Re: [foxboro] alarm inhibiting vs. alarm disabling - process summary reporter
- From: Corey R Clingo <corey.clingo@xxxxxxxx>
- To: foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:11:48 -0600
Based on my experimentation (because, as you pointed out, it's not in the
manual), an block alarm will show up as "inhibited" when either [INHIB is
on, the requisite bits in INHOPT are on, or the block's compound's CINHIB
is on] AND [INHOPT for the block is either 0 or 2]. In other words, no
alarm messages are generated (i.e., (no annunciation, appearance in alarm
managers or logging to historians or printers), but alarms are still
detected (the alarm flags are active).
"Disabled" is the same except that INHOPT must be either 1 or 3, so not
only are no alarm messages generated , but alarms are not detected - the
alarm flags do not ever turn on (alarm flags include things like HAI,
HHAIND, etc.). Since interlocks are often (at my site, at least)
triggered from these alarm flags, the difference between "disabled" and
merely "inhibited" can be important.
Again, this is based on my observations only. Maybe someone else can
confirm/deny or give a better explanation.
Corey Clingo
BASF Corporation
Monte J Hansford <mjh20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: foxboro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
12/14/2006 10:42 AM
Please respond to
foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
foxboro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc
Subject
[foxboro] alarm inhibiting vs. alarm disabling - process summary reporter
Hi, I'm a relatively new Foxboro user, and I'm trying to customize a
report of inhibited alarms using the Process Summary Reporter and a little
shell script. I am a little confused about the difference between
'inhibiting' and 'disabling' alarms, which are two separate entries in
PSR. 'Alarms disabled' isn't described in the manual (B0193DG-E).
Am I right in thinking that 'disabling' refers to inhibiting alarms from
the block detail page, as opposed to inhibiting via the ICC? When a
block's alarms are disabled, do they become 'inhibited' upon upload to the
workfile?
Monte J. Hansford
MeadWestvaco, Kraft Division
Process Control & IS Group
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service._______________________________________________________________
This electronic message contains information from MeadWestvaco
Corporation or subsidiary companies, which may be confidential,
privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. The
information is intended to be used solely by the recipient(s)
named. If you are not an intended recipient, be aware that
any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this
transmission or its contents is prohibited. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify MeadWestvaco
immediately at postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
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: //www.freelists.org/list/foxboro
to subscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=join
to unsubscribe: mailto:foxboro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=leave
Other related posts:
