Enter to win
a free Apple
Impact of gas detection coverage on SIF SIL Rating
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.
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
Copyright ©2008 General Monitors, Inc. All logos, brand and product names are registered trademarks of their perspective owners. All rights reserved. Questions or comments to firstname.lastname@example.org