On the use of LOPA and risk graphs for SIL determination

Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries

Volumn 41, Issue , 2016, Pages 333-343

  Torres Echeverria, Alejandro C ^a,b  

^a Risktec Solutions Inc   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

IEC 61508; IEC 61511; Layers of protection analysis (LOPA); Risk graph; Safety instrumented systems (SIS); Safety integrity level (SIL)

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; DECISION MAKING; FUNCTION EVALUATION; GAS INDUSTRY; GRAPHIC METHODS; PLANTS (BOTANY); RISK ASSESSMENT; SURVEYING INSTRUMENTS;

IEC 61508; IEC 61511; LAYERS OF PROTECTION ANALYSIS; RISK GRAPHS; SAFETY INSTRUMENTED SYSTEMS; SAFETY INTEGRITY LEVELS;

SAFETY ENGINEERING;

EID: 84953439351     PISSN: 09504230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jlp.2015.12.007     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. ACM Facility Safety SIL determination techniques report. ACM Autom. Inc. 2006, Retrieved from, Last date accessed April 22, 2015. http://www.iceweb.com.au.
2. Baybutt P. An improved risk graph approach for determination of safety integrity levels (SILs). Process Saf. Prog. 2006, 26(1):66-76.
3. Baybutt P. The use of risk matrices and risk graphs for SIL determination. Process Saf. Prog. 2013, 33(2):179-182.
4. Bhimavarapu K., Stavrianidis P. Safety integrity level analysis for processes: issues and methodologies. Process Saf. Prog. 2000, 19(1):19-24.
5. CCPS Layer of Protection Analysis. Simplified Process Risk Assessment 2001, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Center for Chemical Process Safety, Wiley-AIChE, New York.
6. CCPS Guidelines of Initiating Events and Independent Protection Layers in Layer of Protection Analysis 2014, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Center for Chemical Process Safety, Wiley-AIChE, New York.
7. De Salis C. Using risk graphs for safety integrity level assessment. A user-guide for chemical engineers 2011, The Institution of Chemical Engineers, IChemE, UK.
8. DIN DIN V 19250 Control Technology: Fundamental Safety Aspects to Be Considered for Measurement and Control Equipment 1994, German Institute for Standardization (DIN), Berlin, Germany.
9. Dowell A.M. Layer of protection analysis for determining safety integrity level. ISA Trans. 1998, 37(3):155-165.
10. Gruhn P. Different SIL (safety integrity level) selection techniques can yield significantly different answers. Proc. ISA Autom. West 2004.
11. Gulland W.G. Methods of determining safety integrity level (SIL) requirements - pros and cons. Practical Elements of Safety. Proceedings of the 12th Safety-critical Systems Symposium 2004, 105-122. Springer-Verlag, London. F. Redmill, T. Anderson (Eds.).
12. HSE Reducing Risks, Protecting People. HSE's Decision-making Process. Health and Safety Executive 2001, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Norwich, UK.
13. IEC IEC 61511 Functional Safety - Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process Industry Sector - Part 1: Framework, Definitions, System, Hardware and Software Requirements 2003, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland.
14. IEC IEC 61511 Functional Safety - Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process Industry Sector - Part 3: Guidance for the Determination of the Required Safety Integrity Levels 2003, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland.
15. IEC IEC 61508 Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-related Systems. Part 1: General Requirements 2010, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland. second ed.
16. IEC IEC 61508 Functional Safety of Electrical/Electronic/Programmable Electronic Safety-related Systems. Part 5: Examples of Methods for the Determination of Safety Integrity Levels 2010, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland. second ed.
17. ISA ANSI/ISA 84.00.01-2004 (IEC 61511 Mod) Functional Safety: Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process Industry Sector - Part 1: Framework, Definitions, System, Hardware and Software Requirements 2004, The International Society of Automation, North Carolina, USA.
18. Marszal E.M., et al. Comparison of safety integrity level selection methods and utilization of risk based approaches. Process Saf. Prog. 1999, 18(4):189-194.
19. Summers A. Techniques for assigning a target safety integrity level. ISA Trans. 1998, 37(2):95-104.
20. UKOOA Guidelines for Instrument-based Protective Systems 1999, Issue No. 2, UK Offshore Operators Association, London, UK.