|
|
This month's topic focuses on
Safety Integrity Level (SIL) rating
Feature
Article:.
Impact of Gas Detection Coverage on SIF SIL Rating
By Edwin Choo, CFSP
General Monitors Systems Asia, Singapore
Selecting the technology and knowing where to place gas detectors for maximum coverage effectiveness are probably the two most critical decisions for any fire and gas system (FGS) designer. A wrong choice of technology coupled with an inappropriate positioning of the gas detector may render the gas detection loop completely ‘blind’ to nearby gas leaks. In recent times, the need to estimate the probability of failure upon demand of gas detection related safety instrumented functions, have brought into sharper focus the importance of appropriate detection technology selection and detector positioning, as these are the fundamental factors that significantly determine the level of detection coverage.
Many FGS experts have long realized the difficulty of achieving a high SIL rating for gas detection related safety instrument functions (SIF) unless a very high level of detection coverage (i.e. probability of the gas sensor detecting gas) is achievable. The approach used by many to calculate the average probability of failure upon demand (PFDavg) of a gas detection related SIF simply assumes that the gas sensor has a 100% probability of detecting the passing gas cloud. In reality, a 100% probability of detection is quite likely to be overly optimistic especially when the gas sensor is not located in close proximity to the actual leakage point or if one or more environmental influences such as wind, terrain, stationery objects and area mechanical congestion exists to make gas cloud movement unpredictable or erratic.
To demonstrate how detection coverage could affect the SIL rating of a gas detection related SIF, this article will use a modified event tree called the FGS Risk Model. The FGS risk model was developed by safety systems experts to take into consideration two other factors besides FGS availability. These two factors are detection coverage and mitigation effectiveness. These two factors, together with FGS availability (see definition below), are collectively called FGS Effectiveness. An understanding of the FGS risk model is needed to appreciate the following mathematical illustration.
FGS Risk Model
The simplified FGS risk model shown in Figure 1 has three conditional branches and four consequence outcomes. The definition of each conditional branch is as follows: Detection coverage =
probability that a gas leak will be detected
FGS availability =
1 – (PFDsensor + PFDlogic_solver + PFDfinal_element)
Mitigation effectiveness = probability that the consequence of the gas leak will be mitigated
[Note: Mitigation effectiveness is not covered in this article. It is assumed to be perfect (=1) in all calculations.]
Click chart to enlarge | Figure 1: FGS risk model
The combinational probabilities of all 3 conditional branches will produce 4 likelihood outcomes and the product of each likelihood outcome with its corresponding Consequence will in turn produce a consequence contribution factor. The subsequent summation of all contribution factors will result in a Weighted Average Consequence (CWA) factor.
[Note: The consequence of an event is typically determined separately by a quantitative consequence analysis which is outside the scope of this article. For simplicity, the consequence factor in Figure 1 is shown as either 1 or 0].
The Residual Risk (RR) of the allocated process risk (after the inclusion of a FGS) is then calculated by:
RR = CWA x FU (where FU = unmitigated frequency of gas leak per year)
In the example shown as Figure 1, it is assumed that:
The gas sensor will definitely detect the gas leak
(i.e. detection coverage = 1);
The FGS hardware is constantly available
(i.e. FGS availability = 1);
The risk introduced by the gas leak can be mitigated
perfectly (i.e. mitigation effectiveness = 1).
In this ‘perfect response scenario’, CWA= 0, and RR = 0, which means that the process risk allocated to the FGS is completely mitigated by the FGS with no residual risk.
With this understanding, we can now look at some scenario based illustrations to observe the impact of detection coverage on the SIL rating of gas detection related SIF.
Continue SIL article...
Download PDF copy of SIL article |
|
|
 |
|
iPod nano Contest:.
 Be sure to visit our gas and flame micro site often and register to win an Apple iPod nano!
Register
Here
News
Briefs:.
Safety Videos Get Thumbs Up From Industry
These safety videos are based on actual real world incidents and accidents, which has made them especially effective in gaining the attention of plant employees in a way that goes beyond the scope of typical safety training methods. The board’s July production, “Death in the Oilfield”, is based on an actual incident at a U.S. facility where three people lost their lives. All nineteen videos are available on the US Chemical Safety Board’s web site as well as on You Tube.
Go to the CSB Video Room...
OSHA Recognizes Wyeth Pharmaceuticals For Safety
"Achieving VPP takes dedication, planning and commitment," emphasized Assistant Secretary for OSHA Edwin G. Foulke, Jr. "It is not an easy road as you develop and learn to manage a detailed, comprehensive, and effective safety and health management system that is unique to the needs of your worksite. . . By your selection as VPP's 2,000th active participant, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Pearl River, proclaims both its individual success and the longstanding and growing success of VPP.
What did it take for Wyeth Pearl River, the largest employer in Rockland County, to become a VPP Star participant? The facility already had a long history of pioneering, breakthrough achievements. For 100 years, Pearl River has been developing and manufacturing vaccines and other drugs that have profoundly impacted the health and well-being of millions of children and adults around the world. A culture of excellence is firmly established.
Even so, it took two and a half years before the facility's diverse workforce – managers, research scientists, technicians, safety specialists, maintenance personnel, pharmaceutical and biotech operators, supervisors, shop floor personnel, quality personnel, directors – was ready for the OSHA VPP team that arrived last April for a week-long site evaluation. On the way to achieving VPP Star approval, Wyeth Pearl River:
achieved an unprecedented level of management commitment and buy-in to integrating workplace safety and health into every aspect of planning and operations;
created new and expanded opportunities for meaningful employee involvement in the design and implementation of job hazard assessments, routine inspections, accident/incident investigations, emergency response, and other VPP-required and site-appropriate systems and procedures;
ensured that everyone working at the 550-acre campus participated in ongoing safety and health training that the OSHA team cited as a "best practice" in its recommendation for VPP Star approval.
"This achievement is the result of a two-and-a-half year effort to make workplace safety the responsibility of every employee on site," said Mike McDermott, Vice President, Site Operations for Wyeth in Pearl River. "Safety has always been a top priority in Pearl River, and when we applied for VPP, we set our sights on being the best in the industry. We worked aggressively to make improvements in our safety programs, communication and training, and we are delighted to be recognized as a VPP Star worksite, Wyeth's eighth Star."
Read more...
|
|
