IBP1290_12 QUANTIFICATION OF THE FLOW MEASUREMENT PERFORMANCE DUE TO INSTALLATION CHANGES Ana Luisa A. S.

Ferreira1

Copyright 2012, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP
This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012, held between September, 1720, 2012, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the Technical Committee of the event according to the information contained in the final paper submitted by the author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the submitted papers. The material as it is presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute’ opinion, or that of its Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Proceedings.

Abstract
The objective is to present a criterion to identify and quantify improvements in the performance of flowmeters due to alterations in the design of a measurement system. The method was developed aiming at improvements in the operational systems, but is also useful in custody transfer systems. Take as base the estimate of uncertainty in the measurement systems, and seek a more intuitive way so as to aggregate the experience and knowledge available in the company. The identification of the measurand is carried out based on available information, the processing of data and the method of calculation. The improvements in the installation of measurement systems are given priority based on the measurement uncertainty of the CTPL (temperature and pressure correction factor) and the MF(meter factor). In the case of the CTPL, the influence of the pressure, temperature and density instruments in the results of the measurement system is evaluated, and in the case of the MF, the influence of the calibration system. The possibilities for calibrating the flowmeter in industry are presented, also detailing the calibration of the operational meter against custody transfer systems. The analysis of networks includes calculating the uncertainty in the closing of the network balance, calculation of the uncertainties and contributions of the measurement systems that form part of the network, and a comparison of improvements and costs, calculation for each alteration in the design of the measurement system, and its cost per improvement of 0.01% in the uncertainty of the closing.

1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to establish criteria to assess the influence of the installation on the result of an operational measurement system. Although the focus will be on operational measurement, the method described can be utilized in any flowrate measurement system, including custody transfer measurement. Operational measurement may not be standardized as it is in custody transfer installations. Quite often it fails to comply with installation standards relating to straight sections, positioning of pressure and temperature transmitters, installation of provers and the use of flow computers. With simpler installations, measurement results become more vulnerable to variations in the process, which can be significant, and calibrations may be carried out less rigorously than required, at longer intervals or with the use of more flexible procedures. The procedure described is based upon the estimated uncertainty of the measurement process. However, it avoids an evaluation based solely on mathematical models and allows for the fact that operational measurement cannot be analyzed in the same way as that carried out in a calibration laboratory. The intention is to adopt a more intuitive numeric evaluation. This paper was produced for the measuring of crude oil, petroleum products and biofuels and includes the algorithms and results obtained. Examples given are of a generalized nature that can be extended to mirror real-life industrial situations. The methodology is to be used to identify points where improvements would be desirable. The uncertainty evaluation is based upon ISO-5168 and ISO-GUM.

______________________________ 1 Ph.D., Eletronic Engineer – Petrobras Transporte S.A.

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

2. Description
2.1. Identification of the Mensurand and General Equation The first step in the evaluation of measurement uncertainty is to identify the measurand, the quantity expected to be obtained using the measurement system under scrutiny. The mensurand may include volume, flowrate, flowrate integration or mean values, under operational condition or base condition (20oC and 1atm). The flowrate or volume of the meter under base condition (qb or Vb, respectively) is obtained by the flowrate or volume recorded by the meter under operational conditions (qM or VM) and the temperature and pressure factor (CTPL). The CTPL is a function of P, T and the density (G). Another influence factor is the method utilized when calibrating the meter. Meters should be calibrated to ensure that measurement results are traceable. During calibration, the meter factor (MF) is determined in order to minimize systematic errors. Thus, qb and Vb are calculated as follows:

qb = qM CTPL MF Vb = VM CTPL MF
2.2. CTPL uncertainty 2.2.1. CTPL calculation

(1) (2)

The intention is to calculate the CTPL for some conditions, to evaluate the maximum deviations and determine the corresponding uncertainties. The CTPL correct the quantities from operational conditions to base conditions (20°C and 1atm). The algorithms used comply with ANP and INMETRO technical regulations. For crude oil, petroleum products (except LPG) and biofuels, they follow CNP 6/70 (temperature correction) and API 11.2.1M (pressure correction). For LPG, they follow CNP 1/63 (temperature correction) and API 11.2.2M (pressure correction). API 12.2.2 is followed for the combined factor calculation. The factors CTL (temperature correction factor) and CPL (pressure correction factor) are determined separately. The CTPL is obtained by multiplying the CTL and CPL. Standard CTPL uncertainty (u(CTPL)) is calculated numerically, based on CTPL variations due to the changes in P, T or G. Ideally, the flowrate (or volume) should be corrected for P, T and G, but this is not always the case. The following situations can arise: - The flowrate (or volume) corrections due to P, T or G are not carried out. - The P, T or G measurements are not carried out and a constant value is defined to correct the flowrate (or volume). - The P, T and G measurements are obtained but one or more of these readings involve some degree of non-conformity and, nevertheless, the flowrate (or volume) is corrected. - The P, T and G measurements are obtained in full compliance with the recommendations and the flowrate (or volume) result is corrected. The measurement uncertainty calculation will depend on the installation and procedures. 2.2.2. Without P, T or G Correction The minimum and maximum values of the uncorrected parameter P, T or G (respectively, Pmin and Pmax, Tmin and Tmax, or Gmin and Gmax) are identified. CTPL values are calculated based on the typical conditions, but changing each time one of the parameters identified. The differences (∆CTPL(i, j)), where i = P, T or G, and j = max or min are calculated as follows:

∆CTPL(i, j ) = 1 − CTPL(i, j )

(3)

The greatest ∆CTPL is identified for each parameter (P, T or G) to obtain the ∆CTPL(i), where i = P, T or G. The standard uncertainty (ui) CTPL component due to P, T and G are calculated as follows:

ui (CTPL ) =

∆CTPL (i ) 3

(4) 2

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

2.2.3. Without P, T or G Measurement and with Fixed Values Correction In this case, the procedure is the same as that described above, with the exception of Eq. (3), which has to consider the CTPL of the fixed parameter CTPL(f):

∆CTPL( j ) = CTPL( f ) − CTPL( j )
2.2.4. With P, T or G Measurement and Correction and without Non-Conformities

(5)

The P, T and G typical values are identified. The measurement uncertainty evaluation for P, T and G may use spreadsheets available. Another option is the use of the maximum errors or deviations expected, represented by ∆x(i), for i = P, T and G. The standard uncertainty (u(i)) is calculated for each parameter by:

u (i ) =

∆x(i ) 3

(6)

The sensitivity coefficient (c(i)) is calculated by the relation between the variation on CTPL and the variation on the parameter analyzed. So, increments (∆incr(i), where i = P, T and G) and the corresponding CTPL variations (∆CTPL(i)) are used. The increments are chosen by the user aiming the best accuracy.

c(i ) =

∆CTPL (i ) ∆incr (i )

(7)

So, the CTPL uncertainty component due to P, T and G (ui(CTPL), where i = P, T or G) is then calculated using the following equation:

ui (CTPL ) = c(i ) u (i )
2.2.5. With P, T or G Measurement and Correction and with Non-Conformities Identified

(8)

In this case, the procedure is the same as that described above, but the identified non-conformities is also included and their uncertainties have to be evaluated. For each non-conformity, the deviation is defined as ∆y(i, k), where i = P, T ou G, and k identifies the source of uncertainty. One such example is the position of the temperature or pressure transmitter. In this case, the ∆y(i, k) corresponds to the maximum expected difference between the pressure or temperature at the recommended location and the location where the instrument is actually installed. For each non-conformity, the standard uncertainty (uj(i)) is calculated by:

uk (i ) =

∆y (i, k ) 3

(9)

The CTPL uncertainty due to P, T or G, named as u(i) in item 2.2.4, is identified now as u1(i) and the nonconformities varies from 2 till N+1, where N is the number of identified non-conformities. The combined standard uncertainty is calculated for each parameter i (u(i), where i = P, T or G) by:

u (i ) =

(u1 (i))2 + ∑ (uk (i))2
k =2

N +1

(10)

The sensitivity coefficients are determined by Eq. (7) and the CTPL uncertainty for each parameter, by Eq. (8).

3

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 2.2.6. CTPL Combined Uncertainty (u(CTPL)) The uncertainty u*(CTPL) is then calculated by:

u * (CTPL ) =

(u

2 * P (CTPL )

) + (u

2 * T (CTPL )

) + (u

2 * G (CTPL )

)

(11)

2.3. Flowmeter Calibration 2.3.1. Process Description The flowmeter can be calibrated by one of the following methods: A.1. Calibration with prover and in accordance with custody transfer measurement recommendations. A.2. Calibration with prover or master flowmeter, with one or more non-conformities in relation to custody transfer measurement recommendations. A.3. Calibration against a dynamic or static custody transfer measurement system. A.4. Calibration conditions and installations in the laboratory are similar to that found at the meter in operating site. A.5. Calibration conditions or installations in the laboratory are not similar to that found at the meter in operating site. The following situations occur in relation to the frequency of flowmeter calibration and verification: B.1. The calibration frequency is based on statistical monitoring of the meter factor (MF) and the verifications take place at closer intervals. B.2. The calibration and verification frequency are fixed, without statistical monitoring. B.3. The flowmeter is put into operation after having only undergone its initial calibration. The possibilities for the meter factor calculation are: C.1. The MF is calculated and used to correct measured quantities. C.2. The MF is calculated but not used to correct measured quantities. C.3. the MF is not calculated. In order to determine uncertainty due to calibration, it is necessary to quantify the dispersion produced by the situations described above. The process can be summarized as follows: D.1. In A.1, A.2 and A.3, the MF is determined by a calibration at the operating site. The mean MF value and its uncertainty must be calculated. MF may be used or not. Only one or more than one MF may be used. D.2. In A.1 and A.2, the measurement system must include a prover or valves where a mobile prover or a master flowmeter can be connected. The MF is determined by comparing the values obtained by the prover and those from the flowmeter. D.3. If the MF is calculated but not used to correct the measured quantities, the mean MF value corresponds to the existing systematic error and it must be considered, in addition to the dispersion in the determination of the MF referred to in D.2. D.4. For A.2: in addition to the considerations described in D.2 and D.3, the uncertainty component of the MF due to the identified non-conformity must also be considered. D.5. In A.3, the measurement system need not include a prover or valves as described in D.2. However, it must be positioned in such a way as to be aligned with a dynamic or static custody-transfer measurement system. The uncertainty of the reference is significantly greater than that of a prover. The uncertainty due to dispersion of the MF values (standard deviation of values obtained) and the differences between the average MF values (which corresponds to the linearity) are be higher than that of A.1 and A.2. D.6. There are uncertainties in A.3 which are not considered in A.1 and A.2, such as compressibility of the product between meter and the reference, and the influence of environmental conditions. To minimize the influence of these uncertainties, the meter calibration should be conducted over extensive periods, almost a batch, eliminating only the beginning and the end of the batch and periods of instability should be eliminated. D.7. When the meter is only calibrated in a laboratory, as in the cases of A.4 and A.5, the calibration uncertainty (u(lab)) is indicated on the meter’s calibration certificate. However, it is also necessary to consider uncertainty due to differences between conditions in the laboratory and those at the operational site (u(lab×loc)), that is a subjective evaluation and the information available in literature is scarce and, in some cases, the u(lab×loc) can be greater, or even significantly greater, than that of the u(lab). The most practical way to identify this uncertainty is to list the differences between laboratory and operating site and to determine estimate of each of those differences. 4

