© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Aufrufe

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- EPA Method for PM10 Using High Volume Sampler - 1999
- Cameron Scanner 2100 User Manual
- Neo Crin All Info (1)
- Manual Thermo Scientific SX30
- sirs 2017 main panel
- Resistivity of Wire Electricity Conductor - Dana Santika - Physics - Ganesha University of Education
- Flow Measurement Winter Kennedy
- MagFlo, Pliant General Siemens, En
- Syllabus of IET KKHANDARI AGRA 8 SEM EI
- Volumetric Mass Transfer Coefficient
- Energy Balance
- Controlling Fuel Gas to a Fired Heater
- Exp.5#Venturimeter and Orificemeter
- CHAPTER 9 Metrology No Background
- Flow Resistance
- CHAPTER 1
- BU00A03B02-01E_120
- 2 - Ming - Hydraulic Transport of Coarse Gravel–a Laboratory Investigation Into Flow Resistance
- Flowmeters UK 051
- A-Simple-Inexpensive-Venturi-Experiment-Applying-the-Bernoulli-Balance-to-Determine-Flow-and-Permanent-Pressure-Loss.pdf

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

4 System Accuracy*

B. G. LIPTÁK (1982, 1995, 2003)

closeness of agreement among repeated measure-

Accuracy (Webster). Freedom from error or the absence of ments of the output for the same value of input

error. Syn. precision, correctness, exactness. (In this made under the same operating conditions over a

sense, the term is a qualitative, not quantitative, concept.) period of time, approaching from both directions.

Accuracy (ISA). In process instrumentation, degree of con- Reproducibility (NIST). Closeness of agreement between

formity of an indicated value to a recognized accepted the results of measurements of the same measurand

standard value, or ideal value. carried out under changed conditions of measurement.

Accuracy, measured (ISA). The maximum positive and Uncertainty (Webster). A feeling of unsureness about

negative deviation observed in testing a device under something.

specified conditions and by a specified procedure. Uncertainty (IEH Section 1.5). Measurement uncertainty is

Accuracy of measurement (NIST). Closeness of the expressed to a confidence level of 95%, and it is the

agreement between the result of a measurement and limit to which an error may extend.

the value of the measurand…. Because accuracy is

a quantitative concept, one should not use it quan- Language, Terminology, and Reality

titatively or associate numbers with it. (NIST also

The guide titled International Vocabulary of Basic and Gen-

advises that neither precision nor inaccuracy should

eral Terms in Metrology (commonly referred to as VIM ) was

be used in place of accuracy.) published by ISO in the name of seven organizations and

Error (ISA). In process instrumentation, the algebraic dif- contains the VIM definitions of 24 terms relevant to measure-

ference between the indication and the ideal value ment and accuracy. So, from a theoretical point of view, we

of the measured signal. It is the quantity that, alge- do have standards and internationally agreed upon definitions.

braically subtracted from the indication, gives the But the reality in the average industrial plant is different,

ideal value. and this Instrument Engineers’ Handbook is written for the

Range (ISA). The region between the limits within which average instrumentation and control (I&C) engineer in those

a quantity is measured, received, or transmitted, plants. Therefore, when we quantify an error herein, which

expressed by stating the lower and upper range values. one should expect when making a measurement with a par-

Rangeability (recommended by IEH). Rangeability of a ticular instrument, we will not (yet) use terms such as uncer-

sensor is the measurement range over which the error tainty but will try to stay on familiar grounds. On the other

statement, in the units of a percentage of actual read- hand, we will try to take a step in the right direction by

ing, is guaranteed. improving the clarity of our language.

Repeatability (ISA). The closeness of agreement among a When an instrument is specified to have ±1% accuracy,

number of consecutive measurements of the output people do not expect it to have 99% error! The intended mean-

for the same value of the input under the same oper- ing of that statement is ±1% inaccuracy or a ±1% error relative

ating conditions, approaching from the same direc- to some reference standard. It is important to emphasize the

tion, for full-range traverses. role of a reference standard in all measurements, as we humans

Repeatability (NIST). Closeness of agreement between are incapable of measuring anything in the absolute. All we

the results of successive measurements of the same can do is compare an unknown quantity to a known one and

measurand carried out under the same conditions of determine which is larger or smaller and by how much. The

measurement .... Repeatability may be expressed presence of a reference also means that a measurement can be

quantitatively in terms of the dispersion character- in error not only because the sensor is inaccurate but also

istics of the results. because the reference has drifted or was inaccurate to start with.

