Smart Device Alerts

were just starting to use hart signals from smart devices back to our deltav 11.3.1 system and AMS. In deltav, for each device we can have 4 x device alarms (COMM_ALM, MAINT_ALM, FAILED_ALM & ADVISE_ALM) but the associated module also have a pv bad alarm or module alarm. My question is, whats the difference between the smart alarms and the standard deltav module bad alarm. Is there a need to alarm on both? any advise would be great.

  • This is a good question and you will likely get different opinions, starting with mine.

    The main goal of the device alerts is to serve Maintenance needs, while PVBAD is intended foe operators. The device alerts should help prevent issues that would lead to signal loss. Device alerts can be seen on Maintenance stations where the alarm summary would not show PVBAD.

    The PVBAD is an alarm and should be set if there is a time to respond and a consequence of inaction, and this drives the priority. Device alerts should not require immediate response but should be set to indicate long before failure of signal occurs.

    We also recommend that only meaningful alerts be enabled. You don't want to enable everything and be paralyzed by alert floods.

    If you are using AMS Devise Manager device alerts can be managed in the Alert Monitor. Here is an opinion. "You don't need both device alerts in DeltaV and AMS alert monitor. I would use alert monitor and not device alerts."

    Device Alerts proved a view to device health issues and can be configured in DeltaV. But that's a lot of work. AMS DM is made to handle this as well as the device configurations and all.

    Now some users will use both, and that's ok. Just realize that if you customize alerts in DeltaV those in AMS will not match. It is that two versions of the truth thing. If you use AND DM you avoid duplication of work.

    Anyway, that's my opinion.

    Andre Dicaire

  • I personally agree with Andre. Additionally I think we can say PVBAD is the status for the specific measurement so the operator knows if the value can be trusted, while the four _ALM are about the device as a whole so the instrument tech knows the condition of the device. Learn more about measurement validity/status from this essay: www.linkedin.com/.../iiot-control-can-you-trust-your-sensors-jonas-berge
  • I also agree with the comments on the subject except for differing opinions.

    3 for 3 so far
  • Maintenance isn't here 24/7 and I have operators who are curious about instrument / valve "health". I am looking forward to using the new "Device View" (?) as possibly a way to give them an overview. We do something similar with case temperatures (which become popular in the winter) - we give them a place to go look at it versus bugging them with alarms.
  • I have only used them for Foundation Fieldbus. We had both the device alarms and the AMS alert monitor. Device alarms were placed on a priority which is not visible on the operators' alarm lists, only maintenance was looking at them. The point was to get them into the DeltaV Event Journal. There is also a whitepaper on the subject: www2.emersonprocess.com/.../WP_Configuring_FF912_Alarms.pdf