The Average Probability of Failure on Demand of a device. PFDavg tells you the average probability that a device will fail to protect you at the time a demand is placed on the device. A “demand” being placed on the device when the SIF of which it is a part is called on to carry out its safety function because an unsafe situation has been detected in the process.
A device would fail to protect us only if a dangerous undetected failure had been introduced since the last round of testing. PFDavg describes the probability that this has occurred. Since it is a probability, it is without units. It is easy to see that a device will have a lower PFDavg if it has a low dangerous undetected failure rate (as the failures that would cause the device to “fail to protect” are being introduced at a lower rate) and is tested more often (so there is less time for dangerous undetected failures to happen).
The PFDavg of each device in the SIF must be calculated, then the results are added together (summed) to give the overall PFDavg of the SIF. To repeat – each device in the SIF contributes to the overall PFDavg of the SIF. We calculate the PFDavg of each device and simply add them all together to give the PFDavg of the SIF.
For each SIL band there is a range of (SIF) PFDavg values. Once we know the PFDavg of the SIF we have designed, we can tell if it sits within the required SIL band. If we want to look in more detail at what we achieved with our design, we can find the value of risk reduction we have achieved, by simply taking the reciprocal of the (SIF) PFDavg – this will give us the risk reduction factor.
If we don’t meet the target with this design, then we have to take action to reduce the PFDavg of the SIF, which could be by choosing devices with better (lower) dangerous undetected failure rates, proof testing more often or adding redundancy above the minimum set by the HFT requirements of the device.
Project is to determine whether the Probability of Failure on Demand (PFD) for an installed SIS meets the target PFD of 0.1 presented in the LOPA review. The PFD calculated for the SIF was then incorporated into an update to the LOPA.
Industry: Mining / Metal / CementFollowing several inspections by the UK Competent Authority (HSE), a project to deliver an alarm review process for several UK sites. The project comprised: Phase 1 – Undertake an Alarm Review. The outputs being a provisional master alarm database, a draft alarm response manual and a proposed action list, (these documents to be finalised in phase 2). Phase 2 – Actions Close Out and Update. Phase 1 generated several actions to be resolved, by the software owner (how alarms actually activate, what executive actions they have). Phase 2 also updated the master alarm database and alarm response manual. Phase 3 – KPI Introduction. Began measuring the KPIs required and instigated regular alarm review sessions for the site, as defined by the Alarm Handling Policy, Phase 4 – Introduction of Alarm updates. Defined and began the process, set priority levels, deleted unneeded alarms and implemented wider changes to bring the BPCS in line with the new policy.
Industry: Brewing and DistillingProject to carry out a Safety Instrumented Function (SIF) Safety Integrity Level (SIL) and Probability of Failure on Demand (PFD) Calculation Verification on four SIFs.
Industry: Mining / Metal / CementProject to investigate client's approach to HAZOP, LOPA and PFD Calculation where multiple SIFs protect a single hazard. Confirm whether approach CCF used is in line with current best practice.
Industry: ChemicalProject to carry out SIL Verification and confirmation of PFD calculations for x22 SIF's.
Industry: Oil and Gas OnshoreE: support@methodfs.com. T: 44 (0)1462 713313. W: www.methodfs.com