78

© 2003 by Béla Lipták

1.4 System Accuracy 79

Bias

is more deserving of in-depth evaluation than the error that 50% of Area ±0.67δ True Value

68.3% of Area ±1δ

if the controlled variable is precisely measured. Yet the term

accuracy (or, more precisely, inaccuracy or uncertainty)

itself is poorly defined, frequently misunderstood, and often

used as a sales gimmick. Consequently, use of this term cries

Precision 95% of Area ±2δ

out for international standardization and, as was noted above,

ISO has already prepared such standards. The need for clar- −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3

ity of language and standardization exists for the following −0.67 0.67

Total Uncertainty

reasons:

FIG. 1.4a

1. When the error or inaccuracy of an instrument is stated In any measurement, the total uncertainty (total error) is the sum of

to be ±1%, one would assume that this statement refers the sensor’s random error (precision) and its systematic error (bias).

to the actual measurement—the actual reading. One

would assume that, if this particular instrument hap-

4. Yet another source of confusion is the fact that, when

pens to read 100, the true value of that measurement

the error of 100 sensors is tested, the results fall onto

must fall between 99 and 101, but this frequently is

a “bell curve” (Figure 1.4a). It would be desirable to

not the case. Some manufacturers express their error

reach international agreement so that all error state-

statements (inaccuracy percentages) on the basis of

ments would always be based on the performance of at

“percent of actual span,” while others might base it on

least 95% of the units tested. In addition, an error state-

“percent of full scale,” “percent of range,” or “percent

ment should always state if it is based on self-evaluation

of upper range value,” and so on. This inconsistency

performed by the supplier or on an evaluation by an

is undesirable, because it is confusing. It would be

independent testing laboratory and, in the latter case, if

better if all measurement error statements always

the test report is available for review.

referred to the actual measurement.

2. To make error statements expressed as percentages of

If the above four recommendations were universally

the actual measurement truly meaningful, the state-

accepted, the subject of sensor error and inaccuracy would

ment should also specify the measurement range over

be much less confusing. While this is not likely to occur soon,

which the statement holds true. This would be a simple

a better understanding of the factors that cause the present

matter if all manufacturers agreed to define rangeabil-

state of confusion should be helpful, because it can speed

ity as the measurement range over which their error

the development of universal standards for sensor error and

statement (as a percentage of actual reading units) is

performance.

guaranteed. This approach would allow all sensor inac-

curacies to be stated on the same basis and therefore

would eliminate the confusion. If all detector inaccura-

cies were stated as “x% of actual reading throughout TERMINOLOGY OF INACCURACY AND REPEATABILITY

the range of y,” users could be “comparing apples with

apples” when comparing bids, and the room for “cre- The purpose of all measurement is to obtain the true value

ative specmanship” would at least be reduced. of the quantity being measured, and error is thought of as

3. Further confusion occurs because different manufactur- the difference between the measured and the true quantity.

ers include different factors in their error statements. Because it is impossible to measure a value without some

Most suppliers include only linearity, rangeability, and uncertainty, it is equally impossible to know the exact size

hysteresis errors in their total error statement; they list of the error. What is possible is to state the limits within

the error contributions caused by drift, temperature which the true value of a measurement will fall.

effects, overrange, power supply, humidity, RFI, and The accuracy-related terminology used in the process

vibration separately. Actually, some manufacturers control industry can be illustrated by an example of target

claim an apparent increase in accuracy not by improving shooting (Figure 1.4b). The spread of the nine shots fired into

precision but by considering fewer and fewer effects in the upper right-hand corner of the target in a tight pattern

the total error statement. Naturally, to reverse this trend, represents the random error of the shooter. Looking at the

international agreement is needed with regard to the penetration of the bullets, one can say that his shooting is

amount of variation (in ambient temperature, power repeatable and precise, but precision alone does not guarantee

supply, and others) that the manufacturer’s error state- accuracy; it is only the measure of the ability of the shooter,

ments must include. which is called random error.

80 General Considerations

Repeatability

Random Error

The accuracy of a product category (sensors, transmitters,

(Precision)

and so on) is established on the basis of testing large numbers

Systematic of these products. For the more important sensors, the accu-

Error 1

racy statements should also include information on testing.

(Bias)

An example of such a statement is quoted below from a

National Bureau of Standards Calibration Certificate for a

turbine flowmeter:

observations, taken in groups of five successive runs on

two different days. The reported values have an estimated

overall uncertainty of ±0.13%, based on a standard error

of ±0.01% and an allowance of ±0.1% for possible sys-

tematic error.

Total

Illegitimate Error Figure 1.4a illustrates the results of such a test. In that test,

Error (Inaccuracy) the precision (half of repeatability) of 68% of the devices tested

has been found to be ±1% of the true value, while, for 95%

FIG. 1.4b

Accuracy terminology. of the devices, it fell within ±2%, and, for all 100% of the

devices, it amounted to ± 3%. The total error (total uncertainty)

is the sum of precision plus bias, which is the systematic error

of the bell curve itself. Because the bias can be reduced by

The distance between the mean impact of the nine bullets calibration and rezeroing, but the precision (or repeatability)

and the bull’s-eye of the target is the systematic error. This cannot, it would be desirable if manufacturers identified both

error (caused by the wind or by the faulty adjustments of the of these values. Manufacturers should also state if the basis of

sights) is repeatable and can be eliminated (in case of sensors, this data is 68, 95, or 100% of the devices tested. To allow the

by calibration or by rezeroing; in case of the shooter, by I&C profession to mature, manufacturers should eliminate

waiting until the wind stops or by readjusting the sights). This “specmanship” from their sales literature, so that users can

error is not related to the shooter’s inability to duplicate his “compare apples with apples” when making a selection.

shots. Systematic error is also referred to as bias, which is the

systematic displacement of the measured value from the true

one. It can be reduced by recalibrating the sensor against a

reference standard, such as a calibrated (standard) thermal FLOW MEASUREMENT EXAMPLE

element, a known composition analytical sample, or dead

weights. Figure 1.4c illustrates three flow sensors installed in series

The shot in the lower left-hand corner of the target is an in the same process pipe, with each measurement signal being

illegitimate error, which is caused by blunders and can be totalized. All three flow sensors are sized for the same full

totally eliminated. range of 100 GPM (380 l/min) flow rate. The goal of this

The total error in a measurement can thus be defined as example is to illustrate how the total system error is determined

the sum of the random error and the systematic error or bias. at the flow rates of 20 GPM (76 l/min) and 80 GPM (304

If the purpose of an installation is to maintain the process l/min) in two different cases. In Case 1, the basic assumption

conditions at previously experienced levels, and there is no is that the component errors are additive. In Case 2, the assump-

interest in their true values, then the goal is to reduce the tion is that the total system error will be the error of the least

random error, without paying much attention to the remaining precise component in the system. Errors introduced by counter-

bias. In many industrial installations, such a repeatable (but totalizers, which is usually one count, will be neglected.

inaccurate) measurement is sufficient. For the purposes of the example of Figure 1.4c, the mag-

Conversely, if the interest is in determining the true value netic flowmeter, transmitters, and integrators will all have

of the measurement, because the installation serves such ±0.5% full-scale (FS) error. The orifice plate will be assumed

absolute purposes as accounting or quality control, the repeat- to have an inaccuracy of ±0.5% of rate and the error of the

able measurement is insufficient, and attention must be con- turbine flowmeter will be assumed to have an inaccuracy of

centrated on absolute (total) accuracy. This can be obtained ±0.25%. (The orientation table in Chapter 2 [Table 2.1b]

only through the reduction of both the random and the sys- provides complete data for all flow sensors, including their

tematic errors, which is usually achieved by recalibration. performance characteristics.)

