Hi. my EPC Company (CONTRACTOR) purchase GWR Rosemount 5301 - 5302 (w/ single lead probe) and 5408 from EMR Sweden & Chamber from Dosch - Germany.
All will install on LNG Plant for Train-3 (expansion project). Lesson learn from Train-1 and 2, COMPANY (Client) raise potential issue related commissioning & verification proof testing at site.
Based on COMPANY concern “for where Guided Wave Radar instrumentation has been incorrectly configured”, CONTRACTOR confident GWR will have correct configure based on Manufacture Configuration (Code C1).
GWR required to function test combine with Chamber at site, because this particular job not testing at EMERSON Workshop.
Please advise how to Proofing Test coverage 94% (Rosemount 5301) ? As per discussion with COMPANY, it is potentially to proofing test by CONTRACTOR during Commissioning phase that actual liquid is not available.
Diesel instead of actual liquid is used for proofing test for the following GWR. In this condition, can we say 94% proofing achieve ? if we apply procedure “8.8.2 Suggested comprehensive proof test” as per Reference Manual.
In same condition above, can we do proofing test of following GWR for Liquid-Liquid Interface (Rosemount 5302) ? (Note design is Liquid Liquid Interface but proofing test is single phase i.e. diesel).
If proofing test by using diesel for Liquid Liquid interface GWR is not acceptable, does Emerson has idea to do proofing test to achieve 94% coverage in commissioning phase ?
Note : off course setting of GWR shall be changed for proofing test. Is it practical way to do proofing test ?
Or Does Emerson has calibration tools (calibration tools that it is unnecessary to provide actual liquid) to do proofing test at site if we invite EMERSON Service Engineer at site ?
All GWR not equiped with Verification Reflector.
Rabendra,
Unfortunately I do not have the expertise to comment on how to get to 94% coverage with proof testing. I have forwarded this question on to some others to see if they are able to help address this.
Proof testing with a liquid that is not the actual liquid will always be a little different. I do not know how that affects the coverage. Radars are not calibrated. Their signal return strength is affected by the dielectric of the fluid. A service engineer at the site is recommended to verify that setup is correct. Chambers and nozzles can affect the signal and a service engineer can make sure that the setup is optimized, even when the radar is preconfigured.
In addition to the standard Reference Manual that you referenced (https://www.emerson.com/documents/automation/manual-rosemount-5300-series-high-performance-guided-wave-radar-en-76166.pdf), we do have a Commissioning and Validation Procedures Reference Manual as well (https://www.emerson.com/documents/automation/manual-rosemount-5300-series-commissioning-validation-procedures-for-rosemount-radar-en-79458.pdf) that you may find helpful.
We do also have a tech note that covers some info on installed radar in chambers:
https://www.emerson.com/documents/automation/technical-note-guidelines-for-choosing-installing-radar-in-stilling-wells-bypass-chambers-en-89362.pdf
You can contact me directly at lydiacamiller@emerson.com if needed or contact your local sales person to assist you with further technical help.
In reply to Lydia Miller:
In reply to Tom Wienke:
In reply to Rabendra Aldi: