Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Keywords
Abstract
With over eight years of research and development to find the best
way of processing this waste material, it was determined to use
existing technology that had been previously optimized for the
recovery of zinc. While this approach met both their energy efficiency
and high recovery goals, they knew their traditional way of
implementing burner management (BMS) was not going to meet
todays safety and reliability requirements.
This paper will review how NFPA 86 (Standard for Ovens and
Furnaces) can be further improved by incorporating many of the
concepts listed within the latest ISA technical report TR.84.00.05,
Guidance on the identification of safety instrumented functions in
burner management systems.
Introduction
The ISA safety committee (S 84) determined several years ago, that it
was necessary to provide supplemental information on the application
of hazard and risk analysis to Burner Management Systems (BMS).
Their years of work resulted in the recently published technical report,
ISA-TR84.00.05 Guidance on the Identification of Safety Instrumented
Functions (SIF) in Burner Management Systems (BMS). The main
purpose of this technical report was to provide users of the functional
safety standard, ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004 with guidance on how to
identify safety functions within BMS applications. Safety functions
classified as Safety Instrumented Functions (SIFs) should be designed
and managed according to ANSI/ISA-84.00.01-2004, as well as other
codes, standards and applicable practices. The information and
methods described in the ISA technical report are not intended to
replace, but instead to supplement the requirements of good
engineering practices application to BMS, such as NFPA 85, NFPA 86,
NFPA 87, API 556, ASME CSD-1, and API RP14C.
HIstory
Unfortunately however, many users were (and some still are) not
aware of this simple fact. The main limitations, as far as safety is
concerned, is the lack of effective diagnostics, especially in the input
and output (I/O) modules.
For several years much confusion has existed over what should and
could be done to comply with these NFPA requirements. White papers
and technical manuals by project engineers were developed and
published on their interpretation of the standards intent, and how it
could be implemented with their standard PLC equipment. Figure 4 is
an example of how an external watchdog circuit could be used in order
to meet the requirement detecting if the PLC had failed to execute any
program or task containing safety logic.
Two contacts from the watchdog relay are wired in series directly into
a hardwired trip circuit which removes power from all critical outputs,
independently of the PLC processor. De-energizing the watchdog relay
coil will cause the watchdog relay contacts to open; thereby, causing a
master fuel trip (MFT). The watchdog relay is also wired to a PLC input
for monitoring and alarming purposes. The watchdog circuit works in
conjunction with a hardwired trip circuit to provide a method of
tripping the system out side of the PLC logic as shown in figure 5.
Figure 4 Example of Master Fuel Trip (MFT) on standard PLC
Since the early 1990s a new era of PLCs were developed that were
certified as fail safe or better known as Safety PLCs. These systems
utilized the advances in microprocessor performance to adapt system
level diagnostics that could improve both safety and system
availability. This level of advanced system diagnostics could lessen, or
even reduce the requirement for extra components (i.e. timers,
watchdogs, and relays). Overall, this resulted in providing a more cost
effective solution, with improved safety performance and system
availability than conventional PLC technology. System architectures
that employed these advanced self diagnostics are typically defined
as 1oo1D, 1oo2D, 2oo3D, etc., where the D indicates that the
systems diagnostics has the capability to bring the system to its safe
state if a failure is detected. While many systems claim to offer some
level of diagnostics, the difference of a safety PLC is that its
diagnostics are designed, and certified to be able to automatically
drive the system operation to its known safe state when a dangerous
failure is detected (as shown in Figure 3.).
+
Input CPU Output
Diagnostics Diagnostics Diagnostics
The latest issue of NFPA 86 (2011), has added a new section under 8.4
Programmable Logic Controller Systems that identifies and describes
the characteristics for using a Safety PLC for BMS (section 8.4.5 Safety
PLCs). As warranted there are now a number of advantages using
Safety PLCs with less rigor and prescriptive requirements than
previously required when using standard PLCs. In general this
virtually eliminates the need to provide extra components and extra
user programming to detect and respond to the following conditions:
Conclusion
The ISA S84 safety committee has long recognized NFPA (and other
industry standards) lacked performance-based requirement which was
the driving factor for developing their BMS technical report. In
addition, both NFPA 86 and 85 now appear to moving in the right
direction with both standards now containing linking paragraphs in
their annexs stating the following:
1. NFPA 86 Standard for Ovens and Furnaces 2011 Edition, National Fire
Protection Association 2010
2. NFPA 85 Boiler and Combustion Systems Hazards Code 2011 Edition,
National Fire Protection Association 2010
3. ISA-TR84.00.05-2009, Guidance on the Identification of Safety Instrumented
Functions (SIF) in Burner Management Systems (BMS) 2009
4. Burner Management System Safety Integrity Level Selection, Mike Scott,
AESolutions
5. Making programmable BMS safe and reliable, John Cusimano, Power 1995
6. Safeguarding Methods for Applying Programmable Logic Controllers in
Burner Mangagement Systems, Thomas Rutherford, James Scrholl, ISA 1996
7. Application of Safety Instrumented Systems for the Process Industries,
ANSI/ISA-S84.01-2004 (IEC 61511 Mod.).
8. Achieving better Safety Instrumented System (SIS) performance with less
hardware, Charles Fialkowski, Hydrocarbon Engineering 2008
9. Selecting Safety System Design, Charles Fialkowski. Applied Automation
2009