Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
4 System Accuracy*
B. G. LIPTÁK (1982, 1995, 2003)
78
© 2003 by Béla Lipták
1.4 System Accuracy 79
Ideal
40
Flow
FEM
(0−100 GPM)
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 %)
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).
5 2.5
4 2.0
3 1.5
Nonlinear
2 1.0
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
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
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
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
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.