Comparing Transmitter

Performance Using Total

TPE
Probable Error

Reference-65 Reference-65
 Comparing Transmitter Performance Using Total Probable Error
INTRODUCTION
When choosing transmitters, how do you know
which one will be the best for the job? Will a
particular type of transmitter fit every application?
Will its performance be consistent from one
application to another? How do you decide?
The directory of the Instrument Society of America
lists 66 manufacturers of electronic differential
pressure transmitters. This is a significant number
TPE
of transmitter specifications to review.
Along with the basic function and features of the
transmitters, the accuracy specification is the most
common one used to narrow the choices. To choose
transmitters in today’s demanding marketplace, you
need to look critically at other specifications and be
able to compare them on equal terms between
various transmitters. With the choices for
transmitters ranging from low-cost throwaway
transmitters through smart transmitters,
consistently comparing various transmitter
performances for a particular application becomes
even more important in the selection process.
A method for doing a consistent performance
comparison between various transmitters is to do a
total probable error analysis based on the published
performance specifications of each transmitter. This
analysis gives a reliable indication of the
performance that can be expected of a transmitter.
Although both reliability and performance of a
transmitter are dependent on the design, they are
not interchangeable and reliability should be
considered separately from performance.
Which specifications are important?
In order to determine which specifications are
important in the transmitter comparison, you need
to look first at the application and determine to what
conditions the transmitter will be exposed. Will the
process temperature or the ambient temperature
vary? Will a differential transmitter be exposed to
high line pressures? Will the line pressure vary? Will
the power supply vary a great deal and if so, will it
affect the transmitter’s output? Will the transmitter
be located where it will be exposed to a lot of
vibration? Will output noise be a problem?
These are all factors which can have an effect on
the transmitter’s performance. These are also
factors which commonly will have a performance
specification written around them. If a
manufacturer does not list a certain specification, it
does not always mean the transmitter is unaffected
by that condition. Call the manufacturer and ask
how the transmitter performs under that condition if
it is felt to be a critical parameter of the application.
Reference-66
This does not mean that every specification on a
data sheet needs to be included in a comparison.
What to include depends entirely upon the
application. The important point is to be consistent
and to compare the same set of specifications for
each transmitter.
Reading the specifications
Once you have all the pertinent specifications, you
need to compare them equally among the various
transmitters. Equal comparisons require that you
need more than the numerical portion of the
specification. You need to read the wording that goes
along with the number. Is the specification
expressed as 0.2% of calibrated span, 0.2% of URL,
or 0.2% of reading? Per 50°F, per 50°C, or per 100°F?
For example, suppose you are looking at a 0.2%
accurate transmitter that has an Upper Range Limit
(URL) of 150 inH2 O. You will be calibrating it to
0-100 inH2 O and typically reading it at 80 inH2 O. If
the transmitter’s accuracy specifications is read as:
0.2% of calibrated span, then the reading will be
80 ± 0.3 in H2 O (0.2% of 100 inH2 O = 0.2 inH2 O)
0.2% of URL, then the reading will be 80 ±0.16
inH2 O (0.2% of 150 inH2O = 0.3 inH2 O)
0.2% of reading, then the reading will be 80
±0.16 inH2 O (0.2% of 80 inH2 O = 0.16 inH2 O)
As you can see, there is quite a bit of difference
between these transmitters which all have “0.2%
accuracy.” The only time these errors are all equal is
when the transmitter is calibrated and read at the
upper range limit.
±0.2% of
Reading
Milliamps
±0.2% of Calibrated Span
±0.2% of Upper Range Limit
Pressure
FIGURE 1. Error as Percent of Span or Reading.
What are the different types of errors that
may be seen?
When reading specifications, you may find them
expressed as a variety of errors. These are all
reflections of how the performance is affected. The
three types of error commonly used in data sheets
are: zero error, span error, and systematic error. An
unmentioned one is turndown error.

