exida Presenting and Exhibiting at AIChE’s 2018 Spring Meeting & 14th GCPS

Apr 04, 2018

[vc_row][vc_column][us_single_image image=”17412″ size=”full”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][vc_column_text]exida will be presenting and exhibiting at the AIChE’s 2018 Spring Meeting & 14th GCPS to be held April 22-26, 2018 in Orlando,FL. Stop by Booth #605 during exhibit hours.

This year we will be showcasing some of our newest products and services that reduce engineering time and minimize risk.

Move data from PHA high risk hazard scenarios into LOPA with the push of a button:

Inputs that are defined in the Process Hazard Analysis tool (e.g., causes, safeguards) are instantly populated for Layer of Protection Analysis (e.g., initiating events and independent protection layers).

Automatic Configuration of DeltaV SIS Logic

See the plug-in to our industry-leading exSILentia tool that allows DeltaV SIS configuration logic and design documentation (C&E Matrix) to be createdautomatically from your SIL Verification calculations and requirements specification.

Seamlessly create database for tracking of SIS demands, proof test results, failures, and maintenance activities from SIL Verification

SIF component information automatically configured into your plant hierarchy within exSILentia’s SILStat module.

Configure Alarm Flood Suppression Logic during Alarm Rationalization

Use SILAlarm to effortlessly configure Alarm Flood Suppression modules (triggering conditions, suppression behavior, dynamic prioritization, alarms to suppress) and faceplates.

Schedule your Cyber Risk Assessment with exida

Learn more about exida’s Cybesecurity services for process industry users.


Also, Denise Chastain-Knight, Senior Safety Engineer, Iwan van Beurden, Chief Technology Officer, Kate Hildenbrandt, Product Manager, and Julia Bukowski on behalf of Dr. William Goble, are among the presenters at this year’s event.

9c – Analysis of Spring Operated Pressure relief Valve Proof test Data

This paper reviews the research conducted by the authors on spring operated pressure relief valve (SOPRV) proof test data over the last 10 years and updates the findings and implications published in a previous paper a decade ago. Three specific findings are highlighted.

First, the previously statistically described but physically unexplained phenomenon known as probability of initial failure (PIF) has been irrefutably confirmed as a real physical phenomenon and specific explanations for this phenomenon have been discovered. PIF is a measure of the percentage of SOPRV which will be installed or re-installed in the stuck shut mode of failure meaning that the SOPRV provides no protection at all during the time from installation until its next proof test! Not all SOPRV are equally affected. PIF varies considerably by valve design, material composition and set pressure. Understanding how these parameters affect PIF offers potential to mitigate or at least significantly reduce the very considerable negative impacts of PIF on SOPRV safety performance.

Second, the assumed constant dangerous failure rate, λD, of an SOPRV during its useful life is, in fact, composed of two parts. The first part, λDI, is due to the dangerous failure rate inherent in the SOPRV based on design, manufacture, and assembly. The second part, λDS, is due to specific considerations of the site at which the SOPRV is installed and maintained. Research has shown that λD can be two or more times λDI. The λDS portion of the dangerous failure rate may be subject to complete or at least partial remedy which, if enacted, will reduce λD improving safety performance.

Third, a decade ago the available proof test data did not support increasing proof test intervals beyond a period of 4 – 5 years. Unfortunately, all the data analyzed since do not support any increase in proof test intervals. However, this does not mean that increases in proof tests intervals are impossible – simply that available data do not support such increases. In this regard, the paper closes with a recommendation for a data collection project which takes advantages of the last decade of improved understanding of SOPRV safety performance to answer two specific questions. Given an operating company’s stated safety performance goals: Under what conditions, if any, can the proof test interval of a SOPRV be increased without compromising the stated safety performance goals? If conditions for an increase in proof test interval exist, what is the permissible increase without compromising stated safety goals?

exida Presenter: Julia Bukowski
Date: Monday, April 23, 2018
Time: 11:30-12:00 PM

Location: Marriott Grand Ballroom 7B

53m – Integration of Automation Lifecycles; How Functional Safety, Cyber Security, and Alarm Management Work Together

Functional Safety standards have addressed how hazards and their risks are to be analyzed and protected against, as well as how the effectiveness of the protection must be evaluated and maintained. With the use of PLC based systems, the ease of generating alarms has increased significantly and alarm floods are common in most plants. Alarm management standards are addressing concepts of rationalization and prioritization. With advancements in automation the threats of cyber-attacks and cybersecurity incidents has presented itself. Cyber security standards are being written to address these issues both from a manufacturer as well as a user perspective.
The most effective method for developing a streamlined work process is the creation of a cohesive lifecycle that addresses all automation requirements. This pulls from the functional safety, cyber security and alarm management lifecycles to create one unified approach to safety and security.
This presentation will address a combined lifecycle approach while using common automation examples to enhance the importance of the integration of the respective automation needs.

exida Presenter: Iwan van Beurden and Kate Hildenbrandt
Date: Monday, April 23, 2018
Time: 5-7 PM

Location: Marriott Cypress Ballroom 1/2

53o – Why Run-to-Fail Is Not a Good Strategy for SIS

One of the fundamentals of the Probability of Failure on Demand (PFDavg) calculations in SIL verification analysis, is the concept of a constant failure-rate during useful life of the equipment. Probabilistic calculations assume that the failure rate of the devices used in a Safety Instrumented System (SIS) remains constant during the “flat” (constant failure rate) portion of the “bathtub” curve.

Reliability engineers understand that the portion before the “flat” part of the “Bathtub” is where a high number of premature failures can occur: commonly referred to as “infant mortality”. Most manufacturers will perform stringent testing to weed-out, weaker units, that could fail prematurely, leading to unwanted warranty claims. Conversely, once the equipment reaches the end of the “flat” portion of the “Bathtub” then the failures start to rise dramatically. This part of the “Bathtub” is referred to as the “wear-out” phase. This paper will explain why a run-to-fail strategy is not good practice for a Safety Instrumented System (SIS), which will lead to the degraded performance of the Safety Instrumented Functions (SIFs). Once the Useful life is exceeded then the integrity of the SIFs is compromised.

It is important and critical to keep the SIS response time requirements, for each SIF, less than the process safety time; the objective of the SIL Validation requirements of this stage (Stage 4 Functional Safety Assessment) is to validate, through inspection and testing, that the installed and commissioned SIS and its associated SIFs achieve the requirements as stated in the safety requirement specification.

The paper is describing why SIL validation is importance and Run-to-Fail Is Not A Good Maintenance Strategy for a SIS.

exida Presenter: Steve Gandy
Date:  Monday, April 23, 2018
Time:  5-7 PM
Location: Marriott Cypress Ballroom 1/2

98a – Competency Requirements in Process Safety

When selecting individuals to perform process safety management tasks one will want to make sure that those individuals are competent to perform the relevant tasks. The process industry functional safety standard IEC 61511, specifically addresses this requirement in clause by stating that “Persons, departments or organizations involved in SIS safety life-cycle activities shall be competent to carry out the activities for which they are accountable”. The standard requires that competency requirements are documented as part of the overall functional safety management plan. But how does one ensure competency of individuals? This paper will review the requirements in the IEC 61511 standard, compare them to the Body of Knowledge as prepared by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, and subsequently review personnel certification programs available in the process industry. The paper concludes how these certification programs can be used to assess an individual’s competency.

exida Presenters:  Iwan van Beurden and Kate Hildenbrandt
Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Time: 10:15-10:45 AM
Location: Marriott Grand Ballroom 78A

91c –  Going Full Life Cycle with Process Safety Data

Process Safety Data is compiled, modified, reviewed, and amended during all steps in the lifecycle of a process plant. Maintaining this data can be quite challenging and costly. Updating data can result in a significant trickledown effect on subsequent steps in the plants lifecycle. By improving the Safety Lifecycle Data Flow, significant project time, and therefore cost, reductions can be achieved. This paper will review how information recorded in the various lifecycle phases needs to be transferred from one phase to the next, and how the overall data flow can be improved through integrated tool support. The paper will also discuss how this can lead to overall project cost and schedule reductions.

exida Presenters:  Iwan van Beurden and Kate Hildenbrandt
Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2018
Time: 11:15-11:45 AM
Location: Marriott Salon 9/10

176a – Functional Safety Practices for Operations & Maintenance

Operation and maintenance teams bear a heavy responsibility to assure that the Safety Instrumented System (SIS) integrity and reliability is sustained. Decisions made long before operation begins, or outside the operating environment often impact the ability to be successful. Design choices fix physical configuration and instrumentation capabilities. Inadequate bid assessment results in procurement of equipment that does not meet the specification. Turn around schedules are extended stretching proof test intervals beyond design plan. Budget constraints don’t provide for resources to collect field failure information and complete performance analysis. Repair and replacement is deferred. All these things conspire to reduce the reliability of a SIS and increase the probability that it will fail when needed. This paper will discuss some of the significant challenges that O&M teams face, and recommend techniques to incorporate as best practices.

exida Presenters:  Denise Chastain-Knight
Date: Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Time: 10:15-10:45 AM
Location: Marriott Grand Ballroom 8A

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner][us_separator type=”invisible” size=”small”][vc_column_text][/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Keep Updated.