—risk assessments to discover the Safety Instrumented Functions (SIF) and assign an appropriate Safety Integrity Level (SIL) rating. 

Implementation of one or more Safety Instrumented Functions. A SIS is composed of any combination of sensor(s), logic solver(s), and final elements). A SIS usually has a number of safety functions with different safety integrity levels (SIL) so it is best to avoid describing it by a single SIL. See also Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA) Safety Integrity Level (SIL). 

Pellegrini M, Nicolay U, Lindert K, Groth N, Della Cioppa G. MF59-adjuvanted versus non-adjuvanted influenza vaccines integrated analysis from a large safety database. Vaccine 2009 27(49) 6959-65. 

This chapter details all standards which have to be addressed, failure rate targets, allocated safety integrity levels, a description of requirements handed over from other safety cases and emerging from the hazard analysis and a reference forward to where each requirement is addressed. It also includes operational safety requirements. 

---