1.
4 System Accuracy*
B. G. LIPTÁK (1982, 1995, 2003)
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
Accuracy (Webster). Freedom from error or the absence of
error. Syn. precision, correctness, exactness. (In this
sense, the term is a qualitative, not quantitative, concept.)
Accuracy (ISA). In process instrumentation, degree of con-
formity of an indicated value to a recognized accepted
standard value, or ideal value.
Accuracy, measured (ISA). The maximum positive and
negative deviation observed in testing a device under
specified conditions and by a specified procedure.
Accuracy of measurement (NIST). Closeness of the
agreement between the result of a measurement and
the value of the measurand…. Because accuracy is
a quantitative concept, one should not use it quan-
titatively or associate numbers with it. (NIST also
advises that neither precision nor inaccuracy should
be used in place of accuracy.)
Error (ISA). In process instrumentation, the algebraic dif-
ference between the indication and the ideal value
of the measured signal. It is the quantity that, alge-
braically subtracted from the indication, gives the
ideal value.
Range (ISA). The region between the limits within which
a quantity is measured, received, or transmitted,
expressed by stating the lower and upper range values.
Rangeability (recommended by IEH). Rangeability of a
sensor is the measurement range over which the error
statement, in the units of a percentage of actual read-
ing, is guaranteed.
Repeatability (ISA). The closeness of agreement among a
number of consecutive measurements of the output
for the same value of the input under the same oper-
ating conditions, approaching from the same direc-
tion, for full-range traverses.
Repeatability (NIST). Closeness of agreement between
the results of successive measurements of the same
measurand carried out under the same conditions of
measurement .... Repeatability may be expressed
quantitatively in terms of the dispersion character-
istics of the results.
* Used with permission of the Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society.
78
© 2003 by Béla Lipták
Reproducibility (ISA). In process instrumentation, the
closeness of agreement among repeated measure-
ments of the output for the same value of input
made under the same operating conditions over a
period of time, approaching from both directions.
Reproducibility (NIST). Closeness of agreement between
the results of measurements of the same measurand
carried out under changed conditions of measurement.
Uncertainty (Webster). A feeling of unsureness about
something.
Uncertainty (IEH Section 1.5). Measurement uncertainty is
expressed to a confidence level of 95%, and it is the
limit to which an error may extend.
Language, Terminology, and Reality
The guide titled International Vocabulary of Basic and Gen-
eral Terms in Metrology (commonly referred to as VIM ) was
published by ISO in the name of seven organizations and
contains the VIM definitions of 24 terms relevant to measure-
ment and accuracy. So, from a theoretical point of view, we
do have standards and internationally agreed upon definitions.
But the reality in the average industrial plant is different,
and this Instrument Engineers’ Handbook is written for the
average instrumentation and control (I&C) engineer in those
plants. Therefore, when we quantify an error herein, which
one should expect when making a measurement with a par-
ticular instrument, we will not (yet) use terms such as uncer-
tainty but will try to stay on familiar grounds. On the other
hand, we will try to take a step in the right direction by
improving the clarity of our language.
When an instrument is specified to have ±1% accuracy,
people do not expect it to have 99% error! The intended mean-
ing of that statement is ±1% inaccuracy or a ±1% error relative
to some reference standard. It is important to emphasize the
role of a reference standard in all measurements, as we humans
are incapable of measuring anything in the absolute. All we
can do is compare an unknown quantity to a known one and
determine which is larger or smaller and by how much. The
presence of a reference also means that a measurement can be
in error not only because the sensor is inaccurate but also
because the reference has drifted or was inaccurate to start with.
 1.4 System Accuracy 79

CLARIFYING THE “ACCURACY” STATEMENT ±

Bias

In a volume dealing with process measurement, no subject

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

is inherent in all measurement. Good control is possible only

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.

© 2003 by Béla Lipták

80 General Considerations
Repeatability
Random Error
(Precision)
Systematic
Error
(Bias)
Total
Illegitimate Error
Error (Inaccuracy)
FIG. 1.4b
Accuracy terminology.
The distance between the mean impact of the nine bullets
and the bull’s-eye of the target is the systematic error. This
error (caused by the wind or by the faulty adjustments of the
sights) is repeatable and can be eliminated (in case of sensors,
by calibration or by rezeroing; in case of the shooter, by
waiting until the wind stops or by readjusting the sights). This
error is not related to the shooter’s inability to duplicate his
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
element, a known composition analytical sample, or dead
weights.
The shot in the lower left-hand corner of the target is an
illegitimate error, which is caused by blunders and can be
totally eliminated.
The total error in a measurement can thus be defined as
the sum of the random error and the systematic error or bias.
If the purpose of an installation is to maintain the process
conditions at previously experienced levels, and there is no
interest in their true values, then the goal is to reduce the
random error, without paying much attention to the remaining
bias. In many industrial installations, such a repeatable (but
inaccurate) measurement is sufficient.
Conversely, if the interest is in determining the true value
of the measurement, because the installation serves such
absolute purposes as accounting or quality control, the repeat-
able measurement is insufficient, and attention must be con-
centrated on absolute (total) accuracy. This can be obtained
only through the reduction of both the random and the sys-
tematic errors, which is usually achieved by recalibration.
© 2003 by Béla Lipták
THE ACCURACY STATEMENT
The accuracy of a product category (sensors, transmitters,
and so on) is established on the basis of testing large numbers
of these products. For the more important sensors, the accu-
1
racy statements should also include information on testing.
An example of such a statement is quoted below from a
National Bureau of Standards Calibration Certificate for a
turbine flowmeter:
The results given are the arithmetic mean of ten separate
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.
Figure 1.4a illustrates the results of such a test. In that test,
the precision (half of repeatability) of 68% of the devices tested
has been found to be ±1% of the true value, while, for 95%
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
calibration and rezeroing, but the precision (or repeatability)
cannot, it would be desirable if manufacturers identified both
of these values. Manufacturers should also state if the basis of
this data is 68, 95, or 100% of the devices tested. To allow the
I&C profession to mature, manufacturers should eliminate
“specmanship” from their sales literature, so that users can
“compare apples with apples” when making a selection.
FLOW MEASUREMENT EXAMPLE
Figure 1.4c illustrates three flow sensors installed in series
in the same process pipe, with each measurement signal being
totalized. All three flow sensors are sized for the same full
range of 100 GPM (380 l/min) flow rate. The goal of this
example is to illustrate how the total system error is determined
at the flow rates of 20 GPM (76 l/min) and 80 GPM (304
l/min) in two different cases. In Case 1, the basic assumption
is that the component errors are additive. In Case 2, the assump-
tion is that the total system error will be the error of the least
precise component in the system. Errors introduced by counter-
totalizers, which is usually one count, will be neglected.
For the purposes of the example of Figure 1.4c, the mag-
netic flowmeter, transmitters, and integrators will all have
±0.5% full-scale (FS) error. The orifice plate will be assumed
to have an inaccuracy of ±0.5% of rate and the error of the
turbine flowmeter will be assumed to have an inaccuracy of
±0.25%. (The orientation table in Chapter 2 [Table 2.1b]
provides complete data for all flow sensors, including their
performance characteristics.)
 1.4 System Accuracy 81

Scaler Flow Sensor

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)

Linear Nonlinear Linear 20

Analog Analog Digital
System System System Actual Flow
(Magnetic (Orifice (Turbine 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 (GPM or %)
Flowmeter) Plate) Flowmeter)

FIG. 1.4c FIG. 1.4d

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 %)

Analog and Linear Devices—Traditional FIG. 1.4e

Magnetic Flowmeters
The performance of a linear analog flow sensor, such as a
magnetic flowmeter, is shown in Figure 1.4d. The line
marked “actual” represents the relationship between the
actual flow and the output signal generated by the flow sensor.
Figure 1.4e illustrates this error as a percentage of full scale
(FS), with the error limits being ±0.5% FS.
In Figure 1.4f, the same ±0.5% FS sensor performance
is illustrated, but against a vertical coordinate that is a per-
centage of actual flow units (instead of full scale). The spe-
cific detector performance is likely to be better at most points
of its range than what these error limits would imply. The
main message is that, for sensor with percent-FS perfor-
mance, the measurement error increases as the flow rate
drops, as shown in Figure 1.4g.
Error plot for a percentage of full-scale flow sensor.
It should be noted that the performance described here
is representative of the older designs of magnetic flowmeters,
which continuously maintained their magnetic fields. In the
newer designs, the field is cycled on and off, and the sensor
can be automatically rezeroed, so the measurement error can
be reduced. Therefore, the inaccuracy of these newer mag-
netic flowmeters can approach ±0.5% of actual flow.
Analog, Nonlinear—Orifice Plates
The orifice plate itself is rather accurate and is a percent-of-
actual-flow sensor, having an error limit of ±0.5% of actual
flow rate, as shown in Figure 1.4h.

© 2003 by Béla Lipták

82 General Considerations

Flow Sensor Error Inaccuracy Based on

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 pressure drop through an orifice relates to the square
of the flowing velocity or volumetric flow rate through the
orifice plate. Figure 1.4i illustrates both, i.e., this ideal non-
linear (square root) relationship and the actual performance
of a specific differential-pressure (d/p) cell used in an orifice
type, nonlinear flow sensor.
To the error contribution of the orifice plate shown in
Figure 1.4h (±0.5% of actual flow rate), one must add the error
of the differential-pressure transmitter shown in Figure 1.4i
(±0.5% FS). In addition, when the square root must be
extracted before the signal can be integrated (Figure 1.4c),
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
higher flow rates but degrades it as the flow rate is reduced.
Digital Linear—Turbine Flowmeter
The calibration of a turbine meter in terms of the K factor,
given in units of pulses per gallon, is rather similar to the
calibration curve of an orifice plate (Figure 1.4k). The inaccu-
racy of a turbine meter is also in units of percentage of the
actual flow and is rather constant over a fairly wide range of
flows. Turbine flowmeter inaccuracy can be improved by
reducing the rangeability requirement of the unit (Figure 1.4l).

© 2003 by Béla Lipták

 1.4 System Accuracy 83

Inaccuracy Based on Inaccuracy Based

Actual Reading on Actual Reading
(± %) (± %)

5 2.5

4 2.0

3 1.5
Nonlinear

2 1.0

Linear ± 0.5% at 30:1 Rangeability

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 %)

FIG. 1.4j FIG. 1.4l

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

Turbine Meter TABLE 1.4m

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

Mean K Analog, linear ±9.0% ±1.5% ±3.0% ±0.5%

(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
Turbine flowmeter calibration curve.
Combined System Accuracy
Having reviewed the inaccuracies of the three flow sensors
and the various loop components shown in Figure 1.4c, the
next step is to evaluate the resulting total loop errors. There
is no proven basis for determining the accumulative effect of
component inaccuracies, and only an actual system calibra-
tion can reliably establish the total loop inaccuracy.
Still, we have learned the following from experience. We
know that, the fewer the number of components in an analog
measurement loop, the better the loop’s performance. In dig-
ital systems, no additional error seems to be introduced by
the addition of functional modules.
It has also been reported that the averaging of the outputs
of several sensors that are detecting the same process variable
will reduce the measurement error. These reports suggest that
the error is reduced by the square root of the number of sensors
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
so on).
Without actual system calibration, the evaluation of the
overall loop accuracy must be based on some assumptions.
Table 1.4m summarizes the system inaccuracies for the three
loops in Figure 1.4c at 20 and 80% of flow rate and by evaluat-
ing the accumulated effect of component inaccuracies on the
basis of one of two assumptions:
Basis 1 — Here, it is assumed that the inaccuracy of each
component is additive, and therefore the total loop inaccuracy
is the sum of component inaccuracies (a very conservative
basis).
Basis 2 — Here, the assumption is that the system inaccuracy
is the same as the inaccuracy of the least accurate component

© 2003 by Béla Lipták

84 General Considerations
and therefore other inaccuracies can be neglected (a very
optimistic assumption).
If Basis 1 is accepted for evaluating the total system error,
an orifice-type installation operating at 20% of full-scale flow
will have an error of ±12% of the reading, although the inac-
curacy of any component in the loop does not exceed ±0.5% FS.
The data in Table 1.4m is based on the performance of
conventional d/p transmitters and on conventional magnetic
flowmeters. With the newer, pulsed DC magnetic flowmeters,
the error can be reduced to ±0.5% of actual flow over a 10:1
range. Similarly, if the intelligent, multiple-range d/p cells
are used, orifice measurement error can be reduced to ±1%
2
of actual flow over a 10:1 range. To achieve this level of
performance, it is necessary to automatically switch the d/p
cell span from its “high” to its “low” setting, based on the
actual flow measurement.
If the conventional magnetic flowmeters and d/p cells are
considered, and if they are evaluated on a basis that is slightly
more conservative than Basis 2 but less conservative than
Basis 1, the resulting loop errors are as shown in Figure 1.4n.
From the data in Table 1.4m and Figure 1.4n, it can be
concluded that neither error nor inaccuracy is by any means
a clearly defined single number and that the required range-
ability of the measurement has a substantial impact on perfor-
mance. Therefore, a meaningful accuracy statement should
answer the following questions: (1) What portion of the total
error is the precision (random error) of the sensor? (2) Is the
sensor error based on full scale (FS) or on actual reading
(AR)? (3) Over what range of measurement values is the
error statement applicable?
System Inaccuracy Based
on Actual Reading
(± %)
5.0
4.0
3.0
Nonlinear
2.0
Linear
1.0
Digital
Actual Flow
(GPM or %)
0 20 40 60 80 100
FIG. 1.4n
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
is obtained by taking the square root of the sum of the component
errors squared. (Accuracy in simple flow measurement. TI-1-30a.
The Foxboro Company.)
© 2003 by Béla Lipták
TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE EFFECTS
If a sensor such as a d/p cell has been tested at temperatures
and pressures that differ from the operating temperature and
pressure, this will affect the total error. The total error includes
the d/p cell error (E), which is determined under atmospheric
ambient conditions. Therefore, E reflects the linearity, repeat-
ability, and hysteresis errors of the sensor.
For the purposes of this example, it is assumed that E =
±0.2% of actual span. Other factors that affect the total error
include the zero (Tz) and span shifts (Ts) that might occur as
a result of temperature variations. For a temperature variation
of 100°F (55°C), Tz is assumed to be ±0.5% of maximum
range, while Ts is assumed to be ±0.5% of actual reading.
The effect of changes in static pressure on the zero and
span are noted by Pz and Ps. They are evaluated as the con-
sequence of the physical distortion caused by 2000 psig (138
bars) of operating pressure. For the purposes of this example,
it will be assumed that Pz = ±0.25% of maximum range, and
Ps = ±0.5% of actual reading.
For the purposes of this example, assume a d/p cell with a
maximum range of 0 to 750 in (0 to 19 m) H2O and an actual
span of 0 to 100 in (0 to 2.54 m) H2O. It is further assumed that
the actual operating temperature of the d/p cell is within 50°F
(18°C) of the temperature at which the unit was calibrated and
that the actual operating pressure is 1000 psig (69 bars). When
the process measurement is 100 in. (2.54 m) H2O, the above
assumptions will result in the following error components:
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.) =
±0.9375%
Ps = 0.5 (1000 psig/2000 psig) = ±0.25%
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:
Et = (0.22 + 1.8752 + 0.252 + 0.93752 + 0.252 ) = ± 2.13%
1.4(1)
From the above example, one might note that the largest
contributions to the total error are the zero shifts caused by
the pressure and temperature differences between the cali-
bration and the operating conditions. These errors can be
reduced by selecting a d/p cell with a maximum range that
is closer to the actual reading. One might also note that the
total error (Et) would have been even higher if the actual
measurement did not correspond to 100% of the actual span
(100 in H2O), but only some fraction of it.
It should also be noted that the above Et value is not
the total measurement error of the loop but only the error

contribution of the d/p cell. Finally, one should note that
one advantage of the “smart” transmitters is their ability to
reduce the pressure and temperature effects on the span and
zero. Therefore, if E is ±0.1% in an intelligent transmitter,
the total error Et can be kept within about ±0.3%.
REPEATABILITY VS. TOTAL ERROR
Based on the information presented above, the following
qualitative conclusions can be drawn:
1. Inaccuracy is likely to be improved by reducing the
number of components in a measurement loop.
2. Inaccuracy statements are meaningful only when given
in combination with rangeability. The wider the range-
ability required (expected load variations), the more
inaccurate the measurement is likely to be. Furthermore,
the rangeability effect on digital systems is the least; it
increases when linear analog system are used, and it is
the highest in case of nonlinear analog systems.
3. On nonaccounting systems, the interest is focused on
repeatability (random error) and not on total inaccu-
racy. The repeatability of most measurement loops is
several-fold better than their total error.
4. Instrumentation worth installing is usually also worth
calibrating. In this regard, several points should be
made: (a) The accuracy of a multicomponent system
is unknown unless it is calibrated as a system. (b) The
calibration equipment used must be at least three times
© 2003 by Béla Lipták
1.4 System Accuracy 85
more accurate than the system being calibrated. (c) Peri-
odic recalibration is a prerequisite to good control.
5. Instrumentation worth installing should also be worth
keeping in good condition. The performance of all sen-
sors is affected by corrosion, plugging, coating, and
process property variations. Therefore, scheduled main-
tenance is required to guarantee reliable operation.
In summary, (a) inaccuracy should be stated as a function
of rangeability, (b) multicomponent systems require system
calibration, and (c) maintaining good performance requires
periodic recalibration and scheduled maintenance.
References
1. Kemp, R. E., Accuracy for Engineers, Instrumentation Technology,
Inc., Painesville, Ohio.
2. Rudbäck, S., Optimization of orifice plates, venturies and nozzles,
Meas. Control, June 1991.
Bibliography
Applicable standards: DIN/IEC Standard #770 and ASME PTC19.1.
Englund, D. R., Loading Effects in Measurement Systems, Instrument and
Control Syst., February 1970, 63–68.
Shinskey, F. G., Estimating System Accuracy, Foxboro Publication #413–5,
Invensys Systems, Inc., Foxboro, MA.
Taylor, B. N. and Kuyatt, C. E., Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing
the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results, NIST Technical Note
1297, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, 1994.
Vom Berg, H., What is accuracy? Meas. Control, April 1991.