Determining Safety Integrity Level on a Hydrogen Production Unit with Application of the Layers of Protection Analysis Method
Irtiqa Imini Pishgiri Masdumiyat (Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention),
Vol. 2 No. 1 (2014),
5 February 2024
,
Page 23-30
https://doi.org/10.22037/meipm.v2i1.6470
Abstract
Backgrounds and Objective: The criticality of existing hazards of chemical processes requires that several protection layers to be used against them. In this regard, applied layers efficiency and resistance analysis is a necessity. In this study the level safety of protection layers of a hydrogen production unit, has been evaluated.
Materials and Methods: In order to assess the protection layers the preferred Layers of Protection Analysis method has been used. In this study, events have the severe effect, initiating causes and frequencies, Independent Protection Layers and Probability of Failure on Demand, the total probability of intermediate events and Safety Integrity Level were investigated.
Results: Results showed that the essential risk reduction was ranging from 10-1 to 10-2 and a Safety Integrity Level 2 was determined as a requirement. The results also specified it was not necessary to carry out a Quantitative Risk Analysis study.
Conclusion: The time consuming nature of preferred Layers of Protection Analysis method, dis show the combination of this method by a software tools may result in more efficient method and lead to more speed and precision.
How to cite this article: Lajevardi ShS, Jafari MJ, MohammadFam I. Determining Safety Integrity Level on a Hydrogen Production Unit with Application of the of Protection Analysis Method. Irtiqa Imini Pishgiri Masdumiyat (Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention).2014;2(1):267-274.
- Layers of Protection Analysis
- Safety
- Integrity
- Hydrogen
How to Cite
References
Rikhardsson PM, Impgaard M. Corporate cost of occupational accidents: an activity-based analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2004; 36(2):173-82.
Shah S, Fischer U, Hungerbühler K. A Hierarchical Approach for the Evaluation of Chemical Process Aspects from the Perspective of Inherent Safety. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2003; 81(6):430-43.
Nga HD, John HSL. Comments on explosion problems for hydrogen safety. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2008;21(2):136-46.
Dowell AM. Layer of protection analysis for determining safety integrity level. Isa Transactions. 1998; 37(3): 155-165.
Wei C, Rogers WJ, Mannan MS. Layer of protection analysis for reactive chemical risk assessment. Journal of hazardous materials. 2008; 159 (1): 19-24.
Jafari MJ, Lajevardi SS, Fam IM. Semi Quantitative Risk Assessment of a Hydrogen Production Unit. International Journal of Occupational Hygiene. 2013; 5(3): 101-8.
Baybutt P. Layers of protection analysis for human factors (LOPA‐HF). Process Safety Progress. 2002; 21 (2): 119-129.
Freeman R. Using layer of protection analysis to define safety integrity level requirements. Process safety progress. 2007; 26(3): 185-94.
Dowell AM, Williams TR. Layer of protection analysis: Generating scenarios automatically from HAZOP data. Process safety progress. 2005; 24(1): 38-44.
Sanders RE. Practicing chemical process safety: a look at the layers of protection. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2004;115(1-3):141-7.
Schuppa B, Halea A, Pasmanb H, Lemkovitzb S, Goossensa L. Design support for the systematic integration of risk reduction into early chemical process design. Safety Science. 2006;44(1):37-54.
Fang JS, Mannan MS, Ford DM, Logan J, Summers A. Value at Risk Perspective on Layers of Protection Analysis. Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2007;85(1):81–7.
Summers AE. Introduction to layers of protection analysis. Journal of Hazardous Materials. Journal of Hazardous Materials. 2003; 104 (1): 163-8.
Markowski A, Kotynia A. Bow-tie model in layer of protection analysis. Journal of Process Safety and Environmental Protection. 2011; 89 (4):1-9.
Markowski AS, Mannan SM. ExSys-LOPA for the chemical process industry. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 2010;23:688-96.
Gowland R. The accidental risk assessment methodology for industries (ARAMIS)/layer of protection analysis (LOPA) methodology: A step forward towards convergent practices in risk assessment?. Journal of hazardous materials. 2006; 130(3): 307-10.
Hauptmanns U. Semi-quantitative fault tree analysis for process plant safety using frequency and probability ranges. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries. 2004; 17(5): 339-45.
Rouvroye JL, Van Den Bliek EG. Comparing safety analysis techniques. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2002; 75(3): 289-94.
Bridges WB, Clark T. Key issues with implementing LOPA. Process Safety Progress. 2010; 29(2): 103-7.
Gowland R. "The accidental risk assessment methodology for industries (ARAMIS)/layer of protection analysis (LOPA) methodology: A step forward towards convergent practices in risk assessment?". Journal of hazardous materials 130. 2006;3 307-10.
Cui L, Shu Y, Wang Z, Zhao J, Qiu T, Sun W. HASILT: An intelligent software platform for HAZOP, LOPA, SRS and SIL verification. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2012; 108: 56-64.
- Abstract Viewed: 667 times
- PDF Downloaded: 1501 times