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 D.8. The differences between laboratory and operational location should be listed and quantified, even in circumstances such as those defined in A.4, where the differences identified are relatively small. D.9. In A.5, the differences are more significant, and it is recommended to have a database to associate operational conditions and arrangement of the installations with the corresponding uncertainties D.10. In B.1, the uncertainty due to calibration of the meter has no uncertainty component due to calibration frequency. D.11. In B.2, the calibration and verification records should be analyzed. If there is an indication that the time intervals between calibrations or verifications are long for calibration purposes, an uncertainty component should be considered for the days after the ideal time interval. D.12. In B.3, the database described on D.9 should be used and it is recommended to carry out regular verifications. 2.3.2. Estimating MF Uncertainty When the measurement system complies with custody transfer requirements or approximates those requirements, validated uncertainty spreadsheets are used to estimate MF uncertainty. On the other hand, there are the measurement systems which are only calibrated in a calibration laboratory under conditions different to those occurring in the field. In this case, evaluation of the MF uncertainty is complex and have to be based on the database referred to in D.9. One compromise, which may gradually be implemented in a significant number of flowrate measurement systems, is a process which includes items A.3, B.1 and C.1. The following method of estimating MF uncertainty is based upon the aforementioned process. The estimated MF uncertainty includes components attributable to the reference, the repeatability of the MF and variations in operational conditions. 2.3.3. Reference Uncertainty (u(ref)) Measurement systems used for reference purposes have spreadsheets for use in estimating measurement uncertainty and monitoring MFs. In this case, the u(ref) will be obtained by using these spreadsheets. Another option is to utilize the Maximum Permissible Error (MPE) in accordance with Ferreira and Orlando (2011).

u (ref ) =

MPE 3

(12)

2.3.4. Uncertainty due to Process Repeatability (u(cal)) Standard uncertainty due to process repeatability is calculated using a standard deviation of the MF values (s(MF)):

u (cal ) = s ( MF )
2.3.5. Uncertainty due to Variations in Operational Conditions (u(op))

(13)

The uncertainty attributable to variations in operational conditions (u(op)) is obtained considering the mean MF values for each batch (MFP). The calculation of the uncertainty uses the difference between the highest and lowest MFp values. This component accounts the uncertainty due to variations in operational conditions, environment and product and is calculated using the following equation:

u (op) =

Máximo( MFP ) − Míximo( MFP ) 2 N

(14)

2.3.6. MF Combined Standard Uncertainty (u(MF)) The combined standard uncertainty u(MF) is calculated by:

u ( MF ) =

(u(ref ))2 + (u(cal ))2 + (u(op))2

(15) 5

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

2.4. Expanded Uncertainty of qb and Vb (U(qb) and U(Vb)) The equations used to determine the measurement uncertainty of qb or Vb are similar. The uncertainty of Vb (u(Vb)) includes the uncertainty attributable to the meter and the MF (u(MF)) and the CTPL (u(CTPL)). In the case of multiplication (Eqs. (1) and (2)), the relative uncertainty (u*) is obtained immediately:

u * (Vb ) =

(u * (MF ))2 + (u * (CTPL ))2

(16)

Relative expanded uncertainty (U*) is determined here using a coverage factor equal to 2. U*(Vb) is calculated for Vb:

U * (Vb ) = 2 u * (Vb )
2.5. Network Analysis

(17)

The network analysis presented here is objective and simple. All entry and exit points are identified and the measurement uncertainty of each point is estimated. Each unit has its own priorities, regulations, contracts and methodology for investment analysis that may well alter these criteria. The maximum permissible error at the closure of accounts, which is in general one of the targets of each unit, is the base to calculate the maximum permissible uncertainty at closure (U(maxcal)). Accounting can be done on a daily, weekly or batch by batch basis. The Vb or qb equations are similar. Defining the uncertainty of the i-th measurement system (U(Vi)) at M measurement points in a network and the uncertainty attributable to factors other than the measurement of volume (U(out)), the equation that indicates the limit for the uncertainty of the measurement system results is:

