104,99 €
The book is a guide for Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA) practitioners. It explains the onion skin model and in particular, how it relates to the use of LOPA and the need for non-safety instrumented independent protection layers. It provides specific guidance on Independent Protection Layers (IPLs) that are not Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS). Using the LOPA methodology, companies typically take credit for risk reductions accomplished through non-SIS alternatives; i.e. administrative procedures, equipment design, etc. It addresses issues such as how to ensure the effectiveness and maintain reliability for administrative controls or "inherently safer, passive" concepts. This book will address how the fields of Human Reliability Analysis, Fault Tree Analysis, Inherent Safety, Audits and Assessments, Maintenance, and Emergency Response relate to LOPA and SIS. The book will separate IPL's into categories such as the following: * Inherent Safety * eliminates a scenario or fundamentally reduces a hazard * Preventive/Proactive * prevents initiating event from occurring such as enhanced maintenance * Preventive/Active * stops chain of events after initiating event occurs but before an incident has occurred such as high level in a tank shutting off the pump. * Mitigation (active or passive) * minimizes impact once an incident has occurred such as closing block valves once LEL is detected in the dike (active) or the dike preventing contamination of groundwater (passive).
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 532
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015
Contents
Cover
Half Title page
Title page
Copyright page
List of Data Tables
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Glossary
Acknowledgements
Preface
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Audience
1.2 Scope
1.3 Key Changes Since the Initial LOPA Concept Book
1.4 Recap of LOPA
1.5 Disclaimer
1.6 Linkage to Other CCPS Publications
1.7 Annotated Description of Chapters
References
Chapter 2: Overview: Initiating Events and Independent Protection Layers
2.1 LOPA Elements: An Overview
2.2 Management Systems to Support LOPA
2.3 Scenario Selection
2.4 Overview of Scenario Frequency
2.5 Overview of Consequences
2.6 Risk Considerations
2.7 Conclusions
References
Chapter 3: Core Attributes
3.1 Introduction to Core Attributes
3.2 Independence
3.3 Functionality
3.4 Integrity
3.5 Reliability
3.6 Auditability
3.7 Access Security
3.8 Management of Change
3.9 Use of Data Tables
References
Chapter 4: Example Initiating Events and IE Frequencies
4.1 Overview of Initiating Events
4.2 Inherently Safer Design and Initiating Event Frequency
4.3 Specific Initiating Events for Use in LOPA
4.4 External Events
4.5 What If Your Candidate Initiating Event is Not Shown in a Data Table?
References
Chapter 5: Example IPLS and PFD Values
5.1 Overview of Independent Protection Layers (IPLs)
5.2 Specific Independent Protection Layers for Use in LOPA
5.3 What if Your Candidate IPL is Not Shown in a Data Table?
References
Chapter 6: Advanced LOPA Topics
6.1 Purpose
6.2 Use of QRA Methods Relative to LOPA
6.3 Evaluation of Complex Mitigative IPLs
6.4 Conclusions
References
Appendices
Appendix A. Human Factors Considerations
Introduction
What is Human Error?
Categorization of Human Errors
Performance Shaping Factors
Impact of Performance Shaping Factors on Human Error Probabilities
Dependence
Summary: Performance Shaping Factors
Human Error Rate and Initiating Event Frequency
Humans As IPLs
The Timeline of an IPL Response
Key Points
References
Appendix B. Site-Specific Human Performance Validation
Initiating Event Frequency Data Collection
Example of Site-Specific Data for Human Error Initiating Events
Example of Site-Specific Data Collection for Human IPLs
Example Use of Site-Specific Test/Drill Data to Validate Human Response IPLs
Approach to Using a Test/Drill Plan for Validation of Human IPLs
Approach to Using a Statistical Sample Plan for Validation of Human IPLs
Key Points
References
Appendix C. Site-Specific Equipment Validation
Considerations for Site-Specific Data Collection
Estimating Failure Rates and Probabilities Using Generic Data
Estimating Failure Rates and Probabilities Using Predicted Data
Estimating Company-Specific Failure Rates and Probabilities Using Plant-Specific Data
Estimating Failure Rate When the Failure has not Yet Occurred
Selected Example for Calculating Reliability Data for Use in LOPA from Plant-Specific Data
Sources of Data
References
Appendix D. Example Reliability Data Conversion for Check Valves
Data Discussion
Data Conversion to Failure Rate
Fault Tree Analysis Summary Results
Guidance for LOPA and QRA
References
Appendix E. Pressure Vessels and Piping Overpressure Considerations
Defining Overpressure
Factors that Limit Pressure Rise
Options for Treatment of Overpressure
References
References
Index
GUIDELINES FOR INITIATING EVENTS AND INDEPENDENT PROTECTION LAYERS IN LAYER OF PROTECTION ANALYSIS
Copyright © 2015 by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 750-4470, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permission.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental consequential, or other damages.
For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic formats. For more information about Wiley products, visit our web site at www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:
Guidelines for initiating events and independent protection layers in layer of protection analysis / Center for Chemical Process Safety of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. pages cm Includes index. Summary: “Presents a brief overview of Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA)and its variations, and summarizes terminology used for evaluating scenarios in the context of a typical incident sequence"—Provided by publisher. ISBN 978-0-470-34385-2 (hardback) 1. Chemical process control—Safety measures. 2. Chemical processes—Safety measures. 3. Chemical plants—Risk assessment. I. American Institute of Chemical Engineers. Center for Chemical Process Safety. TP155.75.G854 2014 660’.2815—dc23
2014012633
This book is one in a series of process safety guidelines and concept books published by the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS). Refer to www.wiley.com/go/ccps for a full list of titles in this series.
It is sincerely hoped that the information presented in this document will lead to an even more impressive safety record for the entire industry. However, the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, its consultants, the CCPS Technical Steering Committee and Subcommittee members, their employers, their employers’ officers and directors, and Process Improvement Institute, Inc., and its employees do not warrant or represent, expressly or by implication, the correctness or accuracy of the content of the information presented in this document. As between (1) American Institute of Chemical Engineers, its consultants, CCPS Technical Steering Committee and Subcommittee members, their employers, their employers’ officers and directors, and Process Improvement Institute, Inc., and its employees, and (2) the user of this document, the user accepts any legal liability or responsibility whatsoever for the consequences of its use or misuse.
LIST OF DATA TABLES
Initiating Events and Initiating Event Frequencies
Data Table 4.1.
BPCS control loop failure
Data Table 4.2.
Spurious operation of SCAI9
Data Table 4.3.
Human error during a routine task that is performed ≥ once per week
Data Table 4.4.
Human error during a task that is performed between once per month and once per week
Data Table 4.5.
Human error during a nonroutine task that is performed < once per month
Data Table 4.6.
Pressure regulator failure
Data Table 4.7.
Screw conveyor failure
Data Table 4.8.
Screw conveyor overheating of materials
Data Table 4.9.
Pump, compressor, fan, or blower failure
Data Table 4.10.
Localized loss of power
Data Table 4.11.
Single check valve failure
Data Table 4.12.
Failure of double check valves in series
Data Table 4.13.
Pump seal leak
Data Table 4.14.
Complete primary pump seal failure
Data Table 4.15.
Hose failure, leak and rupture
Data Table 4.16.
Premature opening of spring-loaded relief valve
Data Table 4.17.
Atmospheric tank: catastrophic failure
Data Table 4.18.
Atmospheric tank: continuous 10 mm diameter leak
Data Table 4.19.
Pressure vessel: catastrophic failure
Data Table 4.20.
Aboveground piping: full breach failure (pipe size ≤ 150 mm, 6 in)
Data Table 4.21.
Aboveground piping: full breach failure (pipe size > 150 mm, 6 in)
Data Table 4.22.
Aboveground piping: leak (pipe size ≤ 150 mm, 6 in)
Data Table 4.23.
Aboveground piping: leak (pipe size > 150 mm, 6 in)
Independent Protection Layers and Probabilities of Failure on Demand
Data Table 5.1.
End-of-line deflagration arrester
Data Table 5.2.
In-line deflagration arrester
Data Table 5.3.
In-line stable detonation arrester
Data Table 5.4.
Unstable (overdriven) detonation arrester
Data Table 5.5.
Overflow line with no impediment to flow
Data Table 5.6.
Overflow line containing a passive fluid or with a rupture disk
Data Table 5.7.
Line containing a fluid with the potential to freeze
Data Table 5.8.
Dikes, berms, and bunds
Data Table 5.9.
Drainage to dikes, berms, and bunds with remote impoundment
Data Table 5.10.
Permanent mechanical stop that limits travel
Data Table 5.11.
Fire-resistant insulation and cladding on vessel
Data Table 5.12.
Safety control loop
Data Table 5.13.
Safety interlock
Data Table 5.14.
SIS loop
Data Table 5.15.
Spring-operated pressure relief valve
Data Table 5.16.
Dual spring-operated pressure relief valves
Data Table 5.17.
Pilot-operated pressure relief valve
Data Table 5.18.
Gas balance/adjustable set pressure surge relief valve
Data Table 5.19.
Buckling pin relief valve
Data Table 5.20.
Buckling pin isolation valve
Data Table 5.21.
Rupture disk
Data Table 5.22.
Spring-operated pressure relief valve with rupture disk
Data Table 5.22.
Continued
Data Table 5.23.
Conservation vacuum and/or pressure relief vent
Data Table 5.24.
Vacuum breaker
Data Table 5.25.
Frangible roof on flat-bottom tank
Data Table 5.26.
Explosion isolation valve
Data Table 5.27.
Explosion panels on process equipment
Data Table 5.28.
Vent panels on enclosures
Data Table 5.29.
Excess flow valve
Data Table 5.30.
Restrictive flow orifice
Data Table 5.31.
Pipeline surge dampening vessel
Data Table 5.32.
Check valve
Data Table 5.33.
Pressure reducing regulator
Data Table 5.34.
Continuous pilot
Data Table 5.35.
Captive key/lock system
Data Table 5.36.
Multiple mechanical pump seal system with seal failure detection and response
Data Table 5.37.
Continuous ventilation
without
automated performance monitoring
Data Table 5.38.
Continuous ventilation
with
automated performance monitoring
Data Table 5.39.
Emergency ventilation initiated by safety controls, alarms, and interlocks (SCAI)
Data Table 5.40.
Mechanically activated emergency shutdown/isolation device
Data Table 5.41.
Mechanical overspeed trip on a turbine
Data Table 5.42.
Automatic fire suppression system (within process equipment)
Data Table 5.43.
Automatic fire suppression system for local application
Data Table 5.44.
Automatic fire suppression system for a room
Data Table 5.45.
Automatic explosion suppression system for process equipment
Data Table 5.46.
Human response to an abnormal condition
Data Table 5.47.
Human response to an abnormal condition with multiple indicators and/or sensors, and the operator has > 24 hours to accomplish the required response action
Data Table 5.48.
Adjustable movement-limiting device
Data Table 5.49.
Personal protective equipment (PPE)
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACGIH – American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
AIChE – American Institute of Chemical Engineers
AIHA – American Industrial Hygiene Association
ALARP – As Low As Reasonably Practicable
ALOHA – Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres
ANSI – American National Standards Institute
API – American Petroleum Institute
APJ – Absolute Probability Judgment
ASME – American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASSE – American Society of Safety Engineers
ATEX – Atmospheres Explosibles (Europe)
BEP – Best Efficiency Point
BLEVE – Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion
BMS – Burner Management System
BPCS – Basic Process Control System
BPVC – Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME)
BS – British Standards (UK)
CCPS – Center for Chemical Process Safety (of AIChE)
CFR – Code of Federal Regulations (USA)
CPR – Committee for the Prevention of Disasters (The Netherlands)
CPQRA – Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis
CPU – Central Processing Unit (Logic Solving Integrated Circuit)
CR – Contractor Technical Report (by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, USA)
CSB – Chemical Safety Board (USA)
DCS – Distributed Control System
DDT – Deflagration-to-Detonation Transition
DIN – Deutsches Institut für Normung (Germany)
EGIG – European Gas Pipeline Incident Data Group
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency (USA)
ESD – Emergency Shutdown Device
ETA – Event Tree Analysis
FMEA – Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
FMECA – Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis
FRP – Fiber-Reinforced Plastic
FTA – Fault Tree Analysis
GCPS – Global Congress on Process Safety (of AIChE)
HAZMAT – Hazardous Material
HAZOP – Hazard and Operability; as in HAZOP Analysis or HAZOP Study
HEART – Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique
HEP – Human Error Probability
HERA – Human Event Repository and Analysis
HRA – Human Reliability Analysis
HCR – Human Cognitive Reliability
HMI – Human-Machine Interface
I/O – Input/Output
IE – Initiating Event
IEF – Initiating Event Frequency
IEC – International Electrotechnical Commission
IEEE – The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
IEF – Initiating Event Frequency
IPL – Independent Protection Layer
IPS – Instrumented Protective System
IRT – Independent Protection Layer (IPL) Response Time
ISA – International Society of Automation
ISO – International Organization for Standardization
ITPM – Inspection, Testing, and Preventive Maintenance
LOC – Loss of Containment
LOPA – Layer of Protection Analysis
LPG – Liquified Petroleum Gas
MAWP – Maximum Allowable Working Pressure
MOC – Management of Change
MPS – Machine Protection System
MSP – Maximum Setpoint
MSS – Manufacturers Standardization Society
NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA)
NFPA – National Fire Protection Association
NPRD – Nonelectric Parts Reliability Data
NRC – Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USA)
NRCC – National Research Council Canada
NTSB – National Transportation Safety Board (USA)
NUREG – U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document
OREDA – Offshore Reliability Data
OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration (USA)
PERD – Process Equipment Reliability Database
PES – Programmable Electronic System
PFD – Probability of Failure on Demand
PFDavg – Average Probability of Failure on Demand
PHA – Process Hazard Analysis
P&ID – Piping & Instrumentation Diagram
PID – Proportional–Integral–Derivative
PLT – Process Lag Time
PMI – Positive Material Identification
PPE – Personal Protective Equipment
PRV – Pressure Relief Valve
PSF – Performance Shaping Factor
PSM – Process Safety Management
PST – Process Safety Time
QRA – Quantitative Risk Assessment
RAGAGEP – Recognized and Generally Accepted Good Engineering Practice
RBPS – Risk Based Process Safety
RD – Rupture Disk
RFO – Restrictive Flow Orifice
RRF – Risk Reduction Factor
SCAI – Safety Controls, Alarms, and Interlocks
SIF – Safety Instrumented Function
SIL – Safety Integrity Level
SIS – Safety Instrumented System
SLIM – Success Likelihood Index Method
SME – Subject Matter Expert
SPAR–H – Standardized Plant Analysis Risk Model – Human Reliability Analysis
SPIDR™ – System and Part Integrated Data Resource
THERP – Technique for Human Error Rate Prediction
TR – Technical Report (by ISA)
UL – Underwriters Laboratory
USCG – United States Coast Guard
VRV – Vacuum Relief Valve
VPRV – Vacuum Pressure Relief Valve
VSV – Vacuum Safety Valve
GLOSSARY
Administrative Control
Procedural mechanism for controlling, monitoring, or auditing human performance, such as lockout/tagout procedures, bypass approval processes, car seals, and permit systems.
Asset Integrity
A risk-based process safety element involving work activities that help ensure that equipment is properly designed, installed in accordance with specifications, and remains fit for purpose over its life cycle. (Previously referred to as “mechanical integrity.”)
Average Probability of Failure on Demand (PFDavg)
Average PFD over the proof test interval of an equipment item.
Basic Process Control System (BPCS)
System that responds to input signals from the process, its associated equipment, other programmable systems and/or operator and generates output signals causing the process and its associated equipment to operate in the desired manner but that does not perform any safety instrumented functions with a claimed SIL ≥ 1 (IEC 61511 2003).
Bathtub Curve
Typical plot of equipment failure rate as a function of time. It is used to characterize the equipment lifecycle, such as early or premature failure, steady-state or normal operation failure, and wear out or end of useful life failure.
Beta Factor
A mathematical term applied in the PFDAVG to account for the fraction of the probability of failure that is due to dependent, or common cause, failure within the system.
Car Seal
A metal or plastic cable used to fix a valve in the open position (car sealed open) or closed position (car sealed closed). Proper authorization, controlled via administrative procedures, is obtained before operating the valve.
Chain Lock
A chain that is wrapped through or over a valve handle and locked to a support to prevent inadvertent repositioning of a valve once it is in its correct position. Removal is intended to occur only after approval is received from someone with authority and after checking that all prerequisites are met. The chain and lock provides an easy inspection aid to visually verify that the valve is in the intended position.
Clean Service
The process fluids and/or conditions do not result in fouling, corrosion, erosion, or deposition that negatively impacts the performance of a layer of protection, such as polymer formation under, in, or downstream of a relief valve.
Compensating Measures
Planned and documented methods for managing risks. They are implemented temporarily during any period of maintenance or of process operation with known faults or failures in an IPL, where there is an increased risk.
Common Cause Failure
Failure of more than one device, function, or system due to the same cause.
Common Mode Failure
A specific type of common cause failure in which the failure of more than one device, function, or system occurs due to the same cause, and failure of the devices occurs in the same manner.
Conditional Modifier
One of several possible probabilities included in scenario risk calculations, generally when the risk criteria are expressed in impact terms (e.g., fatalities) instead of loss event terms (e.g., release, loss-of-containment, vessel rupture).
Consequence
The undesirable result of an incident, usually measured in health and safety effects, environmental impacts, loss of property, and business interruption costs.
Dangerous Failure Rate
The rate (normally expressed in expected number of failures per year) that a component fails to an unsafe state/mode. (Other failure states or modes may lead to spurious trips of a system, but they do not lead to the unsafe condition of interest.)
Demand Mode
Dormant or standby operation where the IPL takes action only when a process demand occurs and is otherwise inactive. Low demand mode occurs when the process demand frequency is less than once per year. High demand mode occurs when the process demands happen more than once per year.
Dormant
A state of inactivity until a specific parametric level is reached.
Enabling Condition
Operating conditions necessary for an initiating cause to propagate into a hazardous event. Enabling conditions do not independently cause the incident, but must be present or active for it to proceed.
Event
An occurrence involving the process caused by equipment performance, human action, or external influence.
Frequency
Number of occurrences of an event per unit time (typically per year).
Human Error Probability (HEP)
The ratio between the number of human errors of a specific type and the number of opportunities for human errors on a particular task or within a defined time period. Synonyms: human failure probability and task failure probability.
Independent Protection Layer (IPL)
A device, system, or action that is capable of preventing a scenario from proceeding to the undesired consequence without being adversely affected by the initiating event or by the action of any other protection layer associated with the scenario.
Independent Protection Layer Response Time (IRT)
The IPL Response Time is the time necessary for the IPL to detect the out-of-limit condition and complete the actions necessary to stop progression of the process away from the safe state.
Incident Scenario
A hypothetical sequence of events that includes an initiating event and failure of any safeguards that ultimately results in a consequence of concern.
Initiating Event (IE)
A device failure, system failure, external event, or wrong action (or inaction) that begins a sequence of events leading to a consequence of concern.
