Inst ToolsInst ToolsInst Tools
  • Courses
  • Automation
    • PLC
    • Control System
    • Safety System
    • Communication
    • Fire & Gas System
  • Instrumentation
    • Design
    • Pressure
    • Temperature
    • Flow
    • Level
    • Vibration
    • Analyzer
    • Control Valve
    • Switch
    • Calibration
    • Erection & Commissioning
  • Interview
    • Instrumentation
    • Electrical
    • Electronics
    • Practical
  • Q&A
    • Instrumentation
    • Control System
    • Electrical
    • Electronics
    • Analog Electronics
    • Digital Electronics
    • Power Electronics
    • Microprocessor
  • Request
Search
  • Books
  • Software
  • Projects
  • Process
  • Tools
  • Basics
  • Formula
  • Power Plant
  • Root Cause Analysis
  • Electrical Basics
  • Animation
  • Standards
  • 4-20 mA Course
  • Siemens PLC Course
Reading: Smart Transmitters LRV & URV
Share
Font ResizerAa
Inst ToolsInst Tools
Font ResizerAa
  • Courses
  • Design
  • PLC
  • Interview
  • Control System
Search
  • Courses
  • Automation
    • PLC
    • Control System
    • Safety System
    • Communication
    • Fire & Gas System
  • Instrumentation
    • Design
    • Pressure
    • Temperature
    • Flow
    • Level
    • Vibration
    • Analyzer
    • Control Valve
    • Switch
    • Calibration
    • Erection & Commissioning
  • Interview
    • Instrumentation
    • Electrical
    • Electronics
    • Practical
  • Q&A
    • Instrumentation
    • Control System
    • Electrical
    • Electronics
    • Analog Electronics
    • Digital Electronics
    • Power Electronics
    • Microprocessor
  • Request
Follow US
All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited.
Inst Tools > Blog > Calibration > Smart Transmitters LRV & URV

Smart Transmitters LRV & URV

Last updated: September 27, 2018 9:30 am
Editorial Staff
Calibration
2 Comments
Share
10 Min Read
SHARE

The advent of “smart” field instruments containing microprocessors has been a great advance for industrial instrumentation. These devices have built-in diagnostic ability, greater accuracy (due to digital compensation of sensor nonlinearities), and the ability to communicate digitally with host devices for reporting of various parameters.

A simplified block diagram of a “smart” pressure transmitter looks something like this:

SMART Transmitters Block Diagram

It is important to note all the adjustments within this device, and how this compares to the relative simplicity of an all-analog pressure transmitter:

Analog Transmitters Block Diagram

Note how the only calibration adjustments available in the analog transmitter are the “zero” and “span” settings. This is clearly not the case with smart transmitters. Not only can we set lower and upper-range values (LRV and URV) in a smart transmitter, but it is also possible to calibrate the analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converter circuits independently of each other. What this means for the calibration technician is that a full calibration procedure on a smart transmitter potentially requires more work and a greater number of adjustments than an all-analog transmitter.

A common mistake made among students and experienced technicians alike is to confuse the range settings (LRV and URV) for actual calibration adjustments. Just because you digitally set the LRV of a pressure transmitter to 0.00 PSI and the URV to 100.00 PSI does not necessarily mean it will register accurately at points within that range! The following example will illustrate this fallacy.

Suppose we have a smart pressure transmitter ranged for 0 to 100 PSI with an analog output range of 4 to 20 mA, but this transmitter’s pressure sensor is fatigued from years of use such that an actual applied pressure of 100 PSI generates a signal that the analog-to-digital converter interprets as only 96 PSI. Assuming everything else in the transmitter is in perfect condition, with perfect calibration, the output signal will still be in error:

Pressure Transmitters Block Diagram

As the saying goes, “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.” Here we see how the calibration of the most sophisticated pressure transmitter may be corrupted despite perfect calibration of both analog/digital converter circuits, and perfect range settings in the microprocessor. The microprocessor “thinks” the applied pressure is only 96 PSI, and it responds accordingly with a 19.36 mA output signal. The only way anyone would ever know this transmitter was inaccurate at 100 PSI is to actually apply a known value of 100 PSI fluid pressure to the sensor and note the incorrect response. The lesson here should be clear: digitally setting a smart instrument’s LRV and URV points does not constitute a legitimate calibration of the instrument.

For this reason, smart instruments always provide a means to perform what is called a digital trim on both the ADC and DAC circuits, to ensure the microprocessor “sees” the correct representation of the applied stimulus and to ensure the microprocessor’s output signal gets accurately converted into a DC current, respectively.

A convenient way to test a digital transmitter’s analog/digital converters is to monitor the microprocessor’s process variable (PV) and analog output (AO) registers while comparing the real input and output values against trusted calibration standards. A HART communicator device provides this “internal view” of the registers so we may see what the microprocessor “sees.” The following example shows a differential pressure transmitter with a sensor (analog-to-digital) calibration error:

Field Transmitter Error

Here, the calibration standard for pressure input to the transmitter is a digital pressure gauge, registering 25.00 inches of water column. The digital multimeter (DMM) is our calibration standard for the current output, and it registers 11.93 milliamps. Since we would expect an output of 12.00 milliamps at this pressure (given the transmitter’s range values of 0 to 50 inches W.C.), we immediately know from the pressure gauge and multimeter readings that some sort of calibration error exists in this transmitter.

Comparing the HART communicator’s displays of PV and AO against our calibration standards reveals more information about the nature of this error: we see that the AO value (11.930 mA) agrees with the multimeter while the PV value (24.781 ”W.C.) does not agree with the digital pressure gauge. This tells us the calibration error lies within the sensor (input) of the transmitter and not with the DAC (output). Thus, the correct calibration procedure to perform on this errant transmitter is a sensor trim.

In this next example, we see what an output (DAC) error would look like with another differential pressure transmitter subjected to the same test:

Field Transmitter Calibration Error

Once again, the calibration standard for pressure input to the transmitter is a digital pressure gauge, registering 25.00 inches of water column. A digital multimeter (DMM) still serves as our calibration standard for the current output, and it registers 11.93 milliamps. Since we expect 12.00 milliamps output at this pressure (given the transmitter’s range values of 0 to 50 inches W.C.), we immediately know from the pressure gauge and multimeter readings that some sort of calibration error exists in this transmitter (just as before).

Comparing the HART communicator’s displays of PV and AO against our calibration standards reveals more information about the nature of this error: we see that the PV value (25.002 inches W.C.) agrees with the digital pressure gauge while the AO value (12.001 mA) does not agree with the digital multimeter. This tells us the calibration error lies within the digital-to-analog converter (DAC) of the transmitter and not with the sensor (input). Thus, the correct calibration procedure to perform on this errant transmitter is an output trim.

Note how in both scenarios it was absolutely necessary to interrogate the transmitter’s microprocessor registers with a HART communicator to determine where the error was located. Merely comparing the pressure and current standards’ indications was not enough to tell us any more than the fact we had some sort of calibration error inside the transmitter. Not until we viewed the microprocessor’s own values of PV and AO could we determine whether the calibration error was related to the ADC (input), the DAC (output), or perhaps even both.

Sadly, I have witnessed technicians attempt to use the LRV and URV settings in a manner not unlike the zero and span adjustments on an analog transmitter to correct errors such as these. While it may be possible to get an out-of-calibration transmitter to yield correct output current signal values over its calibrated range of input values by skewing the LRV and URV settings, it defeats the purpose of having separate “trim” and “range” settings inside the transmitter.

Also, it causes confusion if ever the control system connected to the transmitter interrogates process variable values digitally rather than interpreting it via the 4-20 mA loop current signal. Finally, “calibrating” a transmitter by programming it with skewed LRV/URV settings corrupts the accuracy of any intentionally nonlinear functions such as square-root characterization (used for flow measurement applications) or strapping tables (used for liquid level measurement applications in vessels where the cross-sectional area varies with liquid height).

