Configurable SIS Architecture With Switchable SIL Voting Logic

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing safety instrumentation systems (SIS) are inflexible and require multiple systems to implement different Safety Integrity Levels (SIL), leading to inefficiency and high costs, as they can only operate with a single SIL value.

Innovation Solution

A flexible protection system configuration that allows operation in multiple SILs by altering the number of processing channels and voting logic, enabling selection between different safety architectures through a graphical user interface, allowing for triple or dual modular redundancy architectures.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If multiple separate safety instrumentation systems are deployed to support different SIL requirements, then each system can be optimized for its specific SIL level, but the overall system complexity and cost increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveSIL complianceVSAvoidsystem architecture
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a universal protection system that can operate at multiple SIL levels (SIL 2 and SIL 3) through a single integrated architecture. The system uses configurable processing channels and voting logic that can be adjusted via graphical user interface to meet different SIL requirements, eliminating the need for separate dedicated systems for each safety integrity level.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The system employs dynamic reconfiguration capabilities where processing channels can be selectively enabled or disabled based on the required SIL level. The voting logic can be dynamically changed between 2-out-of-3 configuration for SIL 3 and 1-out-of-2 configuration for SIL 2, allowing the system to adapt its complexity and performance characteristics to match operational requirements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Adaptability or versatility

If a single protection system is designed to support multiple SIL levels, then system flexibility and cost are improved, but the configuration complexity and potential for error increase

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveSIL configuration flexibilityVSAvoidconfiguration complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system provides self-service through an intuitive graphical user interface that guides operators through the configuration process. The GUI automatically manages the complex tasks of enabling/disabling processing channels, configuring voting logic, and validating the selected configuration, reducing the burden on operators and minimizing configuration errors while maintaining full SIL 2 and SIL 3 capability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Reliability

If the number of processing channels is increased to achieve higher SIL levels, then safety integrity and reliability improve, but system cost and operational complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesafety integrity levelVSAvoidsystem efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts the number of active processing channels based on the required SIL level. For SIL 3 operations, all three processing channels are activated with 2-out-of-3 voting logic. For SIL 2 operations, the system can operate with fewer channels or different voting configurations, optimizing resource utilization and reducing operational complexity while maintaining the required safety integrity level.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Data Source

PatentUS11914347B2Configurable industrial protection system
Publication Date: 2024.02.27 GE INFRASTRUCTURE TECH LLC
  • US11914347B2 patent drawing
  • US11914347B2 patent drawing
  • US11914347B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A method includes selecting one of a first safety architecture and a second safety architecture of a protection system configured to monitor a protection system. The protection system includes an input base, a controller base and an output base. The selecting includes selecting one of a first voting logic associated with the first safety architecture and a second voting logic associated with the second architecture. The controller base is configured to execute the selected voting logic. The method also includes configuring the protection system including a plurality of processing channels to operate in one of a first configuration associated with the first safety architecture and a second configuration associated with the second safety architecture. The configuring includes altering the number of processing channels releasably coupled to the protection system and hardware relay output in the protection system. Each processing channel of the plurality of processing channels includes an input circuit coupled to the input base, a controller coupled to the controller base and an output circuit coupled to the output base.