Power novembro de 2008 http://www.powermag.com/November2007.

aspx

Instrumentation Accurately measure the dynamic response of pressure instruments

How do you know if a pressure transmitter is giving poor results? Unless the transmitter actually fails, most operators wont notice a very slow loss in accuracy or response time. Fortunately, the noise analysis technique can identify such changes before they cause a problem. he technique has been used to effectively measure the dynamic response of nuclear power plant pressure sensors and their associated sensing lines. !t also can be applied to any plant that relies on accurate instrumentation for control and monitoring plant performance. "y H.#. Hashemian, $nalysis and #easurement %ervices &orp. 'uclear power plants measure the dynamic response of their safety(related pressure, level, and flow transmitters for one or more of at least four reasons)

o comply with a plants technical specifications and*or regulatory requirements regarding response(time testing. !n troubleshooting, to identify sensor or sensing(line problems, including blockages, voids, and leaks. o manage component aging, estimate residual life, and assess the reliability of pressure(sensing systems. o establish ob+ective sensor replacement schedules.

,hy nuclear plants measure the dynamic response of pressure sensors and their associated sensing lines is better understood than how to do the measuring. o address that problem, this article e-plains a noise analysis technique that will accurately measure these dynamic responses. he noise analysis technique provides a passive method for dynamically testing pressure(sensing systems. !t generates the response time for both a pressure transmitter and its sensing lines simultaneously. he test can be performed remotely while a plant is operating, does not require that transmitters be removed from service, does not interfere with plant operation, and can be performed on several transmitters simultaneously. hose benefits result in an attractive bottom line, because tests that can be run without interrupting the demand for high nuclear plant capacity factors are a big plus in todays competitive markets.

Basic definitions
he noise analysis technique is based on analy.ing the natural fluctuations that e-ist at the output of pressure transmitters while a plant is operating. hese fluctuations /noise0 are caused by the turbulence induced by the flow of water in the system, by vibration, and by other naturally occurring phenomena. he noise analysis test has three steps) data acquisition, data qualification, and data analysis. Data acquisition. $ pressure transmitters normal output is a 1& signal on which the process noise /$& signal0 is superimposed. hat noise is e-tracted from the transmitter output by removing the signals 1& component and amplifying the $& component. his is easily accomplished by using commercial signal( conditioning equipment, including amplifiers, filters, and other components. he $& signal is then digiti.ed using a high sampling rate /2 or 3 kH.0 and stored for subsequent analysis. he analysis may be performed in real time as data are collected or off(line by retrieving the data from storage.

Figure 2 illustrates a 45(second record of noise data from a pressure transmitter in a nuclear power plant. For each transmitter /or each group of transmitters0, about an hour of such noise data is typically recorded for use in the analysis.

2. &ollect the data. $ short noise data record from a pressure transmitter in an operating nuclear power plant. %ource) $#% and %pringer(6erlag Data qualification. he raw data must first be thoroughly scanned and screened before any analysis can begin. his is normally accomplished using data qualification algorithms embedded in software, which check for the stationary and linear attributes of the raw data and look for other abnormalities. For e-ample, the raw datas amplitude probability density /$710 is plotted and e-amined for skewness. he top $71 in Figure 3 is perfectly symmetrical about the mean value of the data and fits the 8aussian distribution /the bell(shaped curve0 that is superimposed on the $71. $ 8aussian distribution is also referred to as a normal distribution. $ skewed $71 /see the lower plot of Figure 30 could be caused by any number of anomalies in the data, including the nonlinearity of the sensor from which the data are retrieved.

3. #anipulate the data. 'ormal and skewed $71s of noise signals from nuclear plant pressure transmitters. %ource) $#% and %pringer(6erlag !n addition to $71 for noise data qualification, the mean, variance, skewness, and flatness of each block of raw data are calculated and scanned to verify that no saturated blocks, e-traneous effects, missing data, or other undesirable characteristics are present. $ny data block that has an anomaly is removed from the record before it is analy.ed. Data analysis. 'oise data are analy.ed in the frequency domain and*or time domain. For frequency domain analysis, the noise signals power spectral density /7%10 is first obtained through an FF algorithm or its equivalent. 'e-t, a mathematical model of the pressure(sensing system is fit to the 7%1, from which the systems response time is calculated. he 7%1s of nuclear plant pressure transmitters have various shapes, depending on the plant, the transmitter installation and service, the process conditions, and other effects /Figure 90.

9. :-amine the data. :-amples of power spectral densities of nuclear plant pressure transmitters. %ource) $#% and %pringer(6erlag For time domain analysis, the noise data are processed using a univariate autoregressive /$;0 modeling program. his provides the impulse response /the response to a narrow pressure pulse0 and the step response, from which the systems response time is calculated. ypically, the noise data are analy.ed in both the frequency domain and time domain, and the results are averaged to obtain the systems response time.

A few assumptions
he validity of the noise analysis technique for testing the response time of nuclear power plants pressure(sensing systems depends on three assumptions) The process noise that drives the transmitter is white, meaning that it has a flat spectrum or essentially infinite bandwidth. his, of course, is ideal but not readily achievable. However, as long as the process noises spectrum has a larger bandwidth than the tested systems frequency response, the noise analysis results will be reasonably accurate. !f, however, the process noise has a smaller bandwidth than the system under test, then the noise analysis results will be dominated by the process bandwidth. he response(time results obtained from the noise analysis technique will therefore be larger than the actual response time of the pressure(sensing system. his is acceptable in nuclear power plants because it produces conservative results. The process noise should not have large resonances that can shift the noise spectrums rolloff frequency to higher frequencies. !f this assumption is not satisfied, corrective measures must be implemented when the data are analy.ed or the results are interpreted< otherwise, the response(time values obtained from the noise analysis technique may not be conservative. The transmitter to be tested must be predominantly linear. he noise analysis results wont be valid if the response time of interest is one that can be measured with a small(amplitude test signal at a pressure setpoint that is close to the pressure at which the transmitter normally operates in the plant. 7lotting the

$71 of the raw data as described and checking for skewness /Figure =0 will help verify a pressure sensing systems linearity.

=. >oss of symmetry. !n these amplitude probability densities of transmitters from in(plant testing at a pressuri.ed water reactor, note the nonlinear response of 7 (454, indicating that there is a problem with the transmitter or sensing line. %ource) $#% and %pringer(6erlag :-perience has shown that these three assumptions are normally met for nuclear plant pressure transmitters. For transmitters whose process parameters fluctuate very little or not at all?such as containment pressure transmitters and water storage tank@level transmitters?a method known as a pink noise test can remotely measure response time.

Confirmed accuracy
he accuracy of the noise analysis technique for testing the response time of pressure(sensing systems has been established e-perimentally using pressure transmitters like those used in nuclear power plants. For each transmitter, the response time was measured first using the ramp method and then using the noise analysis technique. !n doing so, the reliability of the ramp test results was first established in the laboratory by ramp(testing pressure transmitters using several ramp rates and by performing repeatability tests. :-cept for a few outliers, the results proved to be repeatable to better than 5.54 second, with little or no dependence on the ramp rate. 'e-t, laboratory measurements were made to e-amine the repeatability of the noise analysis results. $s with the ramp tests described previously, the repeatability of the noise analysis results was better than 5.54 second, a few outliers notwithstanding. his is reasonable considering the potential effects that can influence the noise analysis results. From these tests we can draw the following conclusions)

ABC of response(time results from the noise analysis technique fall within D 5.54 second of the ramp test results performed on the same transmitters under the same conditions. 2EC of noise analysis response(time results fall between 5.54 and 5.25 second /D0 of the ramp test results. 4C of noise analysis response(time results fall within D 5.25 second of the ramp test results.

"ased on all the foregoing data, the nuclear power industry has concluded that the noise analysis technique indicates the response time of pressure(sensing systems to an accuracy of better than 5.25 second.

Testing techniques
;esponse(time testing using the noise analysis technique has been performed on nuclear power plant pressure transmitters since the early 2BF5s. >ets take a look at some e-amples gleaned from the resulting database of response(time values and records of raw data, 7%1 plots, and observations. Figure 4 shows noise(test 7%1s for two(loop, three(loop, and four(loop pressuri.ed water reactors /7,;s0 and a boiling water reactor /",;0 plant. hree 7%1s are shown in each case for a pressure, a level, and a flow transmitter in each plant type.

4. 1ifferent strokes. :-amples of typical power spectral densities of pressure, level, and flow transmitters in 7,;s and ",;s. %ource) $#% and %pringer(6erlag !n several plants, noise testing has been performed on more than one occasion, making it possible to e-amine the repeatability of the results. Figure E shows two 7%1s for a steam generator level transmitter in a three(loop 7,; plant. he tests were performed appro-imately three years apart. he results are essentially identical, which indicates that the noise test for this transmitter is very repeatable and that the transmitter has e-perienced no response time changes over this three(year period.

E. ime trends tell a story. he 7%1s of a nuclear plant pressure transmitter were measured three years apart. %ource) $#% and %pringer(6erlag Gn another occasion, two redundant transmitters of the same steam generator level signal were tested at the same time in a four(loop 7,;. he 7%1 results are shown in Figure A. !t is apparent that one of these transmitters is significantly faster than the other /by about an order of magnitude0. his is unusual because the response times of redundant transmitters are normally e-pected to be comparable. !n this particular case, the two transmitters are from two different manufacturers, and they were probably installed without considering that the two transmitters might have vastly difference response times. his type of difference in response time is also seen in redundant transmitters when there is blockage in the sensing line. However, in the case shown in Figure A, the difference is not the result of sensing line blockage.

A. 7roblem transmitter. hese 7%1s are from two redundant steam generator level transmitters in a four( loop 7,; plant. %ource) $#% and %pringer(6erlag

Detect oil loss

!n the late 2BF5s, some pressure transmitters in nuclear power plants from a particular manufacturer were found to be leaking silicon oil from their sensing cells. %ilicon oil is used to transfer pressure signals from the isolation diaphragm to the sensing diaphragm at the center of the sensing cell. hus, if the oil leaks, both the transmitters steady(state /calibration0 and dynamic response are affected. Figure F shows the responses of two flow transmitters at a nuclear power station after a reactor coolant pump trip. 'ote that one transmitter /F (===0 responds quickly to flow reduction as e-pected, but the other transmitter /F (==40 is e-tremely sluggish. >ater analysis confirmed that the F (==4 suffered from the oil loss problem.

F. Gbvious problem. he dynamic response of two transmitters during the shutdown of a nuclear power station illustrates une-pected response. %ource) $#% and %pringer(6erlag Figure B shows raw noise data for a normal and a failed /from oil loss0 transmitter?both used in the same service in an operating nuclear power plant. $s e-pected, the amplitude of the noise signal from the failed transmitter is much smaller than that from the normal transmitter.

B. $natomy of a failure. hese obviously different lines depict the noise output from testing of a normal and a failed transmitter in an operating nuclear power plant. %ource) $#% and %pringer(6erlag $fter learning of the oil loss problem, the author and his colleagues at $nalysis and #easurement %ervices &orp. /$#%0 developed noise diagnostics for detecting the oil loss. his involved calculating the second to the fifth moments of the noise data as well as the ratio of these moments based on noise records above and below the signals mean value. he first moment of noise data is its mean value, its second moment is the variance, and the third moment is skewness. able 2 is an e-ample of noise diagnostic descriptors for four steam generator level transmitters in a 7,; plant. 'ote that the values of the descriptors for > 43F are much different than for the other transmitters. his transmitter was later removed from the plant and sent to the manufacturer, where it was determined that the problem was caused by oil loss in the transmitters sensing module. his and similar cases demonstrated that the noise analysis technique can provide a useful means for diagnosing oil loss.

able 2. 1iagnose oil loss from instruments. hese oil(loss diagnostic results were obtained from tests in a nuclear power plant. 'ote the values of descriptors for > 43F. his transmitter was later removed and sent to the manufacturer, where it was determined that the problem was caused by oil loss in the transmitters sensing module. %ource) $#% and %pringer(6erlag Fortunately, the root cause of the oil loss problem in this manufacturers transmitters was identified and resolved by the manufacturer very quickly. herefore, the nuclear industry did not suffer any adverse consequences. $lso, because the problem was successfully resolved early, use of the noise diagnostics for detecting oil loss did not become routine in nuclear power plants.

Response time degrades

he response time of nuclear plant pressure transmitters does degrade, but this is not as prevalent a problem for pressure transmitters as it is for resistance temperature detectors /; 1s0. &onversely, calibration drift is more of a problem in pressure transmitters than it is in ; 1s. Figure 25 summari.es the results of a research pro+ect to quantify the effects of normal aging on the calibration and response time of a sample of nuclear(grade pressure transmitters. !t is clear that aging affects the calibration of pressure transmitters more than their response time.

25. ransmitter failure profile. hese results are from e-perimental research on the performance of aging nuclear plant pressure transmitters. %ource) $#% and %pringer(6erlag able 3 shows response time results from noise analysis testing performed on 2E transmitters over five years. he measurements were made using the noise analysis technique. Gnly one transmitter suffered response time degradation of about 95C after 9E months of service, and this was later determined not to be due to the transmitter but to a sensing line blockage. his finding is consistent with the nuclear industrys e-perience that response(time degradation in pressure transmitters is more often due to sensing line blockages than to degradation in the transmitter itself.

able 3. rend response times. Here are typical results of trending of response time for a group of nuclear plant pressure transmitters. %ource) $#% and %pringer(6erlag This article is based on material summarized and excerpted from hapter !, pages "!#$%%# of the authors boo&, 'aintenance (rocess )nstrumentation in *uclear (ower (lants +,pringer-.erlag /erlin 0eidelberg, %1123. 4sed with the &ind permission of ,pringer ,cience and /usiness 'edia. ?H.#. Hashemian /hashHams(corp.com0 is president and &:G of $nalysis and #easurement %ervices &orp.