Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
What is this?
Less
More
Memberships
Functional Safety Play Book
279 members • Free
2 contributions to Functional Safety Play Book
Mar 9 •
Hi All - Systems that pre date 61508
Hi all thanks for the add, this looks like a really good way to share experience in the functional safety world. Thanks for setting up Richard. I have a question for you all on the requirements when adding a new SIF to an existing SIL2 system that was designed over 40 years ago and was never designed to 61508. What things would we consider to make this possible without a full system redesign.
0 likes • Mar 10
A new fault scenario previously unconsidered in the FMEA has driven the need to modify the existing system to protect against the scenario in question
1 like • Mar 10
So I’m not sure if you are in nuclear but we assess the fault sequence and dose consequence of the fault and this determines what safety class / SIL level is required to protect against that fault. In this instance a new input is needed to detect the new fault but the output of the system will be the same. (Safe shutdown)
Mar 7 •
Proof test coverage
Something that always makes me pause when reviewing designs… Proof test coverage that somehow always ends up being 100% effective. On paper it looks great. The numbers work nicely. The SIL calculation passes comfortably. But in the real world I always find myself thinking: Can we really detecting every dangerous failure with that test? In my experience, this is a major cause of rework. If the design progresses to the point where commissioning documents are written and then a FSA or design review reveals overly optimistic proof test coverage it’s a lot of work to correct. Anyone else experiencing this?
2 likes • Mar 9
One question to ask is “could you achieve 100%?” for example you may be able to remove components from the system and use a test box so that they can be truely tested 100%. We made a bespoke test kit to fully 100% test the safety relays on one of our systems during proof testing.
0 likes • Mar 9
@Richard Kelly Good point! I agree that chasing 100% coverage can sometimes introduce unnecessary complexity, especially if components need to be removed, which can introduce additional human error during proof testing. Absolutely don’t do it, if you don’t need too! One of the advantages of achieving close to 100% PTC is that it can sometimes allow the PTI to be extended while still meeting the PFD. This can reduce the frequency of shutdowns, lower maintenance burden over the lifecycle, and reduce plant disruption. It can also increase confidence that hidden dangerous failures are being revealed during testing rather than accumulating over time.
1-2 of 2
Active 121d ago
Joined Mar 6, 2026