Introduction
1. Techniques and applications
We can look at instrumentation work in two ways: by tech-
niques or by applications. When we consider instrumenta-
tion by technique, we survey one scientific field, such as
radioactivity or ultrasonics, and look at all the ways in which
it can be used to make useful measurements. When we study
instrumentation by application, we cover the various tech-
niques to measure a particular quantity. Under flowmetering,
for instance, we look at many methods, including tracers,
ultrasonics, or pressure measurement. This book is mainly
applications oriented, but in a few cases, notably pneumat-
ics and the employment of nuclear technology, the technique
has been the primary unifying theme.
2.Accuracy
The most important question in instrumentation is the accu-
racy with which a measurement is made. It is such a uni-
versal issue that we will talk about it now as well as in the
individual chapters to follow. Instrument engineers should
be skeptical of accuracy claims, and they should hesitate
to accept their own reasoning about the systems they have
assembled. They should demand evidenceand preferably
proof. Above all, they should be clear in their own minds
about the level of accuracy needed to perform a job. Too
much accuracy will unnecessarily increase costs; too
little may cause performance errors that make the project
unworkable.
Accuracy is important but complex. We must first dis-
tinguish between systematic and random errors in an instru-
ment. Systematic error is the error inherent in the operation
of the instrument, and calibrating can eliminate it. We dis-
cuss calibration in several later chapters. Calibration is the
comparison of the reading of the instrument in question to
a known standard and the maintenance of the evidentiary
chain from that standard. We call this traceability.
The phrase random errors implies the action of probabil-
ity. Some variations in readings, though clearly observed,
are difficult to explain, but most random errors can be treated
statistically without knowing their cause. In most cases it is
assumed that the probability of error is such that errors in
individual measurements have a normal distribution about
the mean, which is zero if there is no systematic error.
This implies that we should quote errors based on a cer-
tain probability of the whereabouts of the true value. The
probability grows steadily wider as the range where it might
be also grows wider.
When we consider a measurement chain with several
links, the two approaches give increasingly different figures.
For if we think of possibilities/impossibilities, we must allow
that the errors in each link can be extreme and in the same
direction, calling for a simple addition when calculating the
possible total error. On the other hand, this is improbable, so
the chain error that corresponds to a given probability, ec,
is appreciably smaller. In fact, statistically,
ec = e 21 + e 22 + g
where e1, e2, and so on are the errors in the different links,
each corresponding to the same probability as ec.
We can think of influence quantities as the causes of
random errors. Most devices that measure a physical quan-
tity are influenced by other quantities. Even in the simple
case of a tape measure, the tape itself is influenced by tem-
perature. Thus, a tape measure will give a false reading
unless the influence is allowed for. Instruments should be
as insensitive as possible to influence quantities, and users
should be aware of them. The effects of these influence quan-
tities can often be reduced by calibrating under conditions as
close as possible to the live measurement application. Influ-
ence quantities can often be quite complicated. It might not
only be the temperature than can affect the instrument, but
the change in temperature. Even the rate of change of the
temperature can be the critical component of this influence
quantity. To make it even more complex, we must also con-
sider the differential between the temperatures of the vari-
ous instruments that make up the system.
One particular factor that could be thought of as an influ-
ence quantity is the direction in which the quantity to be
measured is changing. Many instruments give slightly dif-
ferent readings according to whether, as it changes, the par-
ticular value of interest is approached from above or below.
This phenomenon is called hysteresis.
If we assume that the instrument output is exactly pro-
portional to a quantity, and we find discrepancies, this is
called nonlinearity error. Nonlinearity error is the maximum
departure of the true input/output curve from the idealized
straight line approximating it.
It may be noted that this does not cover changes in incre-
mental gain, the term used for the local slope of the input/
output curve. Special cases of the accuracy of conversion
from digital to analog signals, and vice versa, are discussed
xxi
xxii
in Sections 29.3.1 and 29.4.5 of Part 4. Calibration at
sufficient intermediate points in the range of an instrument
can cover systematic nonlinearity.
Microprocessor-based instrumentation has reduced the
problem of systematic nonlinearity to a simple issue. Most
modern instruments have the internal processing capability
to do at least a multipoint breakpoint linearization. Many
can even host and process complex linearization equations
of third order or higher.
Special terms used in the preceding discussion are
defined in BS 5233, several ANSI standards, and in the ISA
Dictionary of Instrumentation, along with numerous others.
The general approach to errors that we have outlined fol-
lows a statistical approach to a static situation.
Communications theory emphasizes working frequen-
cies and time available, and this approach to error is gaining
importance in instrumentation technology as instruments
become more intelligent. Sensors connected to digital elec-
tronics have little or no error from electronic noise, but most
accurate results can still be expected from longer measure-
ment times.
Instrument engineers must be very wary of measuring
the wrong thing! Even a highly accurate measurement of
the wrong quantity may cause serious process upsets. Sig-
nificantly for instruments used for control, Heisenbergs law
applies on the macro level as well as on the subatomic. The
operation of measurement can often disturb the quantity
measured.
This can happen in most fields: A flowmeter can obstruct
flow and reduce the velocity to be measured, an over-large
temperature sensor can cool the material studied, or a low-
impedance voltmeter can reduce the potential it is monitor-
ing. Part of the instrument engineers task is to foresee and
avoid errors resulting from the effect instrument has on the
system it is being used to study.
3.Environment
Instrument engineers must select their devices based on the
environment in which they will be installed. In plants there
will be extremes of temperature, vibration, dust, chemicals,
Introduction
and abuse. Instruments for use in plants are very different
from those that are designed for laboratory use.
Two kinds of ill effects arise from badly selected instru-
ments: false readings from exceptional values of influence
quantities and the irreversible failure of the instrument
itself.
Sometimes manufacturers specify limits to working con-
ditions. Sometimes instrument engineers must make their
own judgments. When working close to the limits of the
working conditions of the equipment, a wise engineer der-
ates the performance of the system or designs environmental
mitigation.
Because instrumentation engineering is a practical dis-
cipline, a key feature of any system design must be the reli-
ability of the equipment. Reliability is the likelihood of the
instrument, or the system, continuing to work satisfactorily
over long periods. We discuss reliability deeply in Part 4. It
must always be taken into account in selecting instruments
and designing systems for any application.
4.Units
The introductory chapters to some books have discussed
the theme of what systems of units are used therein. Fortu-
nately the question is becoming obsolete because SI units are
adopted nearly everywhere, and certainly in this book. In the
United States and a few other areas, where other units still have
some usage, we have listed the relationships for the benefit of
those who are still more at home with the older expressions.
References
British Standards Institution, Glossary of terms used in Metrology, BS 5233
(1975).
Dietrich, D. F., Uncertainty, Calibration and Probability: the Statistics of
Scientific and Industrial Measurement, Adam Hilger, London (1973).
Instrumentation, Systems and Automation Society (ISA), The ISA Com-
prehensive Dictionary of Measurement and Control, 3rd ed.; online
edition, www.isa.org.
Topping, J., Errors of Observation and their Treatment, Chapman and Hall,
London (1972).