Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Staying home 3
Traveling by automobile 57
Traveling by airplane 240
Cigarette smoking ???
What is the fatality rate/year for the chemical industry?
Safety Layer of Protection Analysis
1. Express risk target quantitatively
“Unacceptable risk”
(events/year)
1.00E-08
“Acceptable risk”
1.00E-09
1 10 100
X is the probability of
the event Unsafe,
Yn
Yi is the probability of unsafe
failure on demand
I
(PFD) for each IPL
• • P
L
n
Unsafe,
I
Y2 P
L
3
Unsafe,
I
Y1 P
L
2
Initiating I Safe/
event, X P tolerable
L
1
Safety Layer of Protection Analysis
2. Determine the risk for system
unsafe
… I
P
are Initiating
event, X
I
P
L
2
Safe/
tolerable
considered L
1
independent
PAH Vapor
Split range TC-6 PC-1 product
T1 T5
Feed T2
Methane LAL
Ethane (LK) LAH
Propane FC-1
T3 LC-1
Butane
Pentane
F2 F3
Liquid
AC-1 product
Process Steam L. Key
fluid
Safety Layer of Protection Analysis
Process examples
Class Exercise 1: Flash drum for “rough” component separation.
Complete the table with your best estimates of values.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Protection Layers
# Initial Initiating Cause Process BPCS Alarm SIS Additional Mitigated Notes
Event cause likelihood design mitigation event
Description (safety valves, likelihood
dykes,
restricted
access, etc.)
1 High Connection Pressure sensor
pressure (tap) for does not
pressure measure the
sensor P1 drum pressure
becomes
plugged
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Protection Layers
# Initial Initiating Cause Process BPCS Alarm SIS Additional Mitigated Notes
Event cause likelihood design mitigation event
Description (safety valves, likelihood
dykes,
restricted
access, etc.)
1 High Connection 0.10 0.10 1.0 0.10 1.0 PRV 0.01 .00001 Pressure sensor
pressure (tap) for does not
pressure measure the
sensor P1 drum pressure
becomes
plugged The PRV must
exhaust to a
separation
(knock-out)
Enhanced design includes The enhanced design achieves drum and fuel or
flare system.
separate P sensor for alarm the target mitigated
and a pressure relief valve. likelihood.
Sketch on process drawing. Verify table entries.
Safety Layer of Protection Analysis
Process examples
Class Exercise 1: Solution.
cascade
Vapor
Split range TC-6 PC-1 product
PAH
P-2
T1 T5
Feed T2
Methane LAL
Ethane (LK) LAH
Propane FC-1
T3 LC-1
Butane
Pentane
F2 F3
Liquid
AC-1 product
Process Steam L. Key
fluid
Safety Layer of Protection Analysis
Process examples
Class Exercise 1: Each IPL must be independent.
T100 2 out of 3
s
T101 must indicate
T102 failure 2.5 x 10-6 2.5 x 10-6
Same variable,
multiple sensors!
Safety Layer of Protection Analysis
Process examples
Class Exercise 2: Fired heater to increase stream’s temperature.
Flue gas
PIC
1
AT PI
1 4
FT
1 TI
PI
1
5
TI
5
TI
2
feed
TI
6
PT
1
TI
3
TI
7 TI TI
TI 9 10
4
FT TI
FI
2 8 TI
3
11
PI PI PI
2 3 6
References
Dowell, A. and D. Hendershoot, Simplified Risk Analysis - Layer of Protection Analysis, AIChE National Meeting, Indianapolis, Paper
281a, Nov. 3-8, 2002
Dowell, A. and T. Williams, Layer of Protection Analysis: Generating Scenarios Automatically from HAZOP Data, Process Safety
Progress, 24, 1, 38-44 (March 2005).
Gulland, W., Methods of Determining Safety Integrity Level (SIL) Requirements - Pros and Cons,
http://www.chemicalprocessing.com/whitepapers/2005/006.html
Haight, J. and V. Kecojevic, Automation vs. Human Intervantion: What is the Best Fit for the Best Performance?, Process Safety
Progress, 24, 1, 45-51 (March 2005)
Melhem, G. and P. Stickles, How Much Safety is Enough, Hydrocarbon Processing, 1999
Wiegernick, J., Introduction to the Risk-Based Design of Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process Industries, Seventh International
Conference on Control, Automation, Robotics and Vision, Singapore, Dec. 2002.