Wednesday, May 23, 2018

IAM Search

LRV and URV Settings, Digital Trim (Digital Transmitters)

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:

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:


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 transmitter1.

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 PSI2. Assuming everything else in the transmitter is in perfect condition, with perfect calibration, the output signal will still be in error:


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.

I have witnessed some technicians 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 this. Following this methodology, we would have to set the URV of the fatigued transmitter to 96 PSI instead of 100 PSI, so an applied pressure of 100 PSI would give us the 20 mA output signal we desire. In other words, we would let the microprocessor “think” it was only seeing 96 PSI, then skew the URV so it outputs the correct signal anyway. Such an approach will work to an extent, but any digital queries to the transmitter (e.g. using a digital-over-analog protocol such as HART) will result in conflicting information, as the current signal represents full scale (100 PSI) while the digital register inside the transmitter shows 96 PSI. The only comprehensive solution to this problem is to “trim” the analog-to-digital converter so the transmitter’s microprocessor “knows” the actual pressure value applied to the sensor.

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 digital “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 fine, 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 recalibration). 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. For an explanation of calibration and ranging on FOUNDATION Fieldbus transmitters, refer to H1 FOUNDATION Fieldbus Device Configuration and Commissioning beginning on Calibration and ranging.

1Although those adjustments made on a digital transmitter tend to be easier to perform than repeated zero-and-span adjustments on analog transmitters due to the inevitable “interaction” between analog zero and span adjustments requiring repeated checking and re-adjustment during the calibration period.

2A 4% calibration error caused by sensor aging is enormous for any modern digital transmitter, and should be understood as an exaggeration presented only for the sake of illustrating how sensor error affects overall calibration in a smart transmitter. A more realistic amount of sensor error due to aging would be expressed in small fractions of a percent.


Click here to continue reading to the next page, Calibration Procedures

Click here to go back to the previous page, Damping Adjustments

Go Back to Lessons in Instrumentation Table of Contents

Comments (0)Add Comment

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters



  • ...more


Important: All images are copyrighted to their respective owners. All content cited is derived from their respective sources.

Contact us for information and your inquiries. IAMechatronics is open to link exchanges.

IAMechatronics Login