Initiating Event Frequency (IEF)
How often the IE is expected to occur; in LOPA, the IEF is typically expressed in terms of occurrences per year.
Inspection, Testing, and Preventive Maintenance (ITPM)
Scheduled proactive maintenance activities intended to (1) assess the current condition and/or rate of degradation of equipment, (2) test the operation/functionality of the equipment, and/or (3) prevent equipment failure by restoring equipment condition. ITPM is an element of asset integrity.
Maximum Setpoint (MSP)
The maximum setpoint for an IPL is the point of maximum process deviation from the normal condition that would still allow sufficient time for the IPL to detect the deviation, to take action, and for the process to respond, preventing the consequence of concern. For SIS, this is called Maximum SIS Setpoint (MSP) per ISA-TR84.00.04 (2011).
Must
This Guidelines subcommittee believes that the IEF, PFD, or other aspect of an IE or IPL is valid only if the listed criteria are met. “Must” can also be used in reference to basic definitions.
Passive Fluid
Nonreactive and nonhazardous fluid.
Performance Shaping Factors (PSF)
Factors that influence the likelihood of human error.
Probability of Failure on Demand (PFD)
The likelihood that a system will fail to perform a specified function when it is needed.
Process Lag Time (PLT)
The process lag time indicates how much time it will take for the process to respond and avoid the consequence of concern, once the IPL has completed its action.
Process Safety Time (PST)
The time period between a failure occurring in the process, or its control system, and the occurrence of the consequence of concern.
Risk
A measure of potential economic loss, human injury, or environmental impact in terms of the frequency of the loss or injury occurring and the magnitude of the loss or injury if it occurs.
Safeguard
Any device, system, or action that either interrupts the chain of events following an initiating event or that mitigates the consequences. Not all safeguards will meet the requirements of an IPL.
Safety Controls, Alarms, and Interlocks (SCAI)
Process safety safeguards implemented with instrumentation and controls, used to achieve or maintain a safe state for a process, and required to provide risk reduction with respect to a specific hazardous event (ANSI/ISA 84.91.01 2012). These are sometimes called safety critical devices or critical safety devices.
Safety Instrumented Function (SIF)
A safety function allocated to a Safety Instrumented System (SIS) with a Safety Integrity Level (SIL) necessary to achieve the required risk reduction for an identified scenario of concern.
Safety Integrity Level (SIL)
One of four discrete ranges used to benchmark the integrity of each SIF and the SIS, where SIL 4 is the highest and SIL 1 is the lowest.
Safety Instrumented System (SIS)
A separate and independent combination of sensors, logic solvers, final elements, and support systems that are designed and managed to achieve a specified Safety Integrity Level (SIL). A SIS may implement one or more Safety Instrumented Functions (SIFs).
Severity
A measure of the degree of impact of a particular consequence.
Should
This Guidelines subcommittee believes that an alternative protocol to achieve the same criteria/goal is acceptable.
Systematic Error
Also referred to as “systemic error.” ISA-TR84.00.02 (2002) defines systematic error as “an error that occurred during the specification, design, implementation, commissioning, or maintenance.”
Validation
Activity of demonstrating that the installed equipment and/or associated human actions achieve the core attributes and the requirements of the design basis. Testing is one approach to validation.
Verification
Activity of making sure the equipment is installed to specification. (In the case of a Safety Instrumented Function (SIF), SIL verification often refers to calculating the PFDavg of a SIS to ensure that it achieves the stipulated SIL.)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE) and the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) express their appreciation and gratitude to the members of the Guidelines in Initiating Events and Independent Protection Layers in Layer of Protection Analysis subcommittee of the CCPS Technical Steering Committee for providing input, reviews, technical guidance, and encouragement to the project team throughout the preparation of this book. CCPS expresses gratitude to the team member companies for their generous support of this effort. CCPS also expresses appreciation to the members of the Technical Steering Committee for their advice and support in the writing of this book.
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!
Lesen Sie weiter in der vollständigen Ausgabe!