Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1 June 2002
Dangerous chemical leaks add to the inherent risks of industrial processes in the chemical
or oil and gas industries. And while safety instrumented systems (SISs) are meant to
reduce the likelihood of an emergency, they can't always prevent catastrophes.
SISs typically consist of three elements: field sensors to determine an emergency situation,
a logic system to determine what action to take, and a final control element to implement
the action. While all three elements of the SIS are crucial to safely isolate the process plant
in an emergency, they aren't fail safe. There's no such thing as risk-free operation.
Adding a smart positioner to an SIS reduces base equipment cost, testing time, and
manpower requirements by eliminating the need for expensive pneumatic test panels and
skilled personnel for testing. And it permits remote testing, saving time and reducing
maintenance inspection trips to the field.
The problem
Final control elements (emergency shutdown, venting, isolation, and critical on/off valves)
normally remain static-in one position-and reliably operate only in an emergency. Because
they're in one position for a long time, they have a tendency to become stuck in that
position (due to process fluid contamination and corrosion) and may not operate when
needed. The result: an explosion, fire, or leak of lethal chemicals into the environment.
Frequent testing is imperative with such volatile processes. Estimates indicate final control
elements, particularly discrete (on/off) safety valves, cause as much as 40% to 50% of
loop operational problems.
If an emergency occurred, the SIS couldn't respond properly. The SIS can fail in two ways:
a nuisance or spurious trip (resulting in an unplanned and costly process shutdown) and an
undetected (covert or hidden) failure, which allows continued, dangerous process
operation.
Conventional testing
The only sure way to completely test a final control element is with an in-line test that
strokes the valve from 0% to 100% (full open/full close). To close a shutdown valve
completely, you would have to totally shut down the process, causing lost production time.
Operations managers are reluctant to completely shut down a profitably operating process
just to test the safety systems. They usually wait until turnaround time, traditionally every
two to three years and now as long as six years.
Companies have devised methods for testing the SIS valves online so they don't have to
shut down the process. They might install a bypass valve around each safety valve. The
disadvantage is the process is unprotected while the bypass is in operation. Testers might
http://www.isa.org/PrinterTemplate.cfm?Section=InTech_Home1&template=/Content... 13/01/2012
Smart positioners to the rescue | ISA Page 2 of 3
also inadvertently leave the safety valve in the bypass position after testing, leaving the
process unprotected until an operator discovers the error.
There's also the mechanical limiting method, which involves a mechanical device such as a
pin, valve stem collar, or valve hand jack to limit valve travel to 15% or less of the valve
stroke. These tests involve complex and expensive pneumatic test panels.
A major drawback: The safety shutdown function is not available during the test period.
Likewise, the safety valve could remain in this mechanically limited condition, and a casual
inspection might not always catch it. So the valve could be out of service for a long time,
unbeknownst to operators.
http://www.isa.org/PrinterTemplate.cfm?Section=InTech_Home1&template=/Content... 13/01/2012
Smart positioners to the rescue | ISA Page 3 of 3
http://www.isa.org/PrinterTemplate.cfm?Section=InTech_Home1&template=/Content... 13/01/2012