1.4 System Accuracy 81

FQI FQI FQI

and

The

Output

Totalizer Totalizer (GPM or %)

Inaccuracy

of These

FQ FQ Devices is 100

± I Count

The

Inaccuracy Integrators

of These FY 80

Inaccuracy is

Expressed

Εxpresssed as Actual

As ± 0.5% of FT

± % of Actual

Full Scale 60

FT Measurement

Range

Ideal

40

Flow

FEM

(0−100 GPM)

Analog Analog Digital

System System System Actual Flow

(Magnetic (Orifice (Turbine 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 (GPM or %)

Flowmeter) Plate) Flowmeter)

Errors of the components of three different flow totalization loops. Performance of a linear analog flow sensor, such as a magnetic

flowmeter.

In the more detailed discussion that follows, it will be shown Flow Sensor Error

that the overall system error can be much greater than the com- Based on Full Scale

ponent errors. It will be shown that, at 20% of full-scale flow, (GPM or %)

the error of a turbine flowmeter will be around 0.25% of actual

flow, the error of a magnetic flowmeter might range from 3% 1.5

+

to 9% of actual flow, and the measurement error of an orifice-

based measurement error will range from 5 to 12% of actual rate. 1.0

Limit of Error

The ±0.5% maximum inaccuracy (some based on actual

readings, others on full-scale readings) was selected to reflect 0.5

the typical installations in the existing plants. Today, when

Actual

“smart” transmitters and improved sensors are available, one 0

can select more accurate system components, some with max-

imum errors of ±0.1% of actual span. Here, we will assume Ideal

0.5

that the maximum error of any of the system components is

Limit of Error

±0.5% and, based on that assumption, we will determine the

1.0

resulting total system error. The performance of analog and dig-

ital, linear and nonlinear devices will be discussed separately. −

1.5 Actual Flow

20 40 60 80 100 (GPM or %)

Magnetic Flowmeters Error plot for a percentage of full-scale flow sensor.

The performance of a linear analog flow sensor, such as a

magnetic flowmeter, is shown in Figure 1.4d. The line It should be noted that the performance described here

marked “actual” represents the relationship between the is representative of the older designs of magnetic flowmeters,

actual flow and the output signal generated by the flow sensor. which continuously maintained their magnetic fields. In the

Figure 1.4e illustrates this error as a percentage of full scale newer designs, the field is cycled on and off, and the sensor

(FS), with the error limits being ±0.5% FS. can be automatically rezeroed, so the measurement error can

In Figure 1.4f, the same ±0.5% FS sensor performance be reduced. Therefore, the inaccuracy of these newer mag-

is illustrated, but against a vertical coordinate that is a per- netic flowmeters can approach ±0.5% of actual flow.

centage of actual flow units (instead of full scale). The spe-

cific detector performance is likely to be better at most points Analog, Nonlinear—Orifice Plates

of its range than what these error limits would imply. The

main message is that, for sensor with percent-FS perfor- The orifice plate itself is rather accurate and is a percent-of-

mance, the measurement error increases as the flow rate actual-flow sensor, having an error limit of ±0.5% of actual

drops, as shown in Figure 1.4g. flow rate, as shown in Figure 1.4h.

82 General Considerations

Based on % of Actual Actual Reading

Flow Rate Reading (%) (± %)

1.5 5

+ Limit of Error

1.0 4

0.5 3

Actual

0 2

Ideal

0.5 1

± 0.50 % of Measurement

0 Actual Flow

1.0 (GPM or %)

0 20 40 60 80 100

− Limit of Error

1.5 Actual Flow

(GPM or %) FIG. 1.4h

20 40 60 80 100

The error contribution of the orifice plate alone.

FIG. 1.4f

The error of a linear flow sensor shown in units of percentage of

full-scale flow.

Desired Measurement,

Flow (%)

Inaccuracy Based on Actual

Flow Rate Reading 100

(± %)

Actual

80

5

Ideal

60

4

40

3

20 Actual

2 Measurement,

Orifice

0

0 20 40 60 80 100 Pressure

1

Drop (%)

Actual Flow

0 FIG. 1.4i

0 20 40 60 80 100 (GPM or %)

Performance of an orifice type nonlinear analog flow sensor.

FIG. 1.4g

The error of a linear flow sensor shown in units of percentage of

actual flow. the error contribution (the gain effect) of this extraction

must also be recognized. Figure 1.4j illustrates that this

extraction of the square root improves the accuracy at the

The pressure drop through an orifice relates to the square higher flow rates but degrades it as the flow rate is reduced.

of the flowing velocity or volumetric flow rate through the

orifice plate. Figure 1.4i illustrates both, i.e., this ideal non-

Digital Linear—Turbine Flowmeter

linear (square root) relationship and the actual performance

of a specific differential-pressure (d/p) cell used in an orifice The calibration of a turbine meter in terms of the K factor,

type, nonlinear flow sensor. given in units of pulses per gallon, is rather similar to the

To the error contribution of the orifice plate shown in calibration curve of an orifice plate (Figure 1.4k). The inaccu-

Figure 1.4h (±0.5% of actual flow rate), one must add the error racy of a turbine meter is also in units of percentage of the

of the differential-pressure transmitter shown in Figure 1.4i actual flow and is rather constant over a fairly wide range of

(±0.5% FS). In addition, when the square root must be flows. Turbine flowmeter inaccuracy can be improved by

extracted before the signal can be integrated (Figure 1.4c), reducing the rangeability requirement of the unit (Figure 1.4l).

1.4 System Accuracy 83

Actual Reading on Actual Reading

(± %) (± %)

5 2.5

4 2.0

3 1.5

Nonlinear

2 1.0

1 0.5

± 0.25% at 10:1 Rangeability

Actual Flow

0 Actual Flow 0

0 20 40 60 80 100 (GPM or %)

0 20 40 60 80 100 (GPM or %)

Comparing the inaccuracies of linear and a nonlinear flowmeter. Turbine flowmeter inaccuracy as a function of rangeability.

K Factor System Inaccuracy (Total Loop Error) in Units of Percentage

(Pulses/Gallon) of Actual Readings

Assumption Used to

Basis 1 Basis 2

Estimate Accumulated

System Inaccuracy Operating Flow Rate (GPM)

Limit of Error Type of flow

detection loop 20 80 20 80

(magnetic flowmeter)

Analog, nonlinear ±12.0% ±2.0% ±5.0% ±0.5%

(orifice flowmeter)

Limit of Error

Actual Digital, linear ±0.25% ±0.25% ±0.25% ±0.25%

Actual Flow (turbine flowmeter)

5 10 20 50 100 (GPM or %)

FIG. 1.4k the error is reduced by the square root of the number of sensors

Turbine flowmeter calibration curve. in parallel. So, if two sensor outputs (each having a 1% error)

are averaged, the error will be reduced to 1/ 2 = 0.7% (and

with three outputs, to 0.58%, with four outputs, to 0.5%, and

Combined System Accuracy

so on).

Having reviewed the inaccuracies of the three flow sensors Without actual system calibration, the evaluation of the

and the various loop components shown in Figure 1.4c, the overall loop accuracy must be based on some assumptions.

next step is to evaluate the resulting total loop errors. There Table 1.4m summarizes the system inaccuracies for the three

is no proven basis for determining the accumulative effect of loops in Figure 1.4c at 20 and 80% of flow rate and by evaluat-

component inaccuracies, and only an actual system calibra- ing the accumulated effect of component inaccuracies on the

tion can reliably establish the total loop inaccuracy. basis of one of two assumptions:

Still, we have learned the following from experience. We

know that, the fewer the number of components in an analog Basis 1 — Here, it is assumed that the inaccuracy of each

measurement loop, the better the loop’s performance. In dig- component is additive, and therefore the total loop inaccuracy

ital systems, no additional error seems to be introduced by is the sum of component inaccuracies (a very conservative

the addition of functional modules. basis).

It has also been reported that the averaging of the outputs

of several sensors that are detecting the same process variable Basis 2 — Here, the assumption is that the system inaccuracy

will reduce the measurement error. These reports suggest that is the same as the inaccuracy of the least accurate component

84 General Considerations

and therefore other inaccuracies can be neglected (a very TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE EFFECTS

optimistic assumption).

If Basis 1 is accepted for evaluating the total system error, If a sensor such as a d/p cell has been tested at temperatures

an orifice-type installation operating at 20% of full-scale flow and pressures that differ from the operating temperature and

will have an error of ±12% of the reading, although the inac- pressure, this will affect the total error. The total error includes

curacy of any component in the loop does not exceed ±0.5% FS. the d/p cell error (E), which is determined under atmospheric

The data in Table 1.4m is based on the performance of ambient conditions. Therefore, E reflects the linearity, repeat-

conventional d/p transmitters and on conventional magnetic ability, and hysteresis errors of the sensor.

flowmeters. With the newer, pulsed DC magnetic flowmeters, For the purposes of this example, it is assumed that E =

the error can be reduced to ±0.5% of actual flow over a 10:1 ±0.2% of actual span. Other factors that affect the total error

range. Similarly, if the intelligent, multiple-range d/p cells include the zero (Tz) and span shifts (Ts) that might occur as

are used, orifice measurement error can be reduced to ±1% a result of temperature variations. For a temperature variation

2

of actual flow over a 10:1 range. To achieve this level of of 100°F (55°C), Tz is assumed to be ±0.5% of maximum

performance, it is necessary to automatically switch the d/p range, while Ts is assumed to be ±0.5% of actual reading.

cell span from its “high” to its “low” setting, based on the The effect of changes in static pressure on the zero and

actual flow measurement. span are noted by Pz and Ps. They are evaluated as the con-

If the conventional magnetic flowmeters and d/p cells are sequence of the physical distortion caused by 2000 psig (138

considered, and if they are evaluated on a basis that is slightly bars) of operating pressure. For the purposes of this example,

more conservative than Basis 2 but less conservative than it will be assumed that Pz = ±0.25% of maximum range, and

Basis 1, the resulting loop errors are as shown in Figure 1.4n. Ps = ±0.5% of actual reading.

From the data in Table 1.4m and Figure 1.4n, it can be For the purposes of this example, assume a d/p cell with a

concluded that neither error nor inaccuracy is by any means maximum range of 0 to 750 in (0 to 19 m) H2O and an actual

a clearly defined single number and that the required range- span of 0 to 100 in (0 to 2.54 m) H2O. It is further assumed that

ability of the measurement has a substantial impact on perfor- the actual operating temperature of the d/p cell is within 50°F

mance. Therefore, a meaningful accuracy statement should (18°C) of the temperature at which the unit was calibrated and

answer the following questions: (1) What portion of the total that the actual operating pressure is 1000 psig (69 bars). When

error is the precision (random error) of the sensor? (2) Is the the process measurement is 100 in. (2.54 m) H2O, the above

sensor error based on full scale (FS) or on actual reading assumptions will result in the following error components:

(AR)? (3) Over what range of measurement values is the

error statement applicable? E =

±0.2%

Tz =

0.5 (750 in./100 in.) (50°F/100°F) = ±1.875%

Ts =

0.5 (50°F/100°F) = ±0.25%

Pz =

0.25 (1000 psig/2000 psig) (750 in./100 in.) =

System Inaccuracy Based ±0.9375%

on Actual Reading Ps = 0.5 (1000 psig/2000 psig) = ±0.25%

(± %)

5.0

If we calculate the total error (Et) as being the square

root of the sum of the square of the individual errors, the

result is:

4.0

Nonlinear

1.4(1)

2.0

Linear From the above example, one might note that the largest

1.0 contributions to the total error are the zero shifts caused by

Digital

the pressure and temperature differences between the cali-

Actual Flow

bration and the operating conditions. These errors can be

(GPM or %)

0 20 40 60 80 100 reduced by selecting a d/p cell with a maximum range that

is closer to the actual reading. One might also note that the

FIG. 1.4n

total error (Et) would have been even higher if the actual

Total loop inaccuracies as a function of sensor type and flow rate,

calculated on the basis of equation 1.4(1), where the total loop error measurement did not correspond to 100% of the actual span

is obtained by taking the square root of the sum of the component (100 in H2O), but only some fraction of it.

errors squared. (Accuracy in simple flow measurement. TI-1-30a. It should also be noted that the above Et value is not

The Foxboro Company.) the total measurement error of the loop but only the error

1.4 System Accuracy 85

contribution of the d/p cell. Finally, one should note that more accurate than the system being calibrated. (c) Peri-

one advantage of the “smart” transmitters is their ability to odic recalibration is a prerequisite to good control.

reduce the pressure and temperature effects on the span and 5. Instrumentation worth installing should also be worth

zero. Therefore, if E is ±0.1% in an intelligent transmitter, keeping in good condition. The performance of all sen-

the total error Et can be kept within about ±0.3%. sors is affected by corrosion, plugging, coating, and

process property variations. Therefore, scheduled main-

tenance is required to guarantee reliable operation.

REPEATABILITY VS. TOTAL ERROR In summary, (a) inaccuracy should be stated as a function

of rangeability, (b) multicomponent systems require system

Based on the information presented above, the following calibration, and (c) maintaining good performance requires

qualitative conclusions can be drawn: periodic recalibration and scheduled maintenance.

1. Inaccuracy is likely to be improved by reducing the

number of components in a measurement loop. References

2. Inaccuracy statements are meaningful only when given

in combination with rangeability. The wider the range- 1. Kemp, R. E., Accuracy for Engineers, Instrumentation Technology,

ability required (expected load variations), the more Inc., Painesville, Ohio.

inaccurate the measurement is likely to be. Furthermore, 2. Rudbäck, S., Optimization of orifice plates, venturies and nozzles,

the rangeability effect on digital systems is the least; it Meas. Control, June 1991.

increases when linear analog system are used, and it is

the highest in case of nonlinear analog systems.

Bibliography

3. On nonaccounting systems, the interest is focused on

repeatability (random error) and not on total inaccu- Applicable standards: DIN/IEC Standard #770 and ASME PTC19.1.

racy. The repeatability of most measurement loops is Englund, D. R., Loading Effects in Measurement Systems, Instrument and

several-fold better than their total error. Control Syst., February 1970, 63–68.

4. Instrumentation worth installing is usually also worth Shinskey, F. G., Estimating System Accuracy, Foxboro Publication #413–5,

calibrating. In this regard, several points should be Invensys Systems, Inc., Foxboro, MA.

Taylor, B. N. and Kuyatt, C. E., Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing

made: (a) The accuracy of a multicomponent system the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results, NIST Technical Note

is unknown unless it is calibrated as a system. (b) The 1297, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, 1994.

calibration equipment used must be at least three times Vom Berg, H., What is accuracy? Meas. Control, April 1991.

- EPA Method for PM10 Using High Volume Sampler - 1999Hochgeladen vonMark T Kennedy
- Cameron Scanner 2100 User ManualHochgeladen vonrositarosita
- Neo Crin All Info (1)Hochgeladen vonAspro Brazil Se Iglesias
- Manual Thermo Scientific SX30Hochgeladen vonJean Carlos da Silva
- sirs 2017 main panelHochgeladen vonapi-317229058
- Resistivity of Wire Electricity Conductor - Dana Santika - Physics - Ganesha University of EducationHochgeladen vonI Gede Dana Santika
- Flow Measurement Winter KennedyHochgeladen vonbcanilkumar007
- MagFlo, Pliant General Siemens, EnHochgeladen vonkojakxxx
- Syllabus of IET KKHANDARI AGRA 8 SEM EIHochgeladen vonatmadeep09
- Volumetric Mass Transfer CoefficientHochgeladen vonSiluvai Antony Praveen
- Energy BalanceHochgeladen vonMohd Faiz
- Controlling Fuel Gas to a Fired HeaterHochgeladen vonMuhammad Imran
- Exp.5#Venturimeter and OrificemeterHochgeladen vonPrince Singh
- CHAPTER 9 Metrology No BackgroundHochgeladen vonDaryl Hunt
- Flow ResistanceHochgeladen vonAnonymous CMS3dL1T
- CHAPTER 1Hochgeladen vonhari
- BU00A03B02-01E_120Hochgeladen vonSakenTorebekov
- 2 - Ming - Hydraulic Transport of Coarse Gravel–a Laboratory Investigation Into Flow ResistanceHochgeladen vonjose
- Flowmeters UK 051Hochgeladen vonrimi7al
- A-Simple-Inexpensive-Venturi-Experiment-Applying-the-Bernoulli-Balance-to-Determine-Flow-and-Permanent-Pressure-Loss.pdfHochgeladen vonGianne Nigelle Doria
- Mobi-DirHochgeladen vonpaf21
- Slurry-Tank.pdfHochgeladen vonAnonymous Hy5Ir9QX
- TP007 Real Time Flow Assurance ApplicationsHochgeladen vonVinh Phamthanh
- NOVA_CRCP_Accuracy Assessment and Monitoring for NOAA Florida Keys Mapping Roi2Hochgeladen vonOedha Wahidin
- 11 Guide for Staff Reports (1)Hochgeladen vonRich Lacorte
- 03-errorHochgeladen vonGabi Levente
- Lab Report FinalHochgeladen vonCiara Develos
- How to Find Least CountHochgeladen vonfahadmustafa
- PHY11 Lesson 9 Fluids in MotionHochgeladen vonIsrael Lives
- Postlab 1Hochgeladen vonPaul Coloyan

