Comparison: Azbil AT9000 GTX**D vs Rosemount 2051
Comparison: Azbil AT9000 GTX**D vs Rosemount 2051 Let’s get right to today’s match! On the right, heavy hitter Emerson comes
Comparison: Azbil AT9000 GTX**D vs Rosemount 2051
Let’s get right to today’s match! On the right, heavy hitter Emerson comes at us again, bringing the Rosemount 2051 to the Visaya ring! On the left, the gang from Azbil premieres at Visaya with the AT9000 GTX! Let’s take an in-depth look at the pros and cons of these pressure transmitters.
Disclaimer: This product review examines only features, not performance. If you’ve used this device, feel free to share your experience in the comments.
During the unboxing, we found one device lighter than other but otherwise very similar. Let’s begin with the Rosemount 2051 differential pressure transmitter.
As a low-budget device, it has a compact yet robust design. Its coplanar mount connection makes it smaller and lighter than its competitor with the old-school biplanar mount. The 2051 doesn’t come with a local display, but you can order one. In general, the device follows Emerson’s design, so you can recognize this Rosemount device quickly, even with a different housing.
The Azbil AT9000 GTX has a conservative design and more heft with that biplanar mount. You can have a local display, but no local setup; it only offers zero and span configs. It seems pretty robust as well, even though its color is not the best. Just kidding!
Protocol comes into play more than usual here. On the Rosemount 2051, if you go with HART or PROFIBUS PA, then you can select the local operator interface (LOI) display or no local setup. However, if you pick FOUNDATION Fieldbus, you can only get the display without the local screen. Yet the wireless device has a different option – still no local setup, but a three-line, seven-digit LCD.
If you dive into the technical documentation, you’ll find a step-by-step guide for using the LOI or a handheld. The setup doesn’t have much flow with the internal or external buttons, so the handheld sounds like the better option here.
The AT9000 GTX also offers a simplistic local display. I did find a few details. It looks fairly easy to read, and it has a bar graph for the percentage of the range. Even though it lacks a local setup, the GTX display has more information than the standard 2051 displays. Point to GTX!
Sensors and materials
Both devices offer tons of possibilities because you can pick variations of the same model. The GTX has nine options, differing in measuring range, accuracy, and other points. If you want to see all these options, you can read the product review here. For now, I’ll use the GTX30D to discuss the specs.
The GTX30D has a measuring span of 0.5 to 100 kilopascals (kPa), and you can set the device to measure from -100 to 100 kPa. It also has different wetted materials, guaranteeing chemical compatibility in many applications; you can pick SUS316 and its diaphragm in SUS316L, Hastelloy C, and tantalum. Beyond that, it has a broad range of process connections as well.
On the blue side, the 2051 follows the same philosophy with a nice assortment of configurations! You can pick the 2051FC for flow, 2051L for level, 2051T for inline pressure, and the 2051C for coplanar differential pressure. In general, the device can measure up to 2000 pounds per square inch (psi).
If you pick the 2051C, you can select different ranges, such as –1000 to 1000 millimeters in water (mmH2O) and –2000 to 2000 psi! You can check out its documentation or our device directory for all the options.
For process connections, you can select stainless steel, Hastelloy C-276, and others. Further, the isolating diaphragm comes in 316L stainless steel, C-276, and tantalum. The housing material also has options such as aluminum and engineered polymer. Each choice will depend on other points; you need to do your research or ask your local sales rep for help.
Both devices have good lists of approvals and certifications, so make sure you check those out if your process needs them.
From the Azbil AT9000 GTX side of things, the reference accuracy will depend on the model you pick. For example, the GTX15D offers an accuracy of +-0.3 percent. However, the GTX41D has +-0.1 percent and the GTX71D +-0.15 percent. You can see the entire list here.
On the other side, the Rosemount 2051 can achieve up to 0.05 percent with the most expensive option. In the manual, you can see the reference accuracy based on the range you choose, plus how to calculate the accuracy with a different span. For instance, Range 3 (–1000 to 1000 mmH2O) has a standard accuracy of +-0.065 percent of span. For spans less than 10 to 1, you need to use the equation in the manual. The high-performance option has an accuracy of +-0.05 percent of span, and a span of less than 10 to 1.
You must have a good connection between the field and the control system, and avoiding conversion gives you the best integration.
The Azbil website takes a few minutes to yield the right answer. The GTX can communicate in analog+HART, FOUNDATION Fieldbus, and DE! No PROFIBUS PA, but at least it covers the two basics.
The Rosemount 2051 shines here – wirelessHART, analog+HART, FOUNDATION Fieldbus, and PROFIBUS PA! Pretty good options for a low-budget device, right?
Information and documentation
If you’re a regular on Visaya, you already know Emerson does an outstanding job of digital marketing. The clean and responsive website makes it easy to find the devices you want. Emerson also offers blogs and other channels for more info.
Azbil, however, has a lot of work to do. Finding the right device takes a while. Furthermore, the documentation needs organizing and updating. Really, folks. Pull the old docs that say the device has only HART so you don’t confuse or put off your customers.
Just basic diagnostics. Next!
Yes, the Rosemount 2051 has more built-in tech, more field protocols, and better accuracy. However, the AT9000 GTX offers excellent cost benefits and enough accuracy and requirements to suit many processes. So scale out, check the local support, and do your pricing before deciding!
Table of comparison