Re: [foxboro] CP60 vs IEC61508 safety requirements

Doubtful, for the mature CP60 for sure, and probably the CP270, too.  Most 
DCS/PLC/generic controller hardware is not designed to have high SFF and 
low PFD.  For this and other reasons, the relevant industry standards 
limit the risk reduction "credit" you can take for a "basic process 
control system" to a factor <=10.

Triconex, Hima, Honeywell FSC, several other "safety PLCs", are 
purpose-built for this sort of thing.  If you need more than that 
factor-of-10 risk reduction from a programmable system (e.g., SIL1 or 
greater), you should be using something of their ilk.


Corey Clingo
BASF Corp.






Aymen LAZAAR <aymen.lazaar@xxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
11/05/2009 12:54 AM
Please respond to
foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


To
foxboro <foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
[foxboro] CP60 vs IEC61508 safety requirements






Hi all,
I'm interested to know if there was any tentative to certify the 60 CPs to
IEC61508 safety requirements, even through a proven-in use analysis/study.

One more thing am interested in is PFD, SFF andfailure statistics  for 
this
kind of CPs

Thanks,

Aymen


 



 
 
_______________________________________________________________________
This mailing list is neither sponsored nor endorsed by Invensys Process
Systems (formerly The Foxboro Company). Use the info you obtain here at
your own risks. Read http://www.thecassandraproject.org/disclaimer.html
 
foxboro mailing list:             http://www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe:         mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe:      mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave

Other related posts: