An Overview of
ISA 84 Standard for Safety
Instrumented Systems (SIS)
and the Safety Life Cycle
Presented in July 2015
By Jennifer L. Bergstrom
Process Engineering Associates, LLC
ISA 84 Safety Instrumented Systems and
the Safety Life Cycle
Agenda:
Safety components, acronyms, and definitions
ANSI/ISA 84.00.01 Standard for Safety
Instrumented Systems
Safety Life Cycle
Incorporating safety systems into process
design
Workshop
Components, Acronyms, and
Definitions
Components:
Safety Instrumented Function (SIF)
Safety Instrumented System (SIS)
Safety Integrity Level (SIL)
Safety Requirement Specification (SRS)
Safety Life Cycle
Independent Protection Layer (IPL)
Components, Acronyms, and
Descriptions
SIF Safety Instrumented Function
Individual interlock or automatic trip function
that is designed to alleviate or minimize an
undesired hazard, as determined in the
PHA/HAZOP and the SIL Selection/LOPA
Includes all instrumentation in the interlock
function, from the sensor and transmitter
through the control system all the way to the final
element (e.g., isolation valve)
Components, Acronyms, and
Descriptions
SIS Safety Instrumented System
A critical system that consists of one or more automatic
Safety Instrumented Functions (SIFs) or interlocks
Example: Fired Heater burner management system (BMS)
FI100
SIS
1
FALL
100
Process flow
H-1
SIS
1
SIS
1
PAHH
101
PI101
Sweet fuel gas
XY102
FC
Components, Acronyms, and
Definitions
SIL Safety Integrity Level
Risk reduction levels:
SIL
RRF
PFD (1/RRF)
0-10
101
>10 to 100
102 to <101
>100 to 1000
103 to <102
>1000 to 10,000
104 to <103
>10,000 to 100,000
105 to <104
Components, Acronyms, and
Definitions
SIL Safety Integrity Level
Level of risk reduction that a SIF must achieve
Target / Required SIL amount of risk reduction
determined as a need during PHA / HAZOP and then
the level is determined during a simplified SIL Selection
or elaborate LOPA (Layer of Protection Analysis)
Achieved / Verified SIL calculated risk reduction
utilizing Markov equations and includes all components
of the interlock to determine the level of risk reduction
(RRF) or 1/PFD (Probability of Failure on Demand)
Components, Acronyms, and
Definitions
SIL Safety Integrity Level
Levels of risk:
SIL 0 (none) tolerable risk
SIL 1 minimal risk
95% of all SIL-rated interlocks
SIL 2 medium risk
Less than 5% of all SIL-rated interlocks
SIL 3 high risk
Less than 1% of all SIL-rated interlocks (typically found in
the nuclear industry or off-shore platforms)
SIL 4 highest risk (not likely in petroleum or chemical
industry)
Components, Acronyms, and
Definitions
SRS Safety Requirement Specification
Document containing detailed SIS interlock
information
Safety Life Cycle
Activity designed to include all phases of the life of a
SIF and SIS
KEY NOTE: Its not enough to just install a SIS. It must be
properly designed and maintained so it is available when the
need arises!!!
ANSI/ISA 84 and Safety Life Cycle were developed to
guide a safety system from the Risk Assessment cradle
to the Decommissioning grave.
ANSI/ISA 84.00.01 Standard for SIS
ANSI/ISA 84.00.01 - Application of Safety
Instrumented Systems (SIS) for Process
Industries :
Follows IEC 61511
First version in 1996
Second version approved in 2004 (included a
Grandfather Clause)
OSHA recognizes this standard as a RAGAGEP
Defines Safety Instrumented System (SIS)
Defines all phases required in Safety Life Cycle
ANSI/ISA 84 and Safety Life Cycle
cradle
Hazard & Risk
Assessment
(PHA, LOPA/SIL Analysis)
Installation, Commission,
& Validate
(FAT, SAT, Functional
Proof Test)
Modification
Decommission
grave
Design
(Execute &
Evaluate)
Operations
and
Maintenance
Why SIS and Safety Life Cycle?
Accidents/Incidents can and do occur, so
in order to help minimize the frequency
and/or severity Safety Instrumented Systems and Safety
Life Cycle are designed to minimize risk
But if the Safety Life Cycle is stopped, this
could occur
BP Refinery - Texas City
Why SIS and Safety Life Cycle?
