IEC61508 To Reduce Maintenance of SIL3 HIPPS

1st Dec 2009 AIS – ISA GdS
MIGLIORARE CON LA PROGETTAZIONE:

RIDUZIONE DEI COSTI DI MANUTENZIONE DI UN SISTEMA HIPPS
IMPROVEMENT BY DESIGN:
HIPPS MAINTENANCE COST REDUCTION
Relazione p per la Giornata di Studio del 1 dicembre 2009:

SIL - Aspetti applicativi delle norme EN/IEC61508 e IEC61511
Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 1

PEOPLE ARE A KEY FACTOR FOR

ACHIEVING FUNCTIONAL SAFETY

1 WHAT IS AN HIPPS?
1.
2. CALCULATION OF SIS RELIABILITY : BASE CASE
3. IMPROVEMENT No. 1: FIND A BETTER SENSOR
4. IMPROVEMENT No. 2: DEVELOP ADDITIONAL DCS DIAGNOSTICS
5. IMPROVEMENT No. 3: MINIMISATION OF COMMON CAUSE FAILURES
6 IMPROVEMENT No.
6. No 4: FINAL ELEMENT PARTIAL STROKE TEST
7. CONCLUSIONS

WHAT IS AN HIPPS?
High Integrity Pressure Protection Systems are used as

alternative pressure protection, as a full or partial
replacement
l t for
f adequately
d t l sized
i d mechanical
h i l pressure relief
li f
devices (PSVs and/or rupture disks).
IS IT A SIS ?
SIS = Safety Instrumented System

HIPPS ADVANTAGES
• no capital cost (or lower cost) for relief system (PSV, flare, etc.)
• reduced piping pressure ratings
• compliance
li with
i h environmental
i l constraints
i against
i di
discharges
h

Example 1: VESSEL OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION

Example 2: COLUMN TOP HEADER

OVERLOAD AVOIDANCE

Example 3: POLYMERIZATION REACTOR (CSTR)

TEMPERATURE RUNAWAY PREVENTION

REDUNDANT HIPPS. WHY?
TO ALLOW FULL TEST

= THE SAME LOOP

IS IT A SIS ?
HIPPS IS A SIS IF IT HAS A SIL

(A RISK EVALUATION HAS BEEN DONE),
AND IT IS USED FOR RISK REDUCTION

1 WHAT IS AN HIPPS?
1.
6 IMPROVEMENT No.
6. No 4:
4 FINAL ELEMENT PARTIAL STROKE TEST
7. CONCLUSIONS

SOME CALCULATION ASSUMPTIONS - 1
• System Reliability is evaluated as Probability of Failure on

Demand (PFDAVG )
• Low Demand Mode of operation
• PFDavg of logic solver calculated using Vendors software
tool with fixed T1 = 5 years
• PFDavg of other components calculated using spreadsheet
simplified
p equations
q
• MTTR for all components = 8 hours
• Perfect Proof Test

SOME CALCULATION ASSUMPTIONS - 2
• T1 (equal for sensor and final element) is maximised in

order to reach the system
PFDavg = 9 9.990E-04
990E-04 (used as minimum to comply with
SIL3)

M i
Maximum Proof
P f Test
T t Interval
I t l (T1)
less maintenance
lower cost

MANUFACTURER DATA COLLECTION:
• CERTIFIED ENGINEERING WORKFLOW

• VALIDATED CALCULATION SHEETS
Device Failure Rate Conversion Tool
Device Description: sensor - ABB PT 2600 261

Manufacturer: ABB
Model: 261 p-PIEZO
Data Source: EXIDA Report ABB 070742 C001 Rev 1.0 25JUL2008
Compiled By CLE
Revision: 0
Date: 01DEC2009
Notes: -
Legend: MANUAL INPUT

CALCULATED
Base Case
Inputs: FITS to λ λ to FITS

SD 0.0FITS 1/hours
SU 108.0FITS 1/hours
DD 402.0FITS 1/hours
DU 23.0FITS 1/hours
Total Failure Rate 533.0 FITS 1/hours
Outputs:
Lambda 5.330E-07 1/hours 0.000E+00 FITS
MTBF 1876172.6 hours hours
MTBF 78173.9 days days
MTBF 2605.8 months months
MTBF 217.1 years years
Modified Values by
Lambda S 1.080E-07 1/hours FITS Additional Diagnostic (eg: PST)
Lambda D 4.250E-07 1/hours FITS 90% Diagnostic Coverage
Lambda SD 0.000E+00 1/hours FITS 0.000E+00 1/hours FITS

