New quantitative safety standards: different techniques, different results?

Abstract

Abstract Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS) are used in the process industry to perform safety functions. Many factors can influence the safety of a SIS like system layout, diagnostics, testing and repair. In standards like the German DIN no quantitative analysis is demanded (DIN V 19250 Grundlegende Sicherheitsbetrachtungen fur MSR-Schutzeinrichtungen, Berlin, 1994; DIN/VDE 0801 Grundsatze fur Rechner in Systemen mit Sicherheitsaufgaben, Berlin, 1990). The analysis according to these standards is based on expert opinion and qualitative analysis techniques. New standards like the IEC 61508 (IEC 61508 Functional safety of electrical/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems, IEC, Geneve, 1997) and the ISA-S84.01 (ISA-S84.01.1996 Application of Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process Industries, Instrument Society of America, Research Triangle Park, 1996) require quantitative risk analysis but do not prescribe how to perform the analysis. Earlier publications of the authors (Rouvroye et al., Uncertainty in safety, new techniques for the assessment and optimisation of safety in process industry, D W. Pyatt (ed), SERA-Vol. 4, Safety engineering and risk analysis, ASME, New York 1995; Rouvroye et al., A comparison study of qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques for the assessment of safety in industry, P.C. Cacciabue, I.A. Papazoglou (eds), Proceedings PSAM III conference, Crete, Greece, June 1996) have shown that different analysis techniques cover different aspects of system behaviour. This paper shows by means of a case study, that different (quantitative) analysis techniques may lead to different results. The consequence is that the application of the standards to practical systems will not always lead to unambiguous results. The authors therefore propose a technique to overcome this major disadvantage.