- Coliolis FlowmeterHochgeladen vonChu le Van
- 1083ch2_10..pdfHochgeladen vonShijumon Kp
- 1083ch1_5Hochgeladen vonJGlobex
- 1083ch1_3.pdfHochgeladen vonCezarina
- Dung sai cua Sensor cam bien.pdfHochgeladen vonChu le Van
- Overview of EstimatingHochgeladen vonChu le Van
- Handbook on Satellite CommunicationsHochgeladen vonapi-3807265

- Single Pile Capacity-R1Hochgeladen vonIman Rahmatullah
- Instruction Manual - Eaton Internormen CCT 01 Set - Contamination Control Transmitter, e, 1.9 (Data Manager 2) (1)Hochgeladen vonAnshuman Agrawal
- BMW i3Hochgeladen vonafmcr6825
- Search for VsHochgeladen vonHTM
- Hadoop in AxnHochgeladen vonkumar
- FDA-Food_Code-2017.pdfHochgeladen vonfitri widya
- REF 02Hochgeladen vonJosé Adelino
- Austroads - Guide to Bridge Technology Part 2 - MaterialsHochgeladen vontoddlbyrnes
- Bts3900-Bts3900a-Dbs3900 Wcdma v200r011c00spc100 Parameter ReferenceHochgeladen vonPuguh Hari Putranto
- Galaxy 5000 - Documentation MGEHochgeladen vondilo001
- SM01 Poster 101Hochgeladen vonlkamal
- FT-11.05 -01 -CASAPPA -Bomba de Engranajes -PLP30Hochgeladen vonCarlos Augusto Navarro Burgos
- Screw Build AKMS With Underfolder NotesHochgeladen vonAdam Hemsley
- ts_136331v140000pHochgeladen vongoldiedas
- 115wmsigHochgeladen vonfri_u
- Dbms ProjectHochgeladen vonnetfeast4u
- C++_Session7.pptHochgeladen vonwakeupsidcool
- 92302 ManualHochgeladen vonMano Negra
- GSM Weighing ScaleHochgeladen vonjamilrajib
- IMDS Instructions - CTT v3Hochgeladen vonPurushothama Nanje Gowda
- spotleak_1007.pdfHochgeladen vonrandhyalejandro
- Peplink_vs_Others.pdfHochgeladen vonJohn C. Young
- Thermiculite_835_SWGHochgeladen vonbapug98
- CC848836981 Pulsar Edge Product Manual r04.pdfHochgeladen vonDiogo Faria Lima
- Comtech CDM-570 Satellite ModemHochgeladen vonFEMIZZ12
- EIGRP TutorialHochgeladen vonFurqan Ali Khan
- IEC61850_SERV_Final0330Hochgeladen vonchitra_bala31422
- Tibco LogLogic Version 5.3 Administrator's GuideHochgeladen vonchucknp
- VisiLogic - Communications.pdfHochgeladen vonAleksandar Nikolovski
- is.12269.2013.pdfHochgeladen vonravi