Webinar | APM Best Practices - Effectively managing the safety lifecycle
•
3 j'aime•248 vues
Effectively managing the safety lifecycle requires teamwork between multiple disciplines, departments and companies, but it shouldn’t require multiple solutions. See how you can consolidate the entire safety lifecycle into a streamlined solution ensuring risk is reduced, instrumented systems are available and compliance requirements are met. The “cradle to grave” lifecycle approach that is enabled by the APM Safety work process provides visibility across the organization to what teams are doing, and how well their doing it. In this third webinar in a series about APM, Stork, SOCAR Turkey and GE Digital share their insights on process safety best practices, from various perspectives: the process, the solution and the culture.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
Similaire à Webinar | APM Best Practices - Effectively managing the safety lifecycle
Similaire à Webinar | APM Best Practices - Effectively managing the safety lifecycle (20)
Plus de Stork
Plus de Stork (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Webinar | APM Best Practices - Effectively managing the safety lifecycle
- 1. Plaatje leaflet hier invoegen The webinar starts at 12.00h CET You can ask questions through the Q&A button in the Zoom menu During the webinar all participants are on ‘mute’. Effectively managing the safety lifecycle
- 2. INTRODUCTION OF SPEAKERS Hans Minnaard Principal consultant Stork Asset Management Technology Saif Abdelnabi Senior Consultant APM - Functional Safety and Reliability GE Digital Ömer Metecan Reliability Chief Engineer Socar Turkey Johan Schroevers Senior Consultant Stork Asset Management Technology
- 3. 12.00 – 12.15 an introduction to APM and process safety Hans Minnaard 12.15 – 12.45 best practice on: effectively managing the safety lifecycle Johan Schroevers Ömer Metecan Saif Abdelnabi 12.45 – 13.00 panel discussion Johan Ferket There will be poll questions after the first presentation and we will discuss the results during the panel discussion together with your specific questions. APM BEST PRACTICE AGENDA
- 4. High overview introduction Full integrated APM solution Best Practice Cases Open table An open table with attendees related with the application Mechanical Integrity and compliance Reliability Added Values Effectively managing the safety lifecycle Asset Strategy Library SEMINARS APM BEST PRACTICE
- 5. Clients Accelerated Adoption + Time to Value + Sustainable ROI Market Leader in Asset Performance Management Technology & Services World Class Functional Asset Management Solutions THE PARTNERSHIP
- 6. o Planned / Preventive / Predictive / Prescriptive Maintenance Strategies o Lean and Performance Based Maintenance programs o Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) o Risk Based Assessment (RBA) o Reliability, Availability & Maintainability (RAM) analysis o Inspection and integrity services to manage risk, reduce failures and increase asset life o Reliability engineering services o Evergreen your approach o Asset management performance modeling (objectives and KPIs) YOUR APM ADOPTION HOW STORK ACCELERATES APM Software and Continuous Improvement Work Processes
- 7. Stork together with GE Digital are the best partners in Asset Performance Management. Through an integrated approach, we can support our clients to improve their overall Asset Performance Management. Through this seminars, we would like to show and discuss best practices application examples related to Asset Performance Management. INTEGRITY MANAGEMENT MODEL ASSET RELIABILITY AND
- 9. Herkese Açık PROCESS SAFETY LIFECYCLE THREE PHASES TO AN OPTIMUM The (IEC 61511) process safety lifecycle can be divided in three phases: 1. Analysis phase (Risk Assessment, LOPA, SRS) 2. Design phase (Design & Installation) 3. Operational phase (Operation & Maintenance + MOC or Decommissioning) Gather and use own data during operational phase Improve the level of process safety applicable for your situation! • Re-visit the HAZOP • Re-assess the LOPA • Verify the SIL-Loops Closing the loop
- 10. Herkese Açık PROCESS SAFETY LIFECYCLE GREEN FIELD BROWN FIELD INSTALLATION Green Field vs Brown Field Different focus on the phases. Observations brownfields: • Instrumented functions in place but is no overview on the actual performance of the layers of protection. • Maintenance plan (proof testing) present, update required • Re-HAZOP fed with operational experience APM project creates opportunity: • To improve process safety lifecycle • Redefine HAZOP, LOPA, SIL, documentation • Clear recommendations • System in place to store operational data
- 11. Herkese Açık PROCESS SAFETY LIFECYCLE GE APM ACTIVITIES (1) Hazard & Risk Assessment 2) Determination of Protective Layers and Unmitigated Risks (3) Safety Requirements Specification Design & Develop other means of risk reduction (5) Installation, Commissioning & Validation (6) Operation & Maintenance (7) Modifications (8) Decommission (10) Management of Functional Safety & Functional Safety Assessments & Audits (11) Life Cycle Structure & Planning (9) Verification (4) SIS Design & Engineering
- 12. Herkese Açık EXECUTION ASSESS OPERATING RISK Identify all known equipment risks for their critical production assets mechanisms by: • Engage multiple departments in process safety discussions, training and facilitation. • Data gathering of equipment datasheets, process P&ID, PFD, Equipment failure data, shift books, maintenance and operation inputs. • Link Process Safety Analysis, causes and safeguards with SAP Common equipment database so the risk analyses are always linked to equipment records. • Align results with maintenance and reliability departments for integrity assurance tasks Define Proof Test and/or Calibratio n Strategy Execute Strategy Operate & Monitor Performan ce Assess Operating Risk Determine Safety Integrity Level (SIL) Validate Instrument Design Establish common understanding of Risk between different sites
- 13. Herkese Açık EXECUTION DETERMINE SAFETY INTEGRITY LEVEL • Should we use a qualitative or quantitative risk analysis? We identified high risk scenarios from the HAZOP analysis and then applied the LOPA methodology to further quantify the risk and provided risk reduction needed to close the risk gap. • Utilizing LOPA tool by GE, it was possible to move from HAZOP to LOPA without the need to re-do the analysis. • Any HAZOP or LOPA recommendations? Following HAZOP and LOPA studies, multiple redesign and loop verifications recommendations came. These are sometimes related to and MOC which needs an engineering and design change, or sometimes a cronical problem wihch can be a trigger for and RCA, or a simple data update. Creating Recommendation Define Proof Test and/or Calibration Strategy Execute Strategy Operate & Monitor Performanc e Assess Operating Risk Determine Safety Integrity Level (SIL) Validate Instrument Design Building LOPA study directly from HAZOP data
- 14. Herkese Açık EXECUTION SIL VERIFICATION • Does the safety loop meet its Safety Integrity Target? • SIL Calculation requires gathering lots of data from site and design documents. • Accurate data for C&E was not available for some of the sites. As-building of C&E diagrams, P&ID was managed by multiple teams. • Revesting existing SIL studies carried out by other contractors and verification against current operating design for current loop design. • Guidelines from IEC 61511/61508 are used and applied to related loops during design phase. Define Proof Test and/or Calibration Strategy Execute Strategy Operate & Monitor Performanc e Assess Operating Risk Determine Safety Integrity Level (SIL) Validate Instrument Design Verify and document Cause and Effect Matrix Managing loops calculation through GE APM
- 15. Herkese Açık EXECUTION DEFINE PROOF TEST • Following the completion of SIL verification and Validation phases. Complete review of all Proof Test Procedure and Tasks took place to ensure full compliance with IEC61511 requirement. • Review of the proof test procedure was developed with the full engagement of field instrument technicians and instrument engineers to ensure all comments captures. • Proof tests procedure and tasks have been loaded in the GE software with full integration with CMMS and other critical Asset Performance Management tasks. Documented proof test records for easy verification Proof Test Templates for each Instrument function Define Proof Test and/or Calibration Strategy Execute Strategy Operate & Monitor Performanc e Assess Operating Risk Determine Safety Integrity Level (SIL) Validate Instrument Design
- 16. Herkese Açık MONITORING SAFETY LIFECYCLE DASHBOARD Common dashboard to visualize all process safety lifecycle Define Proof Test and/or Calibration Strategy Execute Strategy Operate & Monitor Performanc e Assess Operating Risk Determine Safety Integrity Level (SIL) Validate Instrument Design
- 17. Placeholder confidentiality disclosure. Edit or delete from master slide if not needed. Work Process Item GE APM Software Tool Hazard Analysis HAZOP and What if analysis. Risk Assessment Asset Criticality Assessment (ACA), RBI, RCM, FMEA, SIS Management, Work Process Item GE APM Software Tool SIL Assessment LOPA, Risk Matrix, Internal PHA, External Assessment Work Process Item GE APM Software Tool SIL Calculation SIS Management Custom Failure Data Reliability Analytics Work Process Item GE APM Software Tool Optimize task cost, reduce risk, optimize PM interval SIS Management, Asset Strategy Management (ASM) Work Process Item GE APM Software Tool Evaluate SIF Performance SIF Trip Rates, Spurious Trips rates, Failed Proof Tests. Modifications, Change Management Management of Change (MoC) Root Cause Analysis RCA Work Process Item GE APM Software Tool Implement Actions ASM, ASI to SAP, Calibration Management, Operator Rounds, Inspection Task, Proof Test Task Consolidate Plan to Achieve SIL Execute Strategy Operate & Monitor Performance Assess Operating Risk Determine Safety Integrity Level (SIL) Validate Instrument Design
- 18. Herkese Açık Compare Risk Reductionn between different Actions • Maintenance plans are updated with process safety and integrity tasks. • Process safety study outputs are implemented into equipment strategies aligned with RCM, FEMA and RBI outcome. • Ability to compare actions and risk reduction achieved between different recommendations from RBI or RCM and optimize actions based on ROI and Risk Reduction. ALIGNING PROCESS SAFETY WITH APM BEST PRACTICES ASSET STRATEGY MANAGEMENT
- 19. Herkese Açık • Risks and Actions across multiple studies are reviewed and managed before deciding to implement these recommendations to actions. • Apply strategy templates to multiple similar equipment. • Provide the ability to review and modify/approve inspection tasks and check the impact on safety, production and financial. Review list of Risks and Actions against Each Asset ALIGNING PROCESS SAFETY WITH APM BEST PRACTICES ASSET STRATEGY MANAGEMENT
- 20. Herkese Açık • Roll out process safety studies for the other parts of the company. • Develop company’s failure rate data and using reliability analytics, for cost optimizing and maintain safety performance. • Develop automated policies to record Safety Instrumented Trips associated with developed instrumented functions through OPC connectivity. • Develop automated policies to trigger Root Cause Analysis process based on safety instrumented system failures. SIS trips recorded by instrumented functions based on OPC data. NEXT STEP?
- 21. POLL QUESTION RESULTS + PANEL DISCUSSION
- 22. Questions Via Q&A Or get in touch with our host: Johan Ferket Johan.Ferket@stork.com +32 473 864 083 APM BEST PRACTICES EFFECTIVELY MANAGING THE SAFETY LIFECYCLE
- 23. Plaatje leaflet hier invoegen THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
Notes de l'éditeur
- Hans Minnaard – Principal consultant Stork Asset Management Technology. Hans is principal consultant in the field of Asset Performance Management and is the competence leader in various GE Digital APM software selection and implementation projects. His passion is to coach people to strengthen their ability to deal with the challenges in their daily life at work. As a trusted advisor he supports clients in O&G and Chemicals in projects with a strong change management component. Hans holds a Bachelor degree in Electrical Engineering and a Master degree in Organizational Change Management. Luciano Narcisi - Senior Consultant - Stork Asset Management Technology Luciano is a mechanical engineer with a master degree in risk and reliability. With more than 10 years of experience in Mechanical Integrity Management, he specialized in Risk Based Inspection methodology and implementation of Mechanical Integrity systems in the Oil & Gas industry. He had the opportunity to lead projects in different contexts: downstream and upstream, offshore and onshore, greenfield and brownfields operations in South America and Europe. Currently working as a Senior Consultant at Stork AMT, he is supporting clients to implement sustainable APM systems. Vipin Nair - Senior Product Manager, APM Integrity solution, GE Digital With more than 14 years of experience in Asset Performance Management, Vipin Nair is product leader for GE APM Integrity, delivering high-value product solutions and managing the overall product life cycle of fixed and linear assets. He joined Meridium in 2012 and has served the needs of customers through various roles in consulting, pre-sales and product management. Vipin’s previous experience includes reliability and maintenance positions with a major corporation in the process and manufacturing industry. Vipin holds a Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering, is an active member of the API 581 task force group, and holds several active API certifications like API 580, 571.
- Hans Minnaard will introduce the concept of Asset Performance Management and the various domains leading to more efficiency and long term success for your organization. In this webinar he focusses on foundations for Mechanical Integrity in an Asset Management journey. He explains the various roles in this process and the benefits of an integrated approach for APM solutions. As a prelude to best practices he describes the concepts behind the application examples. Luciano Narcisi will guide you through two examples of successful APM implementation focused on mechanical integrity. At SOCAR in Turkey, Stork and GE Digital channeled a journey that enabled SOCAR to extend the mandatory inspections period by adjusting government inspection requirements through RBI. At Freeport LNG, Stork was selected to build the foundations for a Mechanical Integrity System. Together with GE Digital, we helped the client maintain the asset's integrity and ensure operational safety while extending government requirements for inspection intervals. Insight into changing German legislation on inspection requirements.....
- We have field proven practices for defining adding value asset strategies and we implement the strategy in your EAM maintenance management module. We support the execution of maintenance and inspection with knowledge about the behavior of equipment. And we support you with the evergreening process to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies. The GED APM software has all the functionalities in it to make these steps.
- We use a basic workflow model called Asset Reliability & Integrity model which is used as a basis for training of APM building blocks. The model is based on the international standard NEN-EN16991-2018 Risk-base inspection framework. There are two PDCA loops. Outer loop is designed to define and implement effective asset strategies which reduce the risk to the acceptable level. The innerloop is to define and evaluate efficient maintenance tasks to assure on time execution and first time right.
- This is a bit more of a granular view of the GE Digital Continuous Improvement framework and how the entire suite of software holistically works together. This gives you an idea of all the different functions and work processes the Asset Performance Management solution can enable. For today's discussion we will be focused on the maroon portions of this visualization specific to APM Strategy and APM Reliability In subsequent seminars we will cover additional work processes and functions and how GE Digital’s solutions and stork best practices can be leveraged in your organization. Today we will take you through several case studies that discuss how the GE Digital APM Strategy and Reliability modules and Stork best practices enable organizations to generate and execute optimized risk mitigating maintenance & inspection tasks, while streamlining auditability and compliance governance. Today Keyvan and Yerem will discuss two appl
- The process safety lifecycle can be divided into three phases with activities. The IEC 61511 standard first depicts an Analysis phase. In this slide shown by the green part with a “risk assessment”, “the allocation of safety functions to protection layers” and the “safety requirements specification”. The Second phase, let’s call it the design phase, the yellow part in this slide, shows the activities where the safety loop is first “designed” and later on in the process is “installed and commissioned”. In the operational phase maintenance tasks are executed and information of the performance must be gathered. During operation data on proof test results, equipment failures and process excursions must be gathered. When striving for an optimum level of process safety, applicable for your situation, some activities from the earlier phases need to be revisited. For example lets take the frequency of events, a number you would use during the HAZOP. If you experience a different number for frequency of events during operations. Then the next time you revisit the HAZOP you will need to use your own statistics. The HAZOP then represents the actual situation, based on your statistics. Or in your case of failure numbers for certain instruments: If you find that your equipment failure numbers are different (better of worse) then the numbers you used before need to be adjusted. In your situation you should assimilate your actual operational statistics. So although the process lifecycle is depicted as a flowchart with a beginning and an end it really should be a continuous process; More like a circle of activities. Activities like HAZOP, LOPA and SIL calculations should be updated when the necessity is there. With the renewed result your maintenance activities should adapt. Also de-bottle necking, revamping, projects or simple changes should initiate the process safety lifecycle.
- For a modern green field situations the focus on process safety will be present. The activities for the relative short first two phases of the lifecycle are executed and documented very well. The documentation is stored mostly in a digital manner and is made available to those who need to have access. This makes it easy to perform your planned maintenance during the longer third phase according. Together with data from the operational phase, closing the loop on these installations takes less effort compared to Brown field installations. For the Socar Turkey the project team was confronted with both situations. At the stat of our APM project the new oil refinery was installed and almost ready to go into operations. The petrochemical installations were more mature and experienced already decades of operational lifetime. The approach on process safety activities for the APM project for the Green field parts of the installation was different then for the Brownfield part. For the new installation a HAZOP was already done, but there was no operational data present. The LOPA was revisited and existing SIL loops calculations were available. The maintenance activities needed to be defined and planned and communicated with the maintenance organization merged with all the other APM defined activities. The mature installation part however has been commissioned before the safety standard (IEC 61511) was released. The HAZOP needed revisiting and the exact risk reduction for the layers of protection was not updated with operational data. The instrumented safety functions were in place and were being tested according to planning. But the planning was not reviewed recently. Maintenance activities on safety loops were assigned to certain departments but there was no overall planning of safety related activities. Documentation was present but not always in a digital format. STORK advised to revisit the process safety activities according to the standard and process all activities with GE APM. The plan fro the petro chemical part was to start with a Re-HAZOP and follow the process safety activities for one unit. In such a way of work the organization would gain knowledge and experience on the installation and the process safety standard, while working on the improvements. In the continuous operational phase, data would be gathered and analyzed and the loop could be closed. Following this way of work STORK support would decrease until the activities could be handled without any support. For all the activities a training was hosted before execution. As part of the overall APM project we knew we would have access to the GE APM so all data was documented in the system from the start. Some challenges we came across are: The operational data was stored in several location in different formats. Instrumented functions were in place but there was not a clear overview on the actual performance of any of the safety layers. Of course there is a maintenance plan in which tasks are assigned to perform the necessary proof testing. But it is unclear if any adjustment is needed.
- The project at Socar Turkey with GE meridium and STORK was a unique project because it was a mix of Greenfield and Brownfield installations. Also the practical adoption of process safety activities within the APM approach was unique. The process safety integration really became a group effort realized by mutual support between the departments. With the execution of the APM project the focus was not only on the maintenance strategy and tasks, but it provided the opportunity to focus on getting process safety to a higher standard. The level of process safety will improve over time with the growing availability of the operational data and the continuation of the process safety activities. During the project, the implementation of the GE APM system provided support because the system more or less forces you to execute the process safety activities. The HAZOP was executed and all results were documented in the system. For those scenario’s applicable the LOPA reviewed if the present risk reduction was sufficient. Otherwise the required SIL was defined. For the existing instrumented safety loops, the SIL calculation have been executed. Define Proof Test and/or Calibration Strategy maintenance activities were defined and planned. Recommendations, items which need additional attention to improve, have been made. Were before the project the several departments executed their own assigned tasks and data was generated at multiple locations in different formats. Now the information is stored within the APM tool automatically processed and easy accessible. We experienced that by involving several engineers and technicians during the process the level of awareness has risen. Now common knowledge is that improving the level of process safety is a combined effort. But better is to hear how the SOCAR Turkey has experienced the project, so I will hand over to Ömer
- Where do you record your failure data of SIL loops? / How do you track the HAZOP and LOPA recommendations? -CMMS (SAP, Maximo, etc) -Excel worksheets -Soft Copy (Shiftbooks, reports..) -Software -Not recorded Do you have a Functional Safety Management plan? -Yes, and up-to-date -Yes, but needs to be revised -No. -Not sure what it is.
- The two examples I just described are clear business cases for the client and demonstrate the value added by an Asset Performance Management System implementation, specifically related to Mechanical Integrity. On the other hand, we need to be clear that RBI is not a tool designed to extend inspection intervals, but a methodology that aims to design value added inspection strategies on critical equipment, and appropriate scope for less critical ones.