Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 892–905 | Cite as

Safety Integrity Evaluation of a Butane Tank Overpressure Evacuation System According to IEC 61508 Standard

  • Hanane Omeiri
  • Fares Innal
  • Brahim Hamaidi
Technical Article---Peer-Reviewed


IEC 61508 standard provides a structured approach relying on hazards identification in order to establish safety requirements for safety instrumented systems (SISs). It aims at designing and operating the SIS within a reliability confidence that meets these requirements. The object of this paper is to give a concise description of IEC 61508 approach and to demonstrate it for the evaluation of safety barriers intervening against overpressure implemented on a butane storage tank. Specifically, the risk graph and layer of protection analysis approaches suggested in IEC 61508 for the determination of safety requirements are illustrated. In addition, it is shown that the use of more elaborate reliability approaches, such as fault tree and Markov graph, could be required for an effective risk assessment process. Actually, these approaches allow to consider the real configuration and operating conditions of the studied system.


Safety instrumented system Safety integrity level Probability of failure on demand Overpressure evacuation system Fault tree 


  1. 1.
    IEC 61508, Functional safety of electric/electronic/programmable electronic safety-related systems, 2nd edn. (International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.E. Summers, Techniques for assigning a target safety integrity level. ISA Trans. 37, 95–104 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Stavrianidis, K. Bhimavarapu, Safety instrumented functions and safety integrity levels (SIL). ISA Trans. 37, 337–351 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    IEC 61511, Functional safety—safety instrumented systems for the process industry sector (International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A.M. Dowell, Layer of protection analysis for determining safety integrity level. ISA Trans. 37, 155–165 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CCPS, Layer of protection analysis; simplified process risk assessment, center for chemical process safety (CCPS of the American Institute for Chemical Engineers, New York, 2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    F. Innal, P.-J. Cacheux, S. Collas, Y. Dutuit, C. Folleau, J.-P. Signoret, P. Thomas, Probability and frequency calculations related to protection layers revisited. J. Loss Prevent. Proc. 31, 56–69 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Innal, Contribution to modelling safety instrumented systems and to assessing their performance-Critical analysis of IEC 61508 standard, Ph.D. thesis, University of Bordeaux, France, 2008Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    L.F. Oliveira, R.N. Abramovitch, Extension of ISA TR84.00.02 PFD equations to KooN architectures. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 95, 707–715 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Jin, M. Rausand, Reliability of safety-instrumented systems subject to partial testing and common-cause failures. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 121, 146–151 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Innal, Y. Dutuit, M. Chebila, Safety and operational integrity evaluation and design optimization of safety instrumented systems. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 134, 32–50 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Areal Locations of Hazardous Atmospheres (ALOHA) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2006),
  13. 13.
    Offshore Reliability Data (OREDA), Handbook (SINTEF, Trondheim, 2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    PDS Data Handbook, Reliability data for safety instrumented systems (SINTEF, Trondheim, 2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Y. Dutuit, A. Rauzy, Approximate estimation of system reliability via fault trees. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 87, 163–172 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    GRIF-Workshop (GRaphical interface for reliability forecasting software, 2014).
  17. 17.
    Z.W. Birnbaum, On the importance of different components in a multicomponent system, in Multivariable analysis II, ed. by P.R. Krishnaiah (Academic Press, New York, 1969), pp. 581–592Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Chebila, F. Innal, Unification of common cause failures’ parametric models using a generic Markovian model. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 14, 426–434 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ASM International 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ElectromechanicsBadji Mokhtar UniversityAnnabaAlgeria
  2. 2.Department of Production and Quality EngineeringNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations