Sunteți pe pagina 1din 3

Loop Checking and Field Instrument

Testing Procedure
______________________________________________
Everybody knows that loop checking and field instrument testing is the last piece of the puzzle in
each project before commencing the commissioning of any system. It is time-consuming and
depends upon the completion of other systems like piping, electrical equipment, control valves etc.
Each contractor or company has its own procedure and common practices for instrument loop
checking and functional testing. I found this forum is good place to discuss this topic in more detail,
for example:
1.
Can we have a common or guide line procedure for loop checking?
2.

Can we illustrate all the required drawings, specification and forms required for loop
checking?

3.

Can we build a flow chart for loop checking which illustrates the rule of operation,
maintenance, engineering and inspection for example?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------Comments
This is a very good topic for discussion.
We do the following in our organisation
1.A detailed loop check format is prepared for each project
2.Above is based on latest I/O list , P&ID and process narrative.
3.For each I/O point, all connected details/elements like PLC/DCS I/O module,Panel Terminal Block,
Marshalling panel Terminal Block, Junction Box Terminal Block,Instrument/Final Control element tag,
Service description,calibration range,cable tag....
4.We do this testing by involving owner's as well as prime EPC bidder's Engineer as witnesses. After
successful completion, the document gets signed by them.
We follow the same procedure for commissioning the logic as well as to demonstrate the same to
end user!
This is time consuming and we do it religiously to eliminate last minute surprises.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

I fully agree with all 3 points. A guide is really needed. I takes much time to get agreed such
procedure in every new project and a unified approach would be very effective here. To the second
point I may add that a list of such documents would be very useful as well to avoid creating of a
huge dossier and got all needed papers in place. Templates for certificates would be fine. As to the
third point I'd a recommended list of personal of performing and witnessing parties. Mikhail Aravin,
Senoir Instrument Commissioning Engineer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Comments
The loop testing procedure can vary depending on the instrumentation and I/O infrastructure. A
foundation fieldbus or Profibus PA based system would be different from a system using
conventional or HART instrumentation on a system with HART I/O cards.
While one can perform a loop test with a handheld communicator when HART I/O is not present on
the automation system that process would require multiple people similar to performing loop tests
with conventional instruments. One benefit HART instrumentation has over conventional is the non
intrusive nature of the testing. One does not need to break the loop to insert a mA simulator. HART
instruments have a Loop Test method that allows the tester to drive the mA output of the instrument
from a hand held communicator or an Asset Management Software application, When using Asset
Management software, testing can be done more efficiently because a single person can be
commanding devices from one window and observing results on another. An additional benefit when
using Asset Management software is that multiple instruments can be put into loop test
simutaneously which allows one to incorporate interlock logic checks along with the loop tests which
further streamlines the comissioning process.
Since loop tests are often the final step before start-up, and projects schedules often slip, there is
always pressure on the loop testing team to gain efficiencies to pull in the plant startup milestone.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Comments
Unfortunately, even today's large manufacturers have lost qualified process control specialists and
engineers, leaving sometimes, unqualified personnel to decide how a "system" should be validated.
A systematic approach is necessary and a legitimate step towards ensuring the "completeness" of
even the smallest of project, upgrade or change to or within a BPCS or SIS on the plant floor. Of
course regulations apply to safeties, but many times the even the fundamentals of instrumentation
go unchecked and now become a liability. Standardization is needed - especially within chemical
and petro-chemical applications. T.Dotts, Contract EI&C Technician / Project manager.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

I would like to share some perspectives : Loop testing and plant commissioning done in-house is
one aspect. Naturally the requirement for policies and procedures is mandatory ( as in both cases)
Things change slightly when this work is been done under contract by a 3rd party. Once again the
policies and procedures are required. FAT and SAT procedures should be issued to the
supplier/contractor within 30 days of contract signature. As a Consultant, I have witnessed so many
poor FAT and SAT company procedures in many different countries ( Cultures if you like). This has
compounded poor FAT testing into total SAT failures as the fault could not be isolated to Panel or
Field . Many hours could have been saved if the bookwork had been done up front.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S-ar putea să vă placă și