Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90621

CALIBRATION OF ULTRASONIC METERS USING CUSTODY TRANSFER SYSTEMS AS THE REFERENCE

Ana Luisa A. S. Ferreira Petrobras Transporte S.A. - TRANSPETRO Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

ABSTRACT This paper presents a method of calculating the meter factor (MF) to correct systematic errors and improve the pipeline operation accuracy. It includes the evaluation of the MF uncertainty and also the uncertainty of the ultrasonic-meter results corrected by a MF and the pressure and temperature correction factor. The procedure presented is based on the historical reports from the SCADA system. The results shown include a calibration of an ultrasonic meter using a dynamic measurement system as reference. The use of one register each minute was sufficient for the MF calculation for the ultrasonic meter flowrate output. It is recommended to use at least 12 typical batches. INTRODUCTION TRANSPETRO has around 400 ultrasonic meters for operational control and leak detection of petroleum liquids, most of them measuring the flowrate of two or more products. They are calibrated only with water at the manufacturers laboratory. The ultrasonic meter (UM) is sensitive to the installation [1]. The new ultrasonic meter systems (UMS) follow API 5.8 [2], but this has not always been the rule for the older operational installations. There was no possibility of using standards as master meters or provers, due to the installation arrangements. So, custody transfer systems were used as the reference to calibrate these meters, aiming to minimize systematic errors. The procedure to determine the meter factor is based on the use of SCADA system registered data. The reference may be dynamic (0.3 accuracy class measurement systems with turbine meters) or static (tank gauging).

NOMENCLATURE cb qb or Vb sensitivity coefficient cCTPL CTPL sensitivity coefficient cD density sensitivity coefficient cMF. MF sensitivity coefficient cp pressure sensitivity coefficient cT temperature sensitivity coefficient CTPL pressure and temperature correction factor d relative density h1 time of the first register of the period (s) h2 time of the last register of the period (s) m number of periods MF meter factor, calibration result MFP meter factor for the period MFreg meter factor for the register n number of registers in a period p pressure (kPa) pb base pressure (101.325 kPa) qb flowrate at base condition (m3/s at 20oC and 101.325 kPa) and with the MF correction. qref reference flowrate obtained from SCADA at base condition (m3/s) qrefP reference flowrate for the period at base condition (m3/s) qUM flowrate indicated by the meter at flow condition (m3/s) qUMS UM flowrate obtained from SCADA at base condition (m3/s) qUMSP UM flowrate for the period at base condition (m3/s) T temperature (oC) Tb base temperature (20oC) u(cal) UM calibration standard uncertainty u(CTPL) correction factor standard uncertainty u(MF) MF standard uncertainty

Copyright 2012 by ASME

u(op) u(ref) u*(ref) u(UM) U(MF) U(qb) U(Vb) VAccref VAccUM Vb Vref VrefP VUM VUMS VUMSP tr

standard uncertainty due to flow condition variation reference standard uncertainty reference relative standard uncertainty ultrasonic meter standard uncertainty MF expanded uncertainty UMS flowrate result expanded uncertainty (m3/s) UMS volume result expanded uncertainty (m3) reference accumulated volume obtained from SCADA (m3) UM accumulated volume obtained from SCADA (m3) volume at base condition (m3 at 20oC and 101.325 kPa) and with the MF correction. reference volume difference calculated for each register at base condition (m3) reference volume for the period (m3) UM volume difference calculated for each register at flow condition (m3) UM volume difference calculated for each register at base condition (m3) UM volume for the period (m3) time interval between two registers (s)

The MF can be calculated for the flowrate or for the volume output. For the same meter, more than one MF may be calculated to minimize systematic errors that could vary as a function of specific parameters. In this case, the influence parameter values should be registered together with all the data. Flowrate output and dynamic reference To calibrate the flowrate output having a dynamic measurement system as the reference, the data obtained from each SCADA register include time, reference flowrate (qref) and UM flowrate (qUMS). The quantities qref and qUMS are at base condition. For each register, the meter factor (MFreg) is calculated with qref and qUMS. q ref MFreg = (1) q UMS For each period, the reference flowrate (qrefP), the UM flowrate (qUMSP), and the meter factor (MFP) are calculated by the average of the values of the n registers:

qrefP = qUMSP = MFP =

1 n 1 n

q
i =1 n i =1

ref

(i )

(2)

METHOD DESCRIPTION The proposal is to calculate a factor to minimize systematic errors and the uncertainty of the results, by comparing the values indicated by the UM with the values indicated by the reference measurement system. Calibration is defined by VIM [3] as the operation that, under specified conditions, as a first step, establishes a relation between the quantity values with measurement uncertainties provided by measurement standards and corresponding indications with associated measurement uncertainties and, as a second step, uses this information to establish a relation for obtaining a measurement result from an indication. The uncertainty of the reference systems is estimated following internal Transpetro procedures and the uncertainty of the meter results is calculated. The flowrate and volume information are at base condition (at 20oC and 101.325 kPa). The batches used for the MF calculation should present a typical flow condition. The batch is not used entirely, only steady state periods are selected. The ultrasonic meter should be aligned with the reference measurement system and both measurement systems and the mesh should be in compliance. The custody transfer system installation, the pressure and temperature correction, and the MF calculation follow the API measurement standards [4]. The evaluation of uncertainties is based on ISO 5168 [5] and ISO GUM [6]. One or more periods can be selected for each batch. Periods with operational condition instabilities should not be selected. The number of registers in a period (n) and the number of periods (m) should be high enough to minimize random variations. Each period is defined by its start time (h1) and its end time (h2).

q
n

UMS (i )

(3)

1 n
1 m

MF
i =1
m

reg (i )

(4)

The meter-factor result (MF) is calculated by the average:

MF =

MF ( j )
P j =1

(5)

Volume output and dynamic reference To calibrate the volume output having a dynamic measurement system as the reference, the data obtained from each SCADA register include time, reference flowrate (qref), reference accumulated volume (VAccref) and UM accumulated volume (VAccUMS). The quantities VAccref and VAccUMS are at base condition. For each register, the volume interval at the reference (Vref) and the volume interval at the meter (VUMS) are calculated by the difference between the accumulated volume values of two consecutive registers: Vref = VAccref (i) VAccref (i 1) (6)
VUMS = V AccUMS (i ) V AccUMS (i 1) (7) The equation to calculate meter factor for each register (MFreg) is calculated by: Vref MFreg = (8) VUMS For each period, the volume interval at the reference (Vref) and the volume interval at the meter (VUMS) are calculated by

Copyright 2012 by ASME

the difference between the accumulated volume for the last register of the period and the accumulated volume for the first register of the period: VrefP = V Accref (h2 ) V Accref (h1 ) (9)

VUMSP = V AccUMS (h2 ) V AccUMS (h1 ) MFp is calculated by Eq. (4). MF is calculated by Eq. (5).

(10)

Flowrate output and static reference To calibrate the flowrate output having a static measurement system as the reference, the data obtained from SCADA include time, UM flowrate (qUMS) and reference volume (VAccref). For each register, VUMS is obtained from qUMS and the time interval between two consecutive registers (t): VUMS = qUMS t (11) The Vref and MFreg are calculated by Eq. (6) and Eq. (8), respectively. For each period, qUMSP follows Eq. (3), and VregP and MFP are calculated by Eq. (9) and Eq. (4), respectively. MF is calculated by Eq. (5). Volume output and static reference To calibrate the volume output having a static measurement system as the reference, the data obtained from SCADA include time, UM flowrate (qUMS), reference accumulated volume (VAccref) and UM accumulated volume (VAccUMS). MFreg, Vref and VUMS follow Eqs. (1), (6) and (7), respectively. MFP, VrefP and VUMSP are calculated by Eqs. (4), (9) and (10). MF is calculated by Eq. (5). Flowrate or volume for a calibrated meter After calculating the MF, the UM output at flow condition (qUM or VUM) is multiplied by MF to improve the measurement. Aiming to have the flowrate or volume at base condition (qb or Vb, respectively), the correction factor of pressure and temperature (CTPL) are also considered: qb = qUM CTPL MF (12) Vb = VUM CTPL MF (13) MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY The objective is to calculate the expanded uncertainty for the MF (U(MF)) and for the UMS flowrate or volume result (U(qb) or U(Vb)). The calculation of U(qb) and U(Vb) considers separately the dispersions due to MF, qUM or VUM and CTPL. The parameter calculated is the MF because the value of the reference can vary during the calibration. The standard deviation of the MF is also calculated. Systematic measurement errors that can not be corrected are accounted for in the MF uncertainty component.

MF uncertainty The MF uncertainty components considered are the uncertainty of the reference, the MF uncertainty due to the dispersion during the calibration periods and the uncertainty due to operational condition variations. The reference standard uncertainty (u(ref)) is determined in accordance with internal TRANSPETRO procedures that include measurement uncertainty spreadsheets, which are specific for each type of measurement system. When the use of an uncertainty spreadsheet is not possible, the reference uncertainty is evaluated based on the reference specified limits. For dynamic systems, the maximum permissible measurement error (MPE): i) for oil and product (except LPG) and biofuel measurement systems, is equal to 0.3%, and u*(ref) is equal to 0.173%. ii) for LPG measurement systems, is 1.0%, and u*(ref) is equal to 0.577%. The MF calibration uncertainty (u(cal)) is determined based on the standard deviation of the mean of the MF values. The uncertainty due to flow condition variations (u(op)) is accounted for by the highest MFp difference considering a rectangular distribution. The MF combined uncertainty (uc(MF)) is calculated from the root sum squares with u(ref), u(cal) and u(op). The MF expanded uncertainty (U(MF)) is determined with a coverage factor equal to 2. Uncertainty of quantities at base condition The measurand is the flowrate or volume at base condition, with the correction of pressure (p), temperature (T) and density (d), and with the use of MF. So, the measurement uncertainty calculation of the flowrate or volume at base condition includes MF uncertainty (u(MF)), ultrasonic meter uncertainty (u(UM)) and correction factor uncertainty (u(CTPL)). The UM measurement uncertainty (u(UM)) is a function of the kind of information used. If the operation uses a flowrate measurement collected each 10 seconds or each minute, the uncertainty can be different. Another practice is the use of a quantity calculated by the average at each one minute of the 10second output. So, the result of a meter used for different applications can have at the same time more than one measurement uncertainty. When the meter is calibrated against tank gauging, the procedure is the same. But, in this case, the information about the dispersion of the flowrate output may not be available. The CTPL uncertainty (u(CTPL)) is determined numerically. A series of CTPL values is calculated based on the range of p, T and d. The maximum permissible error for the instrument or its uncertainty is also identified. For the MPE, the uncertainty is calculated considering a rectangular distribution. The parameters p, T and d are increased and decreased by small steps and the increase or decrease in the CTPL is accounted for to define the sensitivity coefficients (cp, cT and cD). For UM measurement systems that do not include the p and T correction, instead of considering the uncertainty due to the

Copyright 2012 by ASME

instruments, the mean difference between the operational condition and the base condition is evaluated and considered as a source of uncertainty with rectangular distribution. The combined standard uncertainty for CTPL is calculated by the root sum squares of cp.u(p), cT.u(T) and cD.u(CTPL). To calculate the combined standard uncertainty for the result at base condition (qb or Vb), the sensitivity coefficients for MP, qm or Vm and CTPL are based on Eq. (12) or (13). The combined uncertainty is calculated by the square root of the sum of cMF.u(MF), cqb.u(UM), and cCTPL.u(CTPL) squares. The qb or Vb expanded uncertainty (U(qb) or U(Vb)) is calculated using a coverage factor equal to 2.

RESULTS Flowrate output calibration The calibration of the flowrate output of an ultrasonic flow meter against a dynamic measuring system was carried out using data from the TRANSPETRO SCADA. The measurement point operated with a flowrate in the range of 340 to 360 m3/h. The calculation of the factor included the values of the flowrate from the meter and the reference. The calculation of uncertainty in the meter result using the MF was carried out considering the range of pressures (10 to 2000 kPa), temperature (15 to 25C) and density (0.71 to 0.73). One register every 10 seconds was stored in SCADA system for this analysis. Twenty four periods were analyzed, each period containing between 1512 and 4596 registers. The result of the MF was 0.9983. The relative error, calculated by E % = 1 MF 1 , equals 0.17%. This error is relatively small, is within the acceptable uncertainty limits, and its utilization to minimize systematic errors is not going to alter the results of the operation significantly. Even with small errors, the MF calculation is recommended because it contributes to the accompaniment of the measurement performance. Table 1 shows the values obtained for the mean and the standard deviation of the MF calculated from: the values registered every 10 seconds; average per minute of the values registered every 10 seconds; values registered every minute and values registered every five minutes.
Table 1: MF for different register intervals for flowrate calibration. register every register Register register MF 10s, averaged every every 10s every 5min per minute minute Mean 0.99826 0.99826 0.99828 0.99832 standard 0.002351 0.001352 0.002363 0.002372 deviation

were the variations in the standard deviation significant. It is therefore concluded that 1 register per minute is sufficient to calculate the MF. When the average of the six values is calculated, the standard deviation falls significantly as expected, although the utilization of the average will depend on the application. The standard deviation of the register obtained every 10s and averaged per minute is smaller than the others, because of the average. Table 2 shows MF uncertainty and the percentages of the uncertainty components considered. The contribution of the reference uncertainty was relatively high for this example. The MF calculated uncertainty was 0.38% for the flowrate data obtained from every 10 seconds or every one minute registers. For a register interval of 5 minutes, the uncertainty increases to 0.40%.
Table 2: MF uncertainty and the contribution to flowrate calibration. Uncertainty and Register every register register register contribution of 10s, averaged every every every 10s each parameter per minute minute 5min U*(MF) 0.38% 0.38% 0.38% 0.40%
* ucal ( MF )
* u ref

0.0% 82.1% 17.9%

0.0% 82.1% 17.9%

0.0% 82.2% 17.8%

0.0% 76.8% 23.2%

( MF )

* u op ( MF )

The contribution of the operational conditions is lower and can be minimized by the use of more measurement factors. The contribution of the MF obtained by the calibration is almost zero given the high number of registers used. Table 3 shows qb uncertainty and the components considered given that the pressure and temperature instruments are in use, installed and calibrated correctly.
Table 3: qb uncertainty and the contributions with p and T corrections, including the process uncertainty. Uncertainty and Register every Register register Register contribution of 10s, averaged every every every 10s each parameter per minute minute 5min U*(qb) 0.61% 0.47% 0.61% 0.62%
* u MF (qb )

39.8% 60.2% 0.0%

66.6% 33.3% 0.1%

39.5% 60.4% 0.0%

40.9% 59.0% 0.0%

u * (qb ) UM
* uCTPL (qb )

The differences in the MF obtained from values registered every minute or even every five minutes compared with the values obtained every 10 seconds are not significant, with the alteration only appearing in the fifth decimal place. Neither

The largest qb components of uncertainty are due to the uncertainty of the reference and of the meter. In the event of using registers without the average calculation, the greatest contribution was the meter. The reference showed a relatively high uncertainty if compared with other calibrating systems, and this is a disadvantage of the method presented here.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

The contribution from the CTPL shown in Table 3 was practically zero. If p and T had not been corrected, the contribution from CTPL would be significant, as seen from Table 4. This situation is extreme and highly unlikely to occur, but it does serve as a reference to indicate the importance of these instruments.
Table 4: qb uncertainty and the contributions without p and T corrections. uncertainty and register every Register register register contribution of 10s, averaged every every every 10s each parameter per minute minute 5min U*(qb) 1.14% 1.07% 1.14% 1.14%
* u MF (qb )

Table 6 shows the result of the MF calculation changing the number of periods considered. The recommendation is to use at least 12 periods representative of the operational process.

11.34% 17.15% 71.51%

12.8% 6.4% 80.8%

11.3% 17.3% 71.4%

12.0% 17.3% 70.7%

u * (qb ) UM
* uCTPL (qb )

The qb uncertainty is around 0.61% for the output used without calculating the average and obtained every 10 seconds, 1 minute or 5 minutes (Table 3). However, for the average of 6 flowrate values obtained every 10 seconds, the uncertainty falls to 0.47%. Without the p and T corrections (Table 4), the uncertainty increases to 1.14% without calculating the average and 1.07% with the average. The UM uncertainty contribution is high because it also considers the influence of the process. This is included because it is what is seen by the operator and ideally this dispersion would not exist. If the process dispersion is not considered, only the linearity of the meter is included and Table 3 is substituted by Table 5. The qb uncertainty would be around 0.48% for the output used without calculating the average and obtained every 10 seconds, 1 minute or 5 minutes
Table 5: qb uncertainty and the contributions excluding the process uncertainty. uncertainty and register every Register register register contribution of 10s, averaged every every every 10s each parameter per minute minute 5min U*(qb) 0.48% 0.40% 0.48% 0.49%
* u MF (qb )

Volume output calibration The calibration of the volume output from an ultrasonic flowmeter against a tank gauging system was carried out using data from the TRANSPETRO SCADA. The flowrate ranged from 150 to 450 m3/h. To reach the calculation of the MF, the UM flowrate and the UM and tank volumes are necessary. The calculation of uncertainty in the meter result using the MF considered the same range of p, T and d of the flowrate calibration. This volume-calibration analysis was carried out with one register every 15 minutes. Twelve periods were analyzed, each period containing between 34 and 178 registers. Table 7 shows the values obtained for the mean and the standard deviation of the MF calculated from the values registered: every 15 minutes; every 1 hour; every 3 hours and every 5 hours.
Table 7: MF for different time intervals for volume calibration. 15min 1h volume 3h volume 5h volume volume 0.9880 0.9887 0.9887 0.9889 0.0297 0.0132 0.0081 0.0073

MF Mean Standard deviation

63.66% 36.29% 0.05%

91.3% 8.7% 0.1%

63.6% 36.3% 0.1%

65.2% 34.8% 0.0%

u * (qb ) UM
* uCTPL (qb )

Table 6: MF values as a function of the number of periods of registers used. Number register every Register Register register of 10s, averaged every every 10s every 5min periods per minute minute 24 0.99830 0.99830 0.99831 0.99836 12 0.99815 0.99815 0.99817 0.99824 6 0.99783 0.99782 0.99785 0.99789

The result of the MF was 0.9880 for 15 minute volume and 0.9889 for 5 hour volume. It indicates a meter error of 2.2% and 1.1%, respectively. The error is high and the use of a MF to minimize systematic errors is recommended. Table 8 shows the MF uncertainty and percentages of the components. The greatest component of the MF uncertainty is the uncertainty of the reference. The contribution of the operational conditions is lower and the contribution of the MF calibration is not significant for 5 hour volume. The MF calculated uncertainty was 0.61% for the 15min volume and 0.56% for 5 hour volume. The differences in the MF obtained from 15 minute or 5 hour volume are significant. The standard deviation decreases significantly with larger volumes. Table 9 shows the Vb uncertainty and the components, with pressure and temperature instruments in use, installed and calibrated correctly. The greatest component of the Vb uncertainty is the uncertainty of the meter. Choosing the MF by its uncertainty from Table 9, the recommended one is 0.9889 for 5 hour volume. The contribution from the CTPL shown in Table 9 was practically zero. If the pressure and temperature had not been corrected, the contribution from this parameter would be significant, as seen from Table 10: the Vb uncertainty increases to 6.05% and 1.83% for the 15min volume and 5 hour volume, respectively.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Table 8: MF uncertainty and the contributions to volume calibration. uncertainty and 15min contribution of 1h volume 3h volume 5h volume volume each parameter U*(MF) 0.61% 0.57% 0.56% 0.56%
* u MF (qb )

13.46% 66.61% 19.93%

3.67% 76.11% 20.22%

1.44% 80.19% 18.37%

1.11% 80.17% 18.72%

u * (qb ) UM
* uCTPL (qb )

Table 9: Vb uncertainty and the contribution to the process uncertainty. uncertainty and 15min contribution of 1h volume 3h volume 5h volume volume each parameter U*(Vb) 5.97% 2.71% 1.64% 1.56%
* u MF (qb )

1.1% 98.9% 0.0%

4.5% 95.5% 0.0%

10.7% 89.3% 0.0%

12.9% 87.1% 0.0%

u * (qb ) UM
* uCTPL (qb )

Table 10: Vb uncertainty and the contribution without p and T corrections. uncertainty and 15min contribution of 1h volume 3h volume 5h volume volume each parameter U*(qb) 6.05% 2.87% 1.96% 1.83%
* u MF (qb )

