Major difference between FOUNDATION Fieldbus and HART Protocol

I would like to know the major pros and cons of Fieldbus over HART. I was only aware of the
fact that HART is analog communication and Fieldbus is digital communication. Is there any
other major difference among the 2 protocol?

Both HART and FOUNDATION fieldbus (FF) are good. You cant really compare pros
and cons of FF versus HART. HART is good for configuration, calibration, diagnostics,
and viewing internal variables what is usually referred to as intelligent device
management (IDM). However, FF is used for both IDM and also for real-time closed
loop control which HART does not do. This is THE major difference between these two
protocols which you already pointed out. If your field instruments use HART, then
your control system must use 4-20 mA for closed loop real-time control since HART
does not do that. Since FF provides both the IDM and real-time control functions
digitally, you cannot really compare it to HART which only does IDM. I guess for a full
picture you would need to compare FF to on/off and 4-20 mA with HART. The reason
being that many of the differences between a FF system and a system using 4-20
mA/HART is not in FF vs. HART but in FF vs. 4-20 mA and on/off.
Since FF is digital, it has several benefits over loops using hardwired 4-20 mA and
on/off signals. For a full explanation of FF benefits refer to the brochure found
here:http://www.fieldbus.org/images/stories/technology/aboutthetechology/overview/
fieldbus_brochure.pdf
I personally think the highlights include:
Real-time closed loop control completely digital end-to-end, from sensor to

actuator
More current for more powerful two-wire loop powered devices like radar level

transmitters, multi-channel temperature transmitters, and more diagnostics etc.

Balanced (non-grounded) signal with high amplitude for noise immunity
Intelligent discrete devices like two-wire on/off valves
Multiple devices on the same pair of wires reducing cable, tray, junction boxes

and associated labor

Multiple signals (per device) on the same pair of wires dramatically reducing

cable, tray, junction boxes and associated labor

Dramatic reduction of I/O cards reducing system footprint and weight
Elimination of I/O card selection simplifying engineering

Elimination of safety barrier selection simplifying engineering

Elimination of signal marshalling simplifying engineering
Easy addition of devices
Easy addition of signals in devices
Easy to change design to other device type: e.g. on/off valve to control valve or
MOV
Time synchronized control
Fast control response period
No 4-20 mA range mismatch
No 4-20 mA current calibration skew
Signal distortion detected
Measurement over full sensor limit (no 4-20 mA range)
No 4-20 mA five point loop test
Real-time PV validity indication
Position feedback on every valve
Multi-channel temperature transmitters
Advanced device diagnostics
Centralized firmware upgrade

As you can tell, most of these points are really FF advantages over 4-20 mA and on/off
signals and have nothing to do with HART.
Having said that, 4-20 mA and on/off signals will continue for years to come. We still
have a lot of 3-15 psi pneumatics. Some plants feel their personnel are not ready for
digital devices, computers, and Internet downloads although that is changing rapidly
thanks to the proliferation of smart phones. And for sure, a plant using 4-20 mA with
HART is FAR better than a plant using only 4-20 mA or proprietary smart protocols. In
far too many plants the control system either does not support HART pass-through, or
the HART pass-through has been disabled due to installation issues causing
communication errors. In my personal opinion, if the system doesnt support HART
pass-through, it should either be upgraded or the instruments should be fitted with
WirelessHART adapters. Installation issues causing communication errors should be
fixed such that HART pass-through can be enabled for every device. IDM software
should be installed, implemented, and incorporated in daily maintenance and
turnaround planning. This way the plant can fully enjoy its 4-20 mA/HART devices.
Also, until recently FF was not as easy to use as it should have been particularly in

other control systems (pardon the shameless plug for easy DeltaV). Some aspects were
complex or were MADE more complex than it would have to be. Over the past 15 years
the FF technology has improved dramatically, as has the implementation of the FF
technology in devices and systems much thanks to increasingly demanding testing of
devices and systems. Some of these improvements, like EDDL, have also made 4-20
mA/HART devices easier to use. Another example is the award winning DeltaV fieldbus
card with integrated power:
foundationfieldbus.blogspot.sg//emerson-wins-asia-manufacturing-awards.html
Make sure to use an FF system which is registered to profile 61 compliance level b of
the Host Profile Registration (HPR) process:
www.fieldbus.org/index.php
If you have an old control system using FF, make sure to upgrade to a version which is
61b registered to enjoy the capabilities that it entails.
You can learn more about intelligent device management (IDM) here:
www.eddl.org/DeviceManagement
As we get closer to the Emerson Exchange conference in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
USA area, make sure to follow the action in the Emerson Exchange 365 community.
Were planning to have a live page with video, news, blog posts, tweets, and all the
action we can possibly share with you.