Zero error is a shift of a constant magnitude
between the measured variable and the ideal variable.
It is normally measured at the zero reference point.
With this error, the starting point of the measured
curve is offset slightly and thus causes the entire
curve to be offset by an equal amount.
4–20 mA OUTPUT
4–20 mA OUTPUT
4–20 mA OUTPUT
Ideal Span
0 to 100 inH2O input
Span error is the difference between the actual span
and the ideal span. With this type of error, the actual
span may be slightly larger or smaller than the ideal
span. The variables within the curve then would be
proportionately larger or smaller.
4–20 mA OUTPUT
4–20 mA OUTPUT
4–20 mA OUTPUT
Ideal Span
0 to 100 inH2O input
Zero and span error are sometimes expressed together
as a total error. This implies a maximum amount of
error that the measurement could have. It does not
necessarily mean that the two errors will be both in
the same direction, nor does it mean that they are
divided equally.
A systematic error is one that occurs during a
number of measurements made under the same
conditions and to the same magnitude. It is a
predictable, repeatable error.
Turndown error can occur when the transmitter is
used at a span other than its maximum span. It can
be expected to occur when the specification is
expressed as a percentage of upper range limit (URL)
or a percentage of maximum span. Turndown error is
proportional in magnitude to the amount of turndown.
It is a constant error along the whole range of the
measurement. It is the same for all readings.
If an error, such as temperature effect, is
expressed on a data sheet as 0.2% of URL and the
URL of the transmitter is 150 inH2O, then at 150
inH2 O, the error would be at 0.2% of URL (150) or
±0.3 inH2 O. This equates to 0.2% of the actual
reading. If the same transmitter is read or calibrated
at 50 inH2 O, the error would still be ±0.3 inH2 O, but
at that reading, the error is ±0.6% of the reading.
Manufacturers may use any or all of the above
terms when citing transmitter specifications; thus it
is imperative the entire specification is read and
understood when evaluating transmitters.
Rosemount Inc.
Error sources
Sources of errors for the transmitters are found in
the process conditions. Temperature and static
pressure are the two most common error sources and
the largest ones. They will be discussed below. Other
error sources which occasionally occur are vibration,
power supply changes, and RFI. Any of these can
affect the overall performance.
A high static pressure can create some
performance errors. Often, the zero effect can be
TPE
calibrated out under a stable line pressure, leaving
only the span error, which may or may nor be
systematic. When static pressure varies, however,
the zero error becomes more important and should
be considered in the overall performance.
Temperature error can result from both process
and ambient temperature changes. Generally,
process temperature is usually stable while ambient
fluctuates. It is not always simple to determine
which one causes the temperature effect errors. It is
a fairly simple matter though, to re-zero a
transmitter after it has reached operating
temperatures, assuming the process temperature is
constant. This would eliminate the zero error and
leave only the span error. The transmitter is still
subject to ambient temperature changes.
An example of the effect to temperature and static
pressure is as follows:
On the bench, a transmitter is calibrated 0 to 100
inH2 0 at 75°F and no static pressure. The accuracy is
±0.2% of span giving an error of ±0.2 inH2 0. The
transmitter will be used at a line pressure of 1500 psi and
in a location where the temperature may vary by 50°F.
The error contributed by a 50°F temperature
change from calibration conditions is predicted by its
temperature effect specification of ±1.0% span/
100°F. This yields an additional error of ±0.5 inH2 0
(1% of 100 inH2 0 50/100)/ The error contributed by a
line pressure of 1500 psi is predicted per 1000 psi.
This yields another error of ±0.37 inH2 0 (0.25% of
100 inH2 0 1500/1000). If we were to add all these up,
there is a worst case error of:
Error allowed within accuracy limits:
±0.2 inH2 0
+ error contributed by 50°F temperature shift:
±0.5 inH2 0
+ error contributed by 1500 psi static pressure:
±0.37 inH2 0
= Worst case error
±1.07 inH2 0
This error is much worse than the expected
accuracy of ±0.2 inH2 0. A worst case error (total
error) assumes that the errors will all be at the
maximum amount in the same direction. This is
unlikely to happen and would not represent typical
performance of a transmitter.
Reference-67
 Comparing Transmitter Performance Using Total Probable Error

Overall Performance variables (specifications) are independent of each

In order to tie all these specifications together in a
meaningful and complete term, an overall
performance profile of the transmitter needs to be
determined. This is done by using a root-sum-square
technique to determine a total probable error. The
total probable error is a more realistic number than
would be obtained by simply adding up all the
possible errors, since it is unlikely that all the errors
would go in the same direction (+ or -) from their
TPE
other and that the mean of each error term is zero.
When combining all the error factors, the units of
measure must all be the same. For example, compare
the two transmitters shown in the example
calculation below.
Using the root-sum-square method, it becomes
evident that Transmitter A would be better choice for
that application even though the numbers associated

with Transmitter B appear better. If the transmitters

means. The root-sum-square (RSS) method were to be used at the upper range limit, then
determines the total probable error by summing the Transmitter B would be the better choice (1.56% for
squares of the individual errors and taking the Transmitter B vs. 1.67% for Transmitter A)
square root of the total. It is assuming that the

List Transmitter Specifications

SPECIFICATIONS TRANSMITTER A TRANSMITTER B
Upper Range Limit (URL) 300 inH2O 300 inH2 O
Accuracy 0.2% of span 0.1% 0f URL
Temperature Effect
Zero 0.5% of URL per 100°F
Span 0.5% of span per 100°F
Total* 1.0% of URL per 100°F
Static Pressure Effect
Zero 0.25% of URL per 2000 psi 0.25% of URL per 2000psi
Span 0.25% of reading per 1000 psi 0.25% of span per 1000 psi
Total*

Define Operating Conditions

Calibrated Span 0 to 100 inH2O
Expected Temperature Change 50 °F
Expected Static Change 500 psig
Expected Reading 75 inH2 O

Convert all of the errors into common terms:

SPECIFICATIONS TRANSMITTER A TRANSMITTER B
Accuracy 0.2% 3 100 = ± 0.2 inH2 O 0.1% 3 300 = ± 0.3 inH2 O
Temperature Effect
Zero 0.5% 3 300 3 50/100 = ± 0.75 inH2 O
Span 0.5% 3 100 3 50/100 = ± 0.25 inH2 O
Total* 0.75 + 0.25 = ± 1.00 inH2O 1.0% 3 300 3 50/100 = ± 1.5 inH2O
Static Pressure Effect
Zero 0.25% 3 300 3 500/2000 = ± 0.19 inH2 O 0.25% 3 300 3 500/2000 = ± 0.19 inH2 O
Span 0.25% 3 75 3 500/1000 = ± 0.094 inH2 O 0.25% 3 100 3 500/1000 = ± 0.12 inH2 O
Total*

__________________
Calculate Total Probable Error (TPE =√ A2 + B2 + C2...)
TRANSMITTER A TRANSMITTER B
________________________________ ________________________________
√ (0.2) + (1.00) + (0.19) + (0.094) = ± 1.04 inH2 O
2 2 2 2
√ (0.3) + (1.5) + (0.19)2 + (0.12)2 = ± 1.55 inH2 O
2 2

TPE = ± 1.04% for 100 inH2 O span TPE = ± 1.55% for 100 inH2 O span

*When one manufacturer gives only a “total” specification, and the other manufacturer breaks it down between zero and span, only the total values should be
used in the TPE calculation. Zero and span should be calculated and then stated. If both manufacturers give zero and span specifications, then the individual
values should be used in the TPE calculation.

Reference-68
 Rosemount Inc.

Temperature Transmitters
Total Probable Error can also be used to compare performance of temperature transmitters. The same
principles of reading the specifications apply to the temperature transmitters as well. The most prominent
source of error is the ambient temperature’s effect on the electronics, yet vibration and load could also have
some influence.
The temperature transmitters should be evaluated independently of the temperature measurement device
unless one is interested in doing a “system analysis” of the probe and transmitter combined. The probe has its
own accuracy limits.
An evaluation of two temperature transmitters may consist of the following:

TPE
List Transmitter Specifications
SPECIFICATIONS TRANSMITTER A TRANSMITTER B

Accuracy 0.2% of span 0.1% of span

Temperature Effect
Zero ±0.3 °C per 100 °F ± (0.004 degree + 0.002% span) per degree
Span ± 0.4% of span per 100 °F ± 0.002% of span per degree
Total (or other) ± 0.15% of base temp., °C, per 100 °F

Define Operating Conditions

Calibrated Range 75 °F span, from 75 to 150 °F
Ambient Temperature Change 100 °F

Convert all of the errors into common terms:

SPECIFICATIONS TRANSMITTER A TRANSMITTER B

Accuracy 0.2% 3 75 = ±0.15 °F 0.1% 3 75 = ±0.075 °F

Temperature Effect
Zero ± 0.3 °C 3 9/5 = ± 0.54 °F ± (0.004 + 0.002% 3 75) 3 100 = ± 0.55 °F
Span ± 0.4% 3 75 = ± 0.30 °F ± 0.002% 3 75 3 100 = ± 0.15 °F
Total (or other) ± 0.15% of [(75 – 32) 3 5/9] = ± 0.04 °F

Calculate Total Probable Error (TPE = √ A2 + B2 + C2 ...)

TRANSMITTER A TRANSMITTER B

√ (0.15) + (0.54) + (0.30) + (0.04) = ±0.64 °F

2 2 2 2
√ (0.075) + (0.55)2 + (0.15)2 = ± 0.57 °F
2

TPE = ± 0.85% for 75 °F span TPE = ± 0.76% for 75 °F span

Summary
Transmitter specifications are often confusing to read and can be deceptive if not read carefully. In order to
evaluate different transmitters, the specifications and their impact on
_________________________________ performance must be understood. The
__________________________
specifications can be incorporated into a total probable error analysis allowing a more complete and accurate
comparison to be made between transmitters. The total probable error analysis not only assures that
transmitters are evaluated equitably, but also provides a more accurate picture of how a transmitter can be
expected to perform under specific conditions or changes in conditions.
Although total probable error can be a valuable part of an overall transmitter comparison, it should not be
the only aspect of comparison. The reliability of the transmitter to continue to perform may be more desirable
than the actual level of performance. The degree of performance, reliability, the appropriateness of the
transmitter to the application, the features included and the overall cost of ownership should all contribute to
the final decision.

Reference-69
 TPE

TRANSMITTER #1 #2
Model Type

Reference-70
Transmitter Range
Calibration

LISTED SPECIFICATIONS
Accuracy:
Temp. Effect
Zero:
Span:
Total:
Static Press. Effect
Zero:
Span:
Total:
Other Specs (List)
1.
2.
3.

CONVERT ALL LISTED SPECIFICATIONS TO ACTUAL VALUES

Accuracy:
Temp. Effect
Zero:
Comparing Transmitter Performance Using Total Probable Error

Span:
Total:
Static Press. Effect
Zero:
Span:
Total:
Other Specs (List)
1.
2.
3.

TOTAL PROBABLE ERROR CALCULATION

√ A2 + B2 + C2 + D2 + . . . .

List any assumptions made for each mfg.