1.0% 96.5% 2.5%

4.0% 84.8% 11.2%

8.1% 67.9% 24.0%

9.3% 63.1% 27.5%

u * (qb ) UM
* uCTPL (qb )

Table 11: Vb uncertainty and the contributions without the process uncertainty. uncertainty and 15min contribution of 1h volume 3h volume 5h volume volume each parameter U*(Vb) 0.68% 0.64% 0.63% 0.63%
* u MF (qb )

81.8% 18.2% 0.0%

79.7% 20.2% 0.0%

78.9% 21.1% 0.0%

78.9% 21.1% 0.0%

u * (qb ) UM
* uCTPL (qb )

DISCUSSION The evaluation of measurement uncertainty is subjective, and each type of measurement system has its peculiarity due to operational conditions, product quality, operational procedures and the application. The procedure presented here to calculate the MF has difficulty in guaranteeing the quality and reliability of the data used. The reference measurement system (dynamic metering system or tank gauging) must be in compliance with the relevant standards and procedures. The calibrations and configurations of the instruments must be valid and updated. All the installations, from the reference measurement system to the ultrasonic meter, including pipes, valves and fittings must be in compliance and without any indication of leakage. If the MF is calculated based on data obtained from instruments out of calibration, non-compliant installations or with the presence of leakage, the MF, instead of being a tool for improving the accuracy of the measurements, will be validating incorrect results. The periods utilized in the calculation of the MF must not include the beginning or end of the batches, because the flowrate data are generally less reliable. Periods of instability must be eliminated. The objective of this work is to improve the meter result, and it is not to force the batch accumulated volume indicated by the meter be the same as the volume indicated by the reference. The minimization of differences between the ultrasonic meter and the reference should be a consequence. Different parameters of influence, as environmental issues, fluid temperature or the existence of a pump, may contribute to increase the measurement uncertainty. When their influence is identified, more than one factor may be calculated with the propose of decreasing the uncertainty. The MF determination has the immediate objective of minimizing systematic errors. However, the evaluation of the MFs calculated each two or three months is also important in measurement management. As shown in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6, the use of the average of factors or meter output values minimizes the uncertainty of the results, which means that it improves the meter results. So, inversely, collecting UM data in a frequency higher than that used by the operation, and sending to the operation the average of these values at the frequency desired, is a procedure with very low cost that could improve the information quality without delays. CONCLUSION Conclusions that should be highlighted: 1) To calibrate the UM flowrate output, the use of a register every minute is enough for the method presented. 2) To calibrate the UM volume output, the use of large batches to calculate the factor is recommended. 3) The MF calculation and the uncertainty evaluation are a function of the output and how it will be used by the industry. 4) The installation of p and T instruments has a cost relatively low when compared with the uncertainty minimized.

The UM uncertainty (u(UM)) estimated is high because it also considers the influence of the process. Without the process dispersion only the meter linearity is included and Table 9 is substituted by Table 11. The Vb uncertainty changes to 0.68% and 0.63% for 15min and 5 hour volumes, respectively.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

5) Better results are obtained using a dynamic measurement system as a reference than using tank gauging. 6) It is recommended to use at least 12 periods to calculate the MF. 7) To collect the UM output results in a frequency higher than the necessary frequency for the industry and calculate the average of these output values can minimize the output uncertainty without delays.

REFERENCES
1. Ferreira, A. L. A. S., Kotchetkoff Neto, A. P., and Almeida, M. M. G.., 2010, Effects of Ultrasonic Flowmeter Internal Diameter Differences on the OSBRA Pipeline Measurement results, 8th International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. American Petroleum Institute, 2005, API 5.8, Manual of Petroleum Standards: Metering Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons by Ultrasonic Flow Meters using Transit Time Technology. 3. International Organization for Standardization, 2007, VIM, International Vocabulary of Metrology Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms. 4. American Petroleum Institute, 2002, API 12.2.1, Manual of Petroleum Standards: Calculation of Petroleum Quantities using Dynamic Measurement Methods and Volumetric Correction Factors Introduction. 5. International Organization for Standardization, 2005, ISO 5168, Measurement of Fluid Flow Procedures for the Evaluation of Uncertainties. 6. International Organization for Standardