Peter Herena
Chemical Engineer with 15 years of experience in controls, software and safety systems. Presently employed by Baker Engineering & Risk Consultants, specialists in blast effects analysis, blast scenario modeling, process safety and reliability engineering. Experience includes 3 years with Kenexis Consulting, an engineered safeguard consulting company, and 10 years at UOP, a petrochemical technology licenser.
Skilled at marketing, communication and customer relations. Trained in conflict resolution with extensive experience in meeting facilitation. Trusted to successfully resolve sensitive and high-profile assignments for critical customers.
Deep experience in process, controls, software and instrumentation. Mastery in all phases of SIS safety lifecycle as applied to process industries. Broad knowledge of hazards associated with numerous process sectors, as well as risk analysis techniques.
Demonstrated organizational leadership at every career level, with a focus on developing best practices and streamlining work processes. Supported AIChE and ISA in technical and leadership capacities at local level.
Specialties: Safety Instrumented System Engineering
Process Hazards Analysis (PHA) / Hazard Identification
SIL Selection
SIL Verification
Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA)
Fault Tree Analysis
Event Tree Analysis
What-If Analysis
Root Cause Analysis
Hazard and Operability (HazOp) Facilitation
Process Safety Management (PSM)
PSM Auditing
Control System Design and Field Commissioning
Software Development
Process Troubleshooting
Chemical Engineering

Designed for success...and for failure
While designing something that never fails is a lofty and admirable goal, it's not wholly realistic, and thus only part of the picture. In reality, good engineering considers both success and failure. Designing a product that works well is one half, and a engineering the same product to fail without disaster is the other. This is what engineers refer to as designing a system to the principle of "fail-safe." That means that it is designed in a way so that when a failure does occur, the device will tend to fail in a predictable manner to a "safe state." But before an engineer does anything else, she needs to consider, "what is the safe state?" In the case of the park ride, forcing the pods to the ground is better than forcing the pods to stay up in the air, because it's easier to remove passengers when they are at ground level, and also because passengers are less likely to be injured when they're at ground level. Once that is understood, the designers of this system are likely to design it so that if something fails--such as, for example the pump quits or a part in the oil valve breaks--the cylinder oil will be released and the pods will automatically go to the lower position. There are also measures designed into the equipment that force the oil to enter and exit the cylinder at a maximum speed so the pods don't crash to the ground and injure the occupants!Fail-safe and the engineer
As engineers we sometimes find designing equipment to be well-built is much easier than designing it to fail predictably. In fail-safe design, consider the worst-case scenario if a key part suddenly stopped functioning. If this outcome is intolerable, then safeguards must be engineered to mitigate or prevent that outcome. Designing something to be fail-safe is a challenging thought process but an important one. Whether it is an amusement park ride, subsea safety valve, or jet engine, you can be sure that at some point something inside of it is going to break.Have you done enough to prevent a simple failure from escalating into the unthinkable?
Comments
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments