Verifying Process Safety Requirements: Similarities Between Aerospace and Oil & Gas Industries

Mia Zager, Anne McKinney, M. Reed, Kevin Orr
{"title":"Verifying Process Safety Requirements: Similarities Between Aerospace and Oil & Gas Industries","authors":"Mia Zager, Anne McKinney, M. Reed, Kevin Orr","doi":"10.4043/29295-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n This paper describes improvements to the methods for verification of process safety design requirements in an Oil & Gas (O&G) project and highlights the benefits of standardized verification linked to design requirements. The similarities and benefits of verification activities used in aerospace/NASA projects are also discussed.\n \n \n \n The team identified and documented the activities that should be performed by a project throughout the project life cycle to verify compliance with process safety requirements. These verification activities were tied to existing project deliverables and controls where possible. Focusing on verification in the design stage (analyze, calculate, review) in preference to final execution (inspect, certify) enables earlier identification of problems, earlier intervention, and increases confidence that the process safety requirements have been met. While this approach may be new in the O&G industry, the aerospace community has used similar methods for decades. Verification within aerospace/NASA involves design phase verification and product (final) verification. Initial verification is done to show that: 1) the design is realizable, 2) requirements are acceptable and have bidirectional traceability to higher-level requirements and stakeholder expectations, and 3) the design solution is consistent with requirement statements and constraints. Conducting the initial verification through peer/design reviews improves compliance to requirements at the final product verification. By establishing the traceability during the initial verification, database links are established and then just need to be populated with the final verification reports for closure. During verification activities, identification of critical systems and safety hazard controls are introduced and considered to influence the design and eventually become part of the verification evidence.\n \n \n \n Projects select pre-identified verification activities, which will then be used to generate an executable plan. The plan is used to sort/filter the statements and allocate them to the right scope elements and party to provide verification. Standardizing verification eliminates engineering hours for engineering contractors and suppliers. Completed verification plans increase company knowledge regarding requirement implementation, making the next project more efficient to execute. There is increased visibility of where the supply chain is supporting the process safety requirements. For the first time, the supply chain will confirm they have implemented the requirements and provide feedback on the clarity of the requirements. Clear confirmation that process safety requirements have been verified will drive improved safety performance.\n \n \n \n This paper provides a new approach in O&G for identifying process safety requirements and linking these requirements to standardized verification methods. Specific examples will be shared to show the similarities of the verification activities between O&G and aerospace and how the use of verification during design and use of a database to link requirements and verification evidence improves requirement compliance, including safety performance.\n","PeriodicalId":10948,"journal":{"name":"Day 2 Tue, May 07, 2019","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 2 Tue, May 07, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4043/29295-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This paper describes improvements to the methods for verification of process safety design requirements in an Oil & Gas (O&G) project and highlights the benefits of standardized verification linked to design requirements. The similarities and benefits of verification activities used in aerospace/NASA projects are also discussed. The team identified and documented the activities that should be performed by a project throughout the project life cycle to verify compliance with process safety requirements. These verification activities were tied to existing project deliverables and controls where possible. Focusing on verification in the design stage (analyze, calculate, review) in preference to final execution (inspect, certify) enables earlier identification of problems, earlier intervention, and increases confidence that the process safety requirements have been met. While this approach may be new in the O&G industry, the aerospace community has used similar methods for decades. Verification within aerospace/NASA involves design phase verification and product (final) verification. Initial verification is done to show that: 1) the design is realizable, 2) requirements are acceptable and have bidirectional traceability to higher-level requirements and stakeholder expectations, and 3) the design solution is consistent with requirement statements and constraints. Conducting the initial verification through peer/design reviews improves compliance to requirements at the final product verification. By establishing the traceability during the initial verification, database links are established and then just need to be populated with the final verification reports for closure. During verification activities, identification of critical systems and safety hazard controls are introduced and considered to influence the design and eventually become part of the verification evidence. Projects select pre-identified verification activities, which will then be used to generate an executable plan. The plan is used to sort/filter the statements and allocate them to the right scope elements and party to provide verification. Standardizing verification eliminates engineering hours for engineering contractors and suppliers. Completed verification plans increase company knowledge regarding requirement implementation, making the next project more efficient to execute. There is increased visibility of where the supply chain is supporting the process safety requirements. For the first time, the supply chain will confirm they have implemented the requirements and provide feedback on the clarity of the requirements. Clear confirmation that process safety requirements have been verified will drive improved safety performance. This paper provides a new approach in O&G for identifying process safety requirements and linking these requirements to standardized verification methods. Specific examples will be shared to show the similarities of the verification activities between O&G and aerospace and how the use of verification during design and use of a database to link requirements and verification evidence improves requirement compliance, including safety performance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
验证过程安全要求:航空航天和石油天然气工业的相似之处
本文介绍了油气项目过程安全设计要求验证方法的改进,并强调了与设计要求相关的标准化验证的好处。还讨论了在航空航天/美国宇航局项目中使用的核查活动的相似之处和好处。团队确定并记录项目在整个项目生命周期中应该执行的活动,以验证是否符合过程安全需求。这些验证活动在可能的情况下与现有的项目可交付成果和控制联系在一起。将重点放在设计阶段(分析、计算、评审)的验证上,而不是最终执行阶段(检查、认证),这样可以更早地发现问题,更早地干预,并增加工艺安全要求得到满足的信心。虽然这种方法在油气行业可能是一种新方法,但航空航天界已经使用了几十年的类似方法。航空航天/NASA的验证包括设计阶段验证和产品(最终)验证。最初的验证是为了表明:1)设计是可实现的,2)需求是可接受的,并且对更高级别的需求和涉众期望具有双向可追溯性,3)设计解决方案与需求声明和约束是一致的。通过同行/设计评审进行初始验证,可以提高最终产品验证时对需求的遵从性。通过在初始验证期间建立可追溯性,建立了数据库链接,然后只需要用最终的验证报告填充即可。在验证活动中,引入并考虑关键系统的识别和安全危害控制,以影响设计并最终成为验证证据的一部分。项目选择预先确定的验证活动,这些活动将用于生成可执行的计划。该计划用于对语句进行排序/过滤,并将其分配给正确的范围元素和提供验证的一方。标准化验证消除了工程承包商和供应商的工程时间。完成的验证计划增加了公司关于需求实现的知识,使下一个项目更有效地执行。供应链在哪里支持过程安全需求的可见性增加了。第一次,供应链将确认他们已经实现了需求,并就需求的清晰度提供反馈。对工艺安全要求的明确确认将推动安全绩效的提高。本文为O&G中识别过程安全需求并将这些需求与标准化验证方法联系起来提供了一种新的方法。将分享具体的例子来展示油气和航空航天之间验证活动的相似之处,以及如何在设计和使用数据库期间使用验证来链接需求和验证证据,以提高需求合规性,包括安全性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Implementing the New INCOSE Systems Engineering Competency Framework Using an Evidence Based Approach for Oil and Gas Companies A Machine Learning Application for Field Planning Optimization of Well Start-Up Using Integrated Well and Electrical Submersible Pump Modeling The Subsea Sand Management Challenge – What to Do with the Sand? Systems Engineering Principles to Enable Supplier-Led Solutions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1