15 fatalities and 180 injuries that day in 2005
Resulted in multitude of citations with a hefty fine of
$21MM
2009 Follow-up FTA inspection was conducted
and $87MM fine was given; most of the FTAs
related to PSVs and SIS
Why SIS and Safety Life Cycle?
Due to public concern over the severity of the 2005 BP
Texas City incident, OSHA initiated NEP (National
Emphasis Program) inspections in petroleum refineries
across the country in 2007
OSHA included SIS analysis in the NEP dynamic list for
refineries (due to SIS and instrumentation failures
considered as contributing causes of the BP incident)
OSHA more recently initiated a nationwide NEP directive
for chemical facilities with PSM-covered chemicals in late
2011
Why SIS and Safety Life Cycle?
ANSI/ISA 84.00.01 - Application of Safety
Instrumented Systems (SIS) for Process
Industries:
OSHA recognizes this standard as RAGAGEP
(Recognized and Generally Accepted Good
Engineering Practice) and has considered it to be
within the scope of OSHA 1910.119 PSM
regulation under Mechanical Integrity (MI)
Protection Layers
IPL Independent Protection Layer
Protective items, when used alone or in
combination with diverse types, that are
meant to reduce risk to personnel, the
environment, or property
Examples: BPCS (control system), alarms and
operator response, SIS, physical devices (PSVs,
dual seals, dikes, flares, deluges, etc.), and other
human mitigation (emergency response)
Protection Layers
Process Hazards/Risk and IPLs (ups and
downs)
BPCS
process risk
P
R
O
C
Risk
E
S
S
tolerable
alarms
SIS
mechanical
other
Protection Layers
Emergency Response
(Plant and then Community)
Mitigation (SIS,
mechanical mitigation)
Prevention
(Alarms w/ intervention,
mechanical protection)
BPCS
PROCESS
Protection Layers / SIFs / SISs
Safety systems/interlocks are a vital
protection layer between the hazards of
the process and the public when inherent
design is not enough
Safety Systems are added to the process
design to minimize these risks to a
tolerable level or ALARP (As Low As
Reasonably Practical)
Safety Systems Design
cradle
Hazard & Risk
Assessment
(PHA, LOPA/SIL Analysis)
Installation, Commission,
& Validate
(FAT, SAT, Functional
Proof Test)
Modification
Decommission
grave
Design
(Execute &
Evaluate)
Operations
and
Maintenance
Safety Systems Design
SIF/SIS is added to a design during the cradle
stage or PHA as a safeguard to mitigate or
minimize a hazard
Each SIF is assigned a Safety Integrity Level
(SIL) during the SIL Analysis or LOPA risk
assessment
SIL 0 lowest risk
SIL 4 highest risk
Each incremental SIL must be more reliable and
available to operate when required (thus
installation and maintenance costs increase)
Safety Systems Design
Requirements when designing SIS:
Separation:
Instrumentation interlock instrumentation CAN
NOT be part of control logic
Safety Control System requires safety logic solver
that segregates its inputs and outputs
Robust equipment options:
Examples:
Honeywell ST3000 Safety transmitter with HART 6.0
MAXON MM/MA series safety isolation valves
DeltaV Redundant SLS
Safety Systems Design
Reliability and availability can also be achieved by:
Architecture
Using redundancy and voting logic of the initiators,
safety control system, and/or final elements (e.g.,
1oo2, 2oo3 required to achieve safe state)
Installation per manufacturers guidelines
Testing / Validation and Replacement both at
initial startup as well as at specified testing
intervals or after any modification (i.e., via PSSR)
Safety Systems Design
When designing or modifying a SIS, keep in
mind there are two types of failures:
Safe Failures
Dangerous Failures
Safe Failures are the desired failure
Initiated (actual event)
Spurious (false undesired but still safe)
Dangerous failures are not desired
Inhibited (bypassed)
Dangerous operation (doesnt trip when needed)
Safety Systems Design Voting Logic
How to design for safe failures without
dangerous failures or with minimal spurious
trips?
Voting Logic
Best blend
of both
Safe
Dangerous
1oo1
good
good
1oo2
good
best
1oo2D
best
better
2oo2
better
good
2oo3
best
better
(Source: ISA & Exida)
Safety Systems Design - SIL
Verification
SIL verification involves multiple Morkov model
calculations to determine the achieved SIL range
Interlock component data used for verification:
MTTFS
PFDavg
RRF (inverse of PFD or 1/PFD)
b% (when using multiple components)
ldu (undetected dangerous failures)
lsp (safe or spurious failures)
Safety Systems Design - SIL
Verification
Safety
Integrity Level
(SIL)
Safety Instrumented System Performance Requirements
Average Probability of
Risk Reduction
Safety Availability
Failure on Demand
Factor (RRF)
Required
(PFDavg)
RRF=1/PFD
90.00 99.00 %
10-1 to 10-2
10 to 100
99.00 99.90 %
10-2 to 10-3
100 to 1,000
99.90 99.99 %
10-3 to 10-4
1,000 to 10,000
Safety Systems Design - SIL
Verification
If the required SIL can not be achieved with
the initial design, some options are:
More frequent proof testing
Add redundancy (i.e., initiating device, control
system, final element)
Install smarter device (i.e., HART smart
transmitter or transmitter vs. switch or relay, smart
control /isolation valve with diagnostics and
feedback and position indication vs. basic control
valve)
Add other IPL(s)
Validation/Functional Proof Testing
Proof Tests must be performed at the frequency
determined during SIL verification (and as stated in
the SRS) to validate the reliability of the SIF
Many facilities prefer to perform these tests during turnaround,
so SIS may be designed to perform between 4-5 year testing
frequency
It should include the following information:
Test procedure
Date of test and all personnel performing the test
Control logic version # (if available)
Results of entire test and any abnormalities found
General Concepts to Remember in Design
Separation from control logic
Two words in design to achieve lower MTTFS (PFD)
or higher RRF to achieve the SIL:
Diagnostics, diagnostics, diagnostics,
Redundancy
Transmitters with diagnostics (i.e., HART) can detect problems
before going awry or failing, making troubleshooting and
repair much easier
Hence, the desire for transmitters with diagnostics
over switches
General Concepts to Remember in Design
If using switch, solenoid, or relay (anything on/off or
discrete), verify that it is normally energized during
operation (fail safe)
Use dedicated wiring to each device (as much as
possible)
Minimize common cause failures (i.e., common wires,
instrument taps, or same controller or I/O card)
Mechanical devices are the weakest link in the SIF. They
can stick if not moved periodically (i.e., PSVs, valves,
switches)
To remedy this issue: install dual isolation or modulating
valves that can be partially stroked
Workshop Fired Heater H-1 P&ID
What voting logic/redundancy options are used in this SIF?
(hint: both initiators and final elements)
Signal from
TIC-103 (Process Temp)
SIS
1
H-1
PAHH
110A
PI110A
2oo3
PAHH
110B
PI110B
SIS
1 EM
PAHH
110C
PI110C
To flare
XY102
TV103
FC
FO
XY104
FC
SIS
1
XY101
FC
Sweet fuel gas
Final Review
Components
IPL
SIS
SIF
SIL
Required/ Target SIL
Achieved SIL
SRS
Safety Life Cycle
cradle to grave
Final Review
Design of the SIF/SIS must be capable of achieving
the target SIL
Design of the SIF/SIS should minimize common
cause and dangerous failures
Employer must continue the Safety Life Cycle
timelines as determined in the SRS to the keep the
SIF reliable and available to reduce risk
Functional Proof Test at a specified interval or after
any changes to hardware or software configuration
Mission Time hardware replacement interval
Document any modifications to SIS or protection layers
(MOC)
Introduction to PROCESS
PROCESS Chemical Engineering Services
Process Design (FEL-0, 1, 2, and 3)
Process Modeling/Simulation (CHEMCAD/Aspen/HYSYS/etc.)
Operations Support
Process Safety Services (PHAs, LOPA, SIL Selection, etc.)
The PROCESS Competitive Advantage
The Best Process Engineers Available
State of the Art Process Engineering Tools
Extremely Responsive to Clients Needs
Available for Projects Worldwide
Only Process Engineering Services
Independent
On Time
Under Budget
Competitive Pricing
