Scribd
Upload
58 views3 pages

SIL Study Guide

The document provides a comprehensive guide to Safety Integrity Level (SIL), detailing its definition, levels, and the steps involved in conducting a SIL study, including hazard identification and SIL verification. It emphasizes the importance of voting logic in achieving the required SIL level and presents various configurations with their reliability implications. An example from a petrochemical refinery illustrates the application of SIL study and verification, highlighting the effectiveness of different voting logics in meeting safety requirements.

Uploaded by

Fahim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views3 pages

SIL Study Guide

The document provides a comprehensive guide to Safety Integrity Level (SIL), detailing its definition, levels, and the steps involved in conducting a SIL study, including hazard identification and SIL verification. It emphasizes the importance of voting logic in achieving the required SIL level and presents various configurations with their reliability implications. An example from a petrochemical refinery illustrates the application of SIL study and verification, highlighting the effectiveness of different voting logics in meeting safety requirements.

Uploaded by

Fahim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

A Comprehensive Guide to SIL Study, SIL Verification, and Voting Logic

1. Introduction to Safety Integrity Level (SIL)


Safety Integrity Level (SIL) is a quantitative measure of safety performance in industrial
processes. It is defined in IEC 61508 and IEC 61511 and applies to Safety Instrumented
Systems (SIS) in industries such as refineries, petrochemicals, and upstream oil & gas.
SIL ensures that Safety Instrumented Functions (SIFs) operate reliably to mitigate
hazardous events.
2. Understanding SIL Levels
SIL levels range from SIL 1 to SIL 4, with SIL 4 providing the highest level of safety and
reliability. Each SIL level is determined by the Probability of Failure on Demand
(PFDavg):

SIL Level PFDavg Range Risk Reduction Factor (RRF)

SIL 1 10⁻¹ to 10⁻² 10 to 100

SIL 2 10⁻² to 10⁻³ 100 to 1,000

SIL 3 10⁻³ to 10⁻⁴ 1,000 to 10,000

SIL 4 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁵ 10,000 to 100,000

Key Consideration: The higher the SIL level, the lower the probability of failure and the
higher the safety and reliability requirements.

3. Steps in a SIL Study


A SIL study is conducted as part of the Safety Lifecycle to ensure that the required risk
reduction is achieved. The following steps are followed:
3.1. Hazard Identification (HAZID/HAZOP)
• Identify hazardous scenarios using HAZOP (Hazard and Operability Study).
• Determine the causes and consequences of process deviations.
3.2. Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA)
• Identify existing safeguards such as alarms, relief valves, and operator intervention.
• Determine if an additional Safety Instrumented Function (SIF) is required.
3.3. Defining the Safety Instrumented Function (SIF)
• Clearly define the function, such as pressure shutdown, flow shutdown, or
emergency depressurization.
• Define the setpoint, trip action, and final element operation.
3.4. SIL Determination
• Assign the target SIL level based on LOPA risk assessment.
• Define the Risk Reduction Factor (RRF) required.
3.5. SIL Verification (PFDavg Calculation)
• Calculate the Probability of Failure on Demand (PFDavg) for sensors, logic
solvers, and final elements.
• Compare the PFDavg with the required SIL level.
• Select an appropriate voting logic to meet the SIL requirement.

4. Relationship Between SIL and Voting Logic


Voting logic plays a critical role in achieving the required SIL level by improving system
reliability and fault tolerance.
4.1. Common Voting Configurations

Voting Logic Description Reliability vs. Spurious Trip Tradeoff

1oo1 (One out Single sensor, logic, or final High failure risk, low cost, prone to
of One) element. single-point failures.

Higher availability, better fault


1oo2 (One out Two components, only one
tolerance, but increased spurious
of Two) needed to activate the trip.
trips.

2oo2 (Two out Both components must agree to Highly reliable, but increased risk of
of Two) activate the trip. failure to trip.

2oo3 (Two out Three components, at least two Balanced reliability, prevents nuisance
of Three) must agree to trip. trips, fault-tolerant.

5. Example: SIL Study and Verification in Refinery Process


5.1. Scenario: Overpressure Protection in a Petrochemical Refinery
A High-Pressure Separator (HP Separator) is protected against overpressure using a
Safety Instrumented Function (SIF) that closes the inlet shutdown valve (SDV-4001) in
case of high pressure.
5.2. Safety Instrumented Function (SIF) Definition
• Process Deviation: High pressure in HP Separator
• Cause: Blocked outlet, valve failure, compressor surge
• SIF Action: Close SDV-4001 to stop inlet flow
• Final Trip Setpoint: 50 bar (as per LOPA)
• Required SIL: SIL 2
5.3. SIL Verification: PFD Calculation with Different Voting Logics
Logic Final
Sensor Total SIF
Voting Logic Solver Element Achieved SIL
PFDavg PFDavg
PFDavg PFDavg

1oo1 (Single
Sensor, Single 2.5 × 10⁻³ 5.0 × 10⁻³ 7.5 × 10⁻³ 1.5 × 10⁻² SIL 1 (FAIL)
Valve)

1oo2 (Dual
Sensors, One Must 6.25 × 10⁻⁴ 5.0 × 10⁻³ 7.5 × 10⁻³ 1.3 × 10⁻² SIL 2 (PASS)
Work)

2oo3 (Triple
SIL 2 (PASS,
Sensors, Two Must 2.08 × 10⁻⁴ 5.0 × 10⁻³ 7.5 × 10⁻³ 7.7 × 10⁻³
More Reliable)
Agree)

5.4. Key Observations


1. 1oo1 Configuration fails to meet SIL 2 due to a high probability of failure.
2. 1oo2 Configuration meets SIL 2 but increases the likelihood of false trips.
3. 2oo3 Configuration is the best choice for SIL 2, ensuring fault tolerance and
reduced spurious trips.

6. Conclusion
• SIL study and verification ensure that safety instrumented systems meet risk
reduction requirements in refineries, petrochemical, and upstream facilities.
• Voting logic selection directly affects SIL level, system reliability, and
availability.
• 2oo3 voting logic is commonly used for achieving SIL 2 and SIL 3, balancing
safety and operational efficiency.

You might also like