U (maxcal ) ≥

∑ (U (V ))
i i =1

M

2

+ (U (out ) )2

(18)

∑ (U (V ))
i i =1

M

2

≤ (U (maxcal ) )2 − (U (out ) )2

(19)

The U(out) uncertainty is derived from variations in packaging, valve sealing or other non-conformities. This uncertainty is not covered by this paper although its importance can be significant. A spreadsheet is drawn up for each measurement point along the network containing the following data: identification of the measurement point, typical volume, uncertainty of the point, improvements recommended and their cost. Examples can be found in Table 3 and Table 4. These spreadsheets can be used to: compare uncertainties at measurement points throughout the network; assess network closure uncertainty; compare recommended improvements and their costs; assess the possible positive impact of each investment on the closing balance; calculate the cost of a 0.01% improvement in closure uncertainty for each proposal. The evaluation, focused on balance closure, can be extended to several different levels, from closure of one individual line to closure of the company’s inlets and outlets. Greater volumes will obviously weigh more heavily on the closing balance. The criteria defined in this paper also include the comparative assessment of returns on investment. These can be used to define project priorities, prioritizing metering points or systems and the aspects, instruments or layout of measurement systems.

3. Results
3.1. Analysis of the CTPL Table 1 shows the components of CTPL uncertainty due to not correcting the P, T and G for a measurement point in the pressure range 1000 to 2000kPa; temperature range 10 to 20oC; and density range 0.710 to 0.730. The relative expanded uncertainty found is almost 1.0%. In Table 2, the measurement point includes meters for P, T and G, with MPE of ±50kPa, ±0.5oC and ±0.002 6

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 respectively. For T, a range of ±1.0oC was also included due to the non-standard position. To define a range of probable variations in the variable demands experience in the process. The result of utilizing these instruments is a reduction in the relative expanded uncertainty to 0.15%. Further, for this point, leaving the measurement system without measurements in only P, T or G, the measurement uncertainty at this point will be 0.33%; 0.89%; and 0.27%, respectively. Table 1: Uncertainty in the CTPL due to non-correction of P, T and G. Limit Values 1000 2000 15 25 0.71 0.73
U*(CPTL)

Parameter Pmin (kPa) Pmax (kPa) Tmin (oC) Tmax (oC) Gmin Gmax

CTPL 1.0012 1.0025 1.0077 0.9961 1.0019 1.0018

∆(CTPL)i 0.0012 0.0025 0.0077 0.0039 0.0019 0.0018

u*(CTPL)i 0.1443% 0.4446% 0.1097%
0.960%

Table 2: Uncertainty in the CTPL due to non-correction of P, T and G.
∆xi xi MPE P(bar) T(oC) G 0.50 0.50 0.002 Local 0.00 1.00 0.00 Others 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.289 0.645 0.001 u(xi) P(bar) T(oC) G Typical Values 15.0 16.0 15.0 15.0 20.0 20.0 22.0 20.0 0.720 0.720 0.720 0.730 CTPL 1.00180 8 1.00192 9 0.99948 6 1.00172 2 ci u(CPTL)i

0.0001 -0.0012 -0.0087

0.000035 0.000749 0.000010 0.000750 0.15%

U(CPTL) U*(CPTL)

3.2. Análise do MF Following the procedure described in Item 2.3, in a pipeline measurement system, for crude oil, petroleum products (except LPG) or biofuels with MPE equal to ±0.3%, the relative standard uncertainty u*(ref) will be 0.173%, which corresponds to 0.3% divided by the square root of 3. By the same token, for LPG, u*(ref) is equal to 0.577%. The MF uncertainty for the dispersion in the calibration u(cal) is a function of the repeatability of the meter in the process. The uncertainty of the MF in the influence of the variation in the operational conditions u(op) is a function of the process analyzed and the concern in utilizing a universe of batches that represent the profile of the point’s operations. If this uncertainty remains high, one option is to utilize more than one MF.

3.3. Accounts Analysis In the example, the network has one entry point and two exits. Typical volumes are 3000m3, 2000m3 and 1000m , with estimated uncertainties of 0.5%, 0.8% and 0.7%. In accordance with Table 3, point V2’s contribution to the network’s closure is greater than that of V1, despite its significantly lower volume, as its measurement uncertainty is significantly greater than that of V1. The improvements deemed viable and their respective costs are listed. Projected post-improvement measurement uncertainties are also listed.
3

7

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 Table 4 shows the network closure uncertainty and the cost of a 0.01% improvement. The cost is in Brazilian currency (R$). With this data at hand the decision-making process is streamlined. For example: the closure uncertainty stands at 0.83%. Should the objective be to reduce that figure to 0.73% then the improvement defined in V1 should be executed. However, should the target figure be 0.78% then the improvement in V2 will suffice. From a cost/benefit perspective, it can be seen that V2 is the better investment, given that a 0.01% improvement in the uncertainty factor can be achieved at a cost of $2,155.93, whereas the improvements listed in V1 and V3 would require $3,821.47 and $11,369.25, respectively.

Table 3: Uncertainties and recommended improvements
Typical volume (Vi) in m3 Relative uncertainty U*(Vi) Description of proposed improvement Install mobile prover valves Install temperature transmitter Change procedure Uncertainty after improvement U*(Vi) 0.30%

Measurement Point

Uncertainty U(Vi) in m3

U

2

Contribution

Cost of improvement

V1

3000

0.50%

15.0

225

36.7%

200,000.00

V2 V3 Total U(bal) U*(bal)

2000 1000 6000

0.90% 0.80%

18.0 8.0

324 64 613 24.76 0.83%

52.9% 10.4%

15,000.00 2,000.00 217,000.00

0.75% 0.75%

Table 4: Evaluation of accounting uncertainty of proposed improvements
U2 for improvement in V1, V2 and V3

Measurement Point

Uncertainty after new improvement U(Vi) in m3

U2 for improvement in V1

U2 for improvement in V2

U2 for improvement in V3

V1 V2 V3 Total U(bal) U*(bal) Cost
Cost of 0.01% improvement

9.0 15.0 7.5

81.00 324.00 64.00 469.00 21.66 0.72% 200,000.00 19,339.69

225.00 225.00 64.00 514.00 22.67 0.76% 15,000.00 2,155.93

225.00 324.00 56.25 605.25 24.60 0.82% 2,000.00 3,821.47

81.00 225.00 56.25 362.25 19.03 0.63% 217,000.00 11,369.25

4. Discussion
The method presented here aims at quantifying the performance of measuring the flow due to changes in the installation. It is focused on those systems that do not follow the demands of custody transfer, and seeks to evaluate the interest and give priority to proposals for alterations in the installations. The design of a measuring system, more than assembling the instruments, valves, straight stretches, and other devices, needs to guarantee that the flowrate and volume measurement meets the performance requirements, especially the maximum permissible error and uncertainty of measurement, requested by the customer and demanded by the 8

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 regulations. This process includes seeking the lowest costs and justifying the investments necessary to achieve the specifications. Many improvements may be effected with only changes in the procedures or comparisons between the results of these operational systems and custody transfer systems. These changes are not going to lead to systems with custody transfer accuracy, but could diminish the uncertainties and guarantee more reliable results. The quantification of the improvement in performance as a function of the cost of alteration in the design or the procedures is interesting to evaluate the return that each investment will give. The CTPL analysis shows the necessity to utilize pressure, temperature and density meters. But it also shows the performance necessary for these meters. For density it may not be necessary to install a densimeter, due to the range at the measurement point and the information available about the quality of the product. The analysis of the MF evaluates the interest in the calibration system. It is important to have a calibration system to guarantee the traceability of the measurements. However, these systems have a high cost, demand maintenance and training of the people involved. Therefore, an evaluation of the pros and cons is important. In each installation, the viability of utilizing a comparison between the operational measurement system and a custody transfer quality system must be evaluated. For the flow computer, the result of the analysis is going to be a function of options there are in the place where the P and T correction calculations are carried out and the necessity to guarantee the integrity of the information. One basic question is the identification of the measurand, which involves identifying the outflow from the flowmeter (analogical, pulse or digital), the processing of the data (calculate or not a mean, integrate the flow, consider windows and other possibilities) and any other information of interest, and flowrate or volume in the operating or base conditions. The method presented here seeks to utilize the experience of the operator and the technician who deals directly with the measurement and the measurement point to evaluate its uncertainty and contribute to its management. There are other sources of uncertainty, such as the influence of the environment, the compressibility of the product, external noises, and temporary effects. To minimize these external sources to the measurement systems, the calibration seeks to operate on a permanent basis, and periods with temporary effects and alterations in the operating conditions or the product are disregarded. These periods end up being disregarded anyway, because the repetition remains high and censures them. The MF factor has the objective of minimizing systematic errors in the measurement result. However, the MF may be calculated, but not utilized in the correction of the quantities measured, and the MF is accounted for in the uncertainty as a systematic error. More complex is to calculate the uncertainty due to systematic errors when the MF is not calculated and, in this case the expected range of the MF has to be estimated. The utilization of the evaluation of closing the balance of the network enables us to give priority to the point due to its contribution, allowing us to evaluate the investment necessary to achieve the target of improving the uncertainty in the balance and permitting an evaluation of the cost/benefit of each point in terms of the cost of improving the installation relative to the reduction of uncertainty in the balance.

5. Conclusion
The method presented is relatively simple, and from many aspects has been carried out in different units. However, the systemization of the process with spreadsheets enables the standardization of the analyses, which facilitates the comparison of performance of the meters in different networks. It aims at giving priority to the design of measurement systems and improvements in operational systems. The analysis of influence factors in the uncertainty of the CTPL enables us to evaluate the interest in utilizing the P and T transmitters, flow computer and densimeter. The analysis of the influence factors in the uncertainty of the MF enables us to evaluate the necessity of a calibration system. The possibilities of calibrating an operational meter against static or dynamic custody transfer measurement systems are presently being evaluated. The evaluation of uncertainty in the CTPL or MF focuses on the evaluation of the investment in a given measurement system, while the evaluation of the uncertainty in the closing of the networks enables us to give priority to the investments with a more general view of the process and the unit.

6. References
API 11.2.1M: Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards: Compressibility factors for 350–637 kilograms per cubic meter range. American Petroleum Institute. 1986. 9

Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012 API 11.2.2M: Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards: Compressibility factors for 638–1076 kilograms per cubic meter range. American Petroleum Institute. 1984. API 12.2.2: Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards: Calculation of petroleum quantities using dynamic measurement methods and volumetric correction factors: Measurement tickets. American Petroleum Institute. 1984. CNP 1/63: Regulamento técnico para correção de temperatura em medição de GLP – Conselho Nacional do Petróleo – Resolução CNP n.1, de 12 de fevereiro de 1963, DOU – 28/05/1963. CNP 6/70: : Regulamento técnico para correção de temperatura em medição de GLP – Conselho Nacional do Petróleo – Resolução CNP n.6, de 25 de junhio de 1970, DOU – 13/07/1970. FERREIRA, A.L.A.S., ORLANDO, A.F. Avaliação metrológica de medidores de vazão, VI Congresso Rio Automação, IBP – Instituto Brasileiro de Petróleo, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2011. ISO 5168: Measurement of fluid flow: procedures for the evaluation of uncertainties. International Organization for Standardization, 2005. ISO GUM: GUIDE 98-1: Uncertainty of measurement: Introduction to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. International Organization for Standardization, 2009.

10