Greetings, everyone! I'm embarking on a new initiative focused on integrating both process control and safety systems. This project is relatively modest in scale, and the results from the HAZOP analysis indicate a baseline Safety Integrity Level (SIL) of 1. However, there may be future needs that necessitate an elevation to SIL 2. Consequently, my design will be oriented towards accommodating SIL 2. I am optimistic that the GuardLogix 5380 processor can fulfill the dual requirements; nevertheless, after reviewing various discussions, I’m uncertain whether it can effectively function as both a Safety Instrumented System (SIS) and a Basic Process Control System (BPCS). I would presume it has this capability, but it appears these systems should operate independently, potentially requiring separate CPUs. Would integrating a safety partner help mitigate this concern, or has Rockwell specifically designed functions within the single 5380 CPU to alleviate these worries? The I/O will be spread throughout the facility, and I am considering using 1734 point I/O modules with safety features, which seems optimal for my needs. It appears permissible to combine safety and non-safety components within each remote I/O outstation; however, I'm still seeking clarity on how to distinctly separate SIS from BPCS. I have reviewed the provisions of EN 61511 and understand the necessity to identify Safety Instrumented Functions (SIFs). The client has pinpointed approximately six SIFs, with some classified as SIL 1 and others rated below this threshold. This aspect seems manageable once I familiarize myself with the necessary calculations. However, I also need to incorporate plant emergency stop buttons into the system, and it seems that EN 61511 may not adequately address this (unless its inclusion is somewhat implied). Should I consider adhering to an alternative standard for plant emergency stops? Some safety devices will be located in manned testing areas and will also include emergency stops and door safety switches (such as SensaGuard). Therefore, I suspect that EN 62061 may be relevant in this context. When I consult Safety Consultants, I often receive vague responses and am eager to ensure this project is executed correctly while demonstrating compliance with the appropriate standards to the best of my ability. Any assistance or guidance would be immensely appreciated!
That's a thought-provoking question. Although I haven’t utilized the Guardlogix system for Safety Instrumented System (SIS) applications, I recommend reaching out to your local Allen-Bradley representative for expert assistance. In my experience, I've relied on a dedicated logic solver, such as the Tricon, for SIS applications. There are several compelling reasons to maintain a clear distinction between Basic Process Control System (BPCS) and SIS. Interestingly, I’ve noticed an increasing trend where processors are being partitioned into separate BPCS and SIS configurations, such as those seen in Siemens S7 systems. Regarding emergency stops (E-stops), could you clarify whether you mean E-stops or process shutdowns? When I think of emergency stops, I envision an immediate halt, whereas process shutdowns can take a few minutes to execute.
Thank you, Cornbread. I’m currently awaiting a response from my Account Buddy regarding this matter. I’m optimistic that everything will be fine since the project is relatively small, and I highly doubt it will require a separate Tricon-type Safety Instrumented System (SIS). I was referring specifically to the immediate shutdown process. Additionally, a dedicated "controlled" plant shutdown feature will be integrated into the control room Human-Machine Interface (HMI).
It sounds like you've got a solid plan in place for your project, and it's great to see your commitment to addressing both safety and process control. The GuardLogix 5380 does indeed have hybrid capabilities, but you're correct that maintaining a clear separation between SIS and BPCS is essential for compliance and integrity. Using a safety partner or having separate CPUs can help mitigate risks and clarify responsibilities. Regarding the emergency stop buttons, while EN 61511 focuses more on SIFs, integrating principles from EN 62061 for those elements definitely makes sense, especially for ensuring compliance in areas with human interaction. It's wise to consult multiple experts for a well-rounded perspective, and don't hesitate to lean on the standards as a guide—they can be quite comprehensive when implemented correctly. Good luck with your initiative!
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.