Posts by aeSolutions :

January 15, 2020

Texas A&M University 75th Annual Instrumentation & Automation Symposium

Administered by Mary Kay O’ Connor Process Safety Center –   January 21st-23rd 2020 Come meet our industry experts at booth #25 & #26 aeSolutions is proud to be represented by 4 different presenters during this year’s symposium.  More info such as the keynote speakers, the latest event agenda, hotel and parking info can be found […]

Read More
January 9, 2020

Reducing systematic failures reduces risk

[Updated 01/21/2020 to now include download of relevant whitepaper] Functional safety engineers are immersed in performance calculations involving failure rates, diagnostic coverage, proof test intervals, common cause and much more. It’s easy for engineers to focus on math. Yet such modeling only accounts for random hardware failures. But what percentage errors shown in the well-known […]

Read More
December 18, 2019

aeSolutions gets physical with cybersecurity steps : CONTROL

John Cusimano, vice president of industrial cybersecurity at aeSolutions, was recently featured as part of Control Global’s 12 days of cybersecurity. Even though many IT technologies, such as intrusion detection, are making big strides into OT, aeSolutions’ Cusimano adds it’s important people remember that OT networks have different operational requirements, and that these tools need […]

Read More
December 5, 2019

Top 5 Most Popular aeSolutions Blogs and Articles of 2019

Thank you for reading our articles this year and being a part of our industry discussions.  The following  were our most popular blogs and articles of 2019:   5. Cost considerations for burner management systems (BMS) (and where picking safety integrity levels on burner management systems makes sense) May 17, 2019 by Usman Khan Safety is […]

Read More
December 2, 2019

EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP) Reconsideration final rule

There were recently important changes made to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Risk Management Program (RMP).  On November 20, 2019, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler signed the Risk Management Program Reconsideration final rule to “better address potential security risks, regulatory consistency and reasonable consideration of costs.”   The EPA first proposed these changes to its RMP back in […]

Read More

White Papers by aeSolutions :

Benefits of Simple Consequence Modeling for Burner Management Systems

The current approach used to analyze fired heaters during a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) is inefficient and outdated. Fired heaters can be one of the more complex systems evaluated in a PHA, however they certainly aren’t anything new. In fact, they are one of the most common pieces of process equipment throughout industry, and have been for quite some time. Why then is such a large amount of PHA team time still needed to analyze them? Why, when using the same Process Safety Information (PSI), methodology, and risk criteria, can the results still be inconsistent? The obvious answer is the PHA team; different teams yield different results. Since the results of a PHA can impact several facets of a facility and its operation, including driving the Safety Integrity Level (SIL) for the heater’s Burner Management System (BMS), inconsistencies between analyses can have significant safety and financial impacts. If the consequence estimation is over conservative the selected SIL may be too high, which will result in an over designed and a very costly Safety Instrumented System (SIS). Conversely, if the consequence estimation is too low, the facility’s risks may not be adequately reduced by the selected SIS. Therefore a means to efficiently and consistently determine the consequence is critical. This paper will describe how simple consequence modeling can solve this problem, its inherent benefits, and the cost savings it provides.

Read More

Impacts of Process Safety Time on Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA)

The ability of an Independent Protection Layer (IPL) to achieve a given level of risk reduction is dependent upon its fulfillment of several core attributes. A key provision for any IPL to be considered effective and functionally adequate is its capability to respond to a process demand quickly enough to stop the propagation of the hazard scenario it was designed to prevent. While this seems obvious and reasonable, the estimation of Process Safety Time and the specification of IPL Response Times is more complex, and often deferred or overlooked altogether. What is Process Safety Time? How is it determined? When? And by whom? This paper examines the relationship between Process Safety Time and IPL Response Times, essential variables for the justification of IPL effectiveness, and their impacts on the success of Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA).

Read More