Lambda SU 1.080E-07 1/hours FITS 1.080E-07 1/hours FITS
Lambda DD 4.020E-07 1/hours FITS 4.227E-07 1/hours FITS
Lambda DU 2.300E-08 1/hours FITS 2.300E-09 1/hours FITS
SFF 95.7%
Diagnostic Coverage 94.6%

RELIABILITY CALCULATION AND REPORT - 1


Manufacturer: ABB
Model: 261 p-PIEZO
Compiled By CLE
Revision: 0
Date: 01DEC2009
Notes: -

CALCULATED
Base Case

SD 0 0 FITS
0.0 1/hours
SU 108.0 FITS 1/hours
DD 402.0 FITS 1/hours
DU 23.0 FITS 1/hours
Outputs:
Modified Values by

SFF 95.7%
INTERNAL CALCULATIONS
MANUFACTURER’s TOOLS

RELIABILITY CALCULATION AND REPORT - 2

BASE CASE RESULTS
• In our base case the minimum Proof Test Interval is

≈ 3 years and 4 months
The HIPPS that anybody could do

1 WHAT IS AN HIPPS?
1.
6 IMPROVEMENT No.
6. No 4:
4 FINAL ELEMENT PARTIAL STROKE TEST
7. CONCLUSIONS

MANUFACTURER DATA COLLECTION:
• CERTIFIED ENGINEERING WORKFLOW

• VALIDATED CALCULATION SHEETS

Manufacturer: ABB
Model: 261 p-PIEZO
Compiled By CLE
Revision: 0
Date: 01DEC2009
Notes: -

CALCULATED
Base Case

SD 0.0FITS 1/hours
SU 108.0FITS 1/hours
DD 402.0FITS 1/hours
DU 23.0FITS 1/hours
Outputs:
Modified Values by

SFF 95.7%

FIND A BETTER SENSOR RESULTS

By Using: You get a T1=
• ABB PT 2600 261 • 3 years 4 months
• YOKOGAWA EJX • 3 years 4 months
• EMERSON PT 2088 • 3 years 1 months
th
• EMERSON PT 3051S • 3 years 3 months
• INVENSYS PT HW5 • 3 years 3 months
• SIEMENS SITRANS P DS III • 3 years 1 months
It is
i nott worth
th to
t look
l k for
f
a better sensor!

1 WHAT IS AN HIPPS?
1.
4. IMPROVEMENT No.2: DEVELOP ADDITIONAL DCS DIAGNOSTICS
6 IMPROVEMENT No.
6. No 4: FINAL ELEMENT PARTIAL STROKE TEST
7. CONCLUSIONS

SOME DIAGNOSTIC FUNCTIONS ARE NORMALLY

ASSOCIATED WITH HART SENSORS
NOTE: THE DANGEROUS DETECTED FAILURE RATES

DECLARED BY VENDORS ARE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION
THAT YOU USE THESE FEATURES

DIAGNOSTIC FUNCTIONS CAN BE ADDED
• DRIFT DETECTION (or DEVIATION ALARM): ALARM if the

absolute difference between two sensor measurements is over
a certain value
• MINIMUM CHANGE ALARM: ALARM if the value is constant
for a certain selection of samples (eg: in the last 4 minutes)
THESE ADDITIONAL CHECKS CAN DETECT 90% OF

DANGEROUS UNDETECTED FAILURES
(QUALITATIVE ESTIMATION)

IMPROVED DCS DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS

• In our base case the minimum Proof Test Interval was
By adding DCS sensor diagnostic we reach
≈ 3 years and 4.4 months
It is not worth if the only change!

1 WHAT IS AN HIPPS?
1.
5. IMPROVEMENT No.3: MINIMISATION OF COMMON CAUSE FAILURES
6. IMPROVEMENT
6 O No.
o 4: FINAL ELEMENT PARTIAL STROKE
S O TEST
S
7. CONCLUSIONS

Use IEC61508
standard
d d list
li
of questions
Original β estimation as
per transmitter
manufacturer FMEDA
P 1
Part

Original β estimation
as per transmitter
manufacturer FMEDA
Part 2
β = 5%
βD = 2%

Improved β estimation
as per Designer+ End
User
Part 1
+ Improved
commissioning
i i i
organisation
+ improved
maintenance
organisation
g

Improved β estimation as
per Designer + End User
Part 2
+ Designer
D i
certification
+ End User
maintenance training
β = βD = 2%
And we consider
applying the same values
also to the final element
components
COMMON CAUSE MINIMISATION RESULTS

By better organization and by training people we reach

PEOPLE SKILL IS A KEY FACTOR!

COMPANY CERTIFICATION
OF FUNCTIONAL SAFETY MANAGEMENT ENSURES:
• Functional safety is a company target
• Clear organisation and responsabilities for safety
• Safety Planning
• Methodology for measuring performance and conformity to
safety requirements
• Methodology to treat non-conformities and to correct them
• Assessment of competence for each role
• CERTIFICATION CAN IMPROVE SYSTEM RELIABILITY

1 WHAT IS AN HIPPS?
1.
6 IMPROVEMENT No
6. No.4:FINAL
4:FINAL ELEMENT PARTIAL STROKE TEST
7. CONCLUSIONS

PARTIAL STROKE TEST RESULTS
• Partial Stroke test is a common technique to catch part of

the Dangerous Undetected failures. It is commonly
considered to detect 70% of DU failures
• By proper design it can be handled automatically with some
additional software and no or small hardware addition
• We assume to detect the same percentage of failures for all
final elements sub-components
• For our analysis we perform it each 3 months

PARTIAL STROKE TEST RESULTS

By final element PST each 3 months we reach

≈ 10 years
WOW!

1 WHAT IS AN HIPPS?
1.
6. IMPROVEMENT
6 O No.
o 4: FINAL ELEMENT PARTIAL STROKE
S O TEST
S
7. CONCLUSIONS

ALL IMPROVEMENTS TOGETHER

• In our base case the Proof Test Interval was
By all proposed improvements together

≈ 13 years 3 months

PEOPLE ARE A KEY FACTOR FOR

ACHIEVING FUNCTIONAL SAFETY

IEC61508 To Reduce Maintenance of SIL3 HIPPS

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

IEC61508 To Reduce Maintenance of SIL3 HIPPS

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1st Dec 2009 AIS – ISA GdS

MIGLIORARE CON LA PROGETTAZIONE:

Relazione p per la Giornata di Studio del 1 dicembre 2009:

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 1

PEOPLE ARE A KEY FACTOR FOR

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 2

2. CALCULATION OF SIS RELIABILITY : BASE CASE

3. IMPROVEMENT No. 1: FIND A BETTER SENSOR

4. IMPROVEMENT No. 2: DEVELOP ADDITIONAL DCS DIAGNOSTICS

5. IMPROVEMENT No. 3: MINIMISATION OF COMMON CAUSE FAILURES

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 3

High Integrity Pressure Protection Systems are used as

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 4

• reduced piping pressure ratings

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 5

Example 1: VESSEL OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 6

Example 2: COLUMN TOP HEADER

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 7

Example 3: POLYMERIZATION REACTOR (CSTR)

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 8

REDUNDANT HIPPS. WHY?

TO ALLOW FULL TEST

= THE SAME LOOP

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 10

HIPPS IS A SIS IF IT HAS A SIL

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 11

2. CALCULATION OF SIS RELIABILITY : BASE CASE

3. IMPROVEMENT No. 1: FIND A BETTER SENSOR

4. IMPROVEMENT No. 2: DEVELOP ADDITIONAL DCS DIAGNOSTICS

5. IMPROVEMENT No. 3: MINIMISATION OF COMMON CAUSE FAILURES

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 12

SOME CALCULATION ASSUMPTIONS - 1

• System Reliability is evaluated as Probability of Failure on

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 13

SOME CALCULATION ASSUMPTIONS - 2

• T1 (equal for sensor and final element) is maximised in

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 14

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 15

MANUFACTURER DATA COLLECTION:

• CERTIFIED ENGINEERING WORKFLOW

Device Description: sensor - ABB PT 2600 261

Legend: MANUAL INPUT

Inputs: FITS to λ λ to FITS

Lambda SD 0.000E+00 1/hours FITS 0.000E+00 1/hours FITS

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 16

RELIABILITY CALCULATION AND REPORT - 1

Device Description: sensor - ABB PT 2600 261

Legend: MANUAL INPUT

Inputs: FITS to λ λ to FITS

Lambda SD 0.000E+00 1/hours FITS 0.000E+00 1/hours FITS

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 17

RELIABILITY CALCULATION AND REPORT - 2

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 18

BASE CASE RESULTS

• In our base case the minimum Proof Test Interval is

The HIPPS that anybody could do

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 19

2. CALCULATION OF SIS RELIABILITY : BASE CASE

3. IMPROVEMENT No. 1: FIND A BETTER SENSOR

4. IMPROVEMENT No. 2: DEVELOP ADDITIONAL DCS DIAGNOSTICS

5. IMPROVEMENT No. 3: MINIMISATION OF COMMON CAUSE FAILURES

Improvement by Design: HIPPS Maintenance Cost Reduction Carlo Lebrun 20