Once digital trims have been performed on both input and output converters, of course, the technician is free to re-range the microprocessor as many times as desired without re-calibration. This capability is particularly useful when re-ranging is desired for special conditions, such as process start-up and shut-down when certain process variables drift into uncommon regions. An instrument technician may use a hand-held HART communicator device to re-set the LRV and URV range values to whatever new values are desired by operations staff without having to re-check calibration by applying known physical stimuli to the instrument.

So long as the ADC and DAC trims are both correct, the overall accuracy of the instrument will still be good with the new range. With analog instruments, the only way to switch to a different measurement range was to change the zero and span adjustments, which necessitated the re-application of physical stimuli to the device (a full re-calibration). Here and here alone we see where calibration is not necessary for a smart instrument. If overall measurement accuracy must be verified, however, there is no substitute for an actual physical calibration, and this entails both ADC and DAC “trim” procedures for a smart instrument.

Completely digital (“Fieldbus”) transmitters are similar to “smart” analog-output transmitters with respect to distinct trim and range adjustments.

Don't Miss Our Updates
Be the first to get exclusive content straight to your email.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
You've successfully subscribed !

Continue Reading

Solenoid Valve Functional Testing
Flow Meter Calibration
What is Sensor Trim and Output Trim in Smart Transmitter?
Impulse Line Pressure Testing Procedure
Difference between Accuracy, Tolerance, Uncertainty, and Error
Calibration : Up-tests and Down-tests
Share This Article
Facebook Whatsapp Whatsapp LinkedIn Copy Link
Share
2 Comments
  • A. Chakraborty says:
    December 16, 2017 at 10:18 am

    When I zero trim a smart dp transmitter measuring flow what actually happens?

    Reply
  • Shahzad ali says:
    April 4, 2018 at 9:09 am

    Very good

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Stay Connected

128.3kFollowersLike
69.1kFollowersFollow
210kSubscribersSubscribe
38kFollowersFollow

Categories

Explore More

Different Types of Temperature Calibrators
RTD Testing Methods in Calibration Laboratory
Calibration of Pyrometers using Black Body
How to Calibrate Load Cells in Weighing Applications?
Hydrogen Sulfide Gas Detector Calibration Procedure
Selection of Weighing Balance and Weight for Calibration
Functional Testing of Control Valve Positioners
Instrument Calibration Lab Exercise

Keep Learning

Weighing Balance Calibration

Calibration Procedure of Weighing Balance and Common Mistakes

DeadWeight Tester

DeadWeight Tester Questions

Portable Gas Detectors Calibration Procedure

Portable Gas Detectors Calibration Procedure

How to Calibrate pH Electrode?

How to Calibrate pH Electrode?

Fieldbus Flow Transmitter Configuration

Fieldbus Flow Transmitter Configuration

Closed-tank-DP-Level-Transmitter-with-wet-leg-elevation-zero-direct-mount-Calibration

Closed tank DP Level Transmitter with wet leg elevation zero direct mount Calibration

pH Analyzer Calibration and Troubleshooting

pH Analyzer Calibration and Troubleshooting

Methods of Measurement

Methods of Measurement

Learn More

Electrical Machines Questions and Answers

DC Machines Excitation Quiz

Dry Contact in PLC

What is a Dry Contact? – Basics of PLC Wiring

Strain Gauge Bridge Circuit

Something is Wrong with Strain Gauge Bridge Circuit

Baffle Nozzle Assembly Sensitive Mechanism

Baffle Nozzle Assembly Sensitive Mechanism

interface-level-measurement-need

Level Measurement Terminology

Practical Process Control System Questions

Process Control Loop Testing

2-wire loop-powered transmitter

Loop Controller HART Signal Noise

Electrical and Instrumentation Maintenance Test

Electrical and Instrumentation Test

Menu

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright

Quick Links

  • Learn PLC
  • Helping Hand
  • Part Time Job

YouTube Subscribe

Follow US
All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is prohibited.
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?