SIL PROOF TEST PRACTICES -7

Testing Temperature Loops

The manipulation of process temperatures is not often practicable due to the time it would take
to raise or lower the temperature to the trip value and due to the high temperatures encountered
in chemical processes. A common approach is to remove resistance thermometers or
thermocouples from their pockets and place them in a calibrated bath or block to simulate the
trip point temperature without removing them from the area. Again, this is not always
practicable due to equipment being located in hazardous areas or operating temperatures being
too high.
One organisation removes the elements from the pocket and does just this. They recognise that
with head mounted transmitters it is more difficult to do this [lack of consideration of testing
requirements at the design phase leads to potential inconsistency with principle 4.2.1 (a)]. If the
measurement device is located in a potentially explosive atmosphere, then removal or exposure
of equipment may generate a source of ignition. They also have experience of temperature
elements being too short for their pockets, which could give an artificially low temperature
measurement. This would not be picked up by usual forms of testing, other than a physical
inspection of the element and comparison of its length with the depth of the pocket [inconsistent
with principle 4.2.1 (d), however, adverse consequences would be addressed by comparison of
the element and pocket lengths].
Another organisation operates in a similar way. Testing is generally done on-line by removing
the element from its pocket and inserting it in a bath at a suitable temperature, however, this
cannot be done on all installations. Alternative methods include disconnecting the element and
connecting a decade resistance box or voltage source to drive the input to the trip point.
Alternatively, they would rely on a SMART transmitter to drive itself to the trip point
[inconsistent with principles 4.1.1 (a) and 4.2.1 (a)].
In another example, whether it is a ‘live’ test or ‘shutdown’ test, the end-user connects a decade
box to the head of a 3-wire RTD probe. They realise that there may be a problem with pocket
sensitivity and that this method does not test the pocket/probe interface and that they should
check the response and calibration of the system [currently inconsistent with principle 4.1.1
(d)].
An end-user ensures that all temperature probes are mounted in pockets with breakaway
couplings. To test a loop, the process control is placed in to manual mode, the probe is removed
and a measurement of resistance or voltage at ambient temperature is checked against a
standard. This suggests that the control sensor is also being used for trip duty. The logic solver
is tested, by injecting a signal equivalent to the trip point. There is no duplicate system installed
and it is recognised that they are ‘running blind’ whilst this is ongoing, so plan to install
duplicate and comparison units.
An example of the testing of a process gas heater was provided. Elements installed in pockets
are tested on-line, as they form part of triple redundant systems with 2 out of 3 voting. They use
a thermocouple / PT100 simulator from the connection at the head, and check for ingress,
integrity and connection security. When on line, they check for differences in readings between
the three instruments to detect drift. To improve confidence and reliability, they would like to
change the thermocouples regularly in addition to simulation, and check contact with the end of
the pocket.
A further end-user's normal on-line test is to inject a current, voltage or resistance signal to
simulate temperature and so test the operation of the safety system. The signal can be injected
on some types of probes in front of the electronics and so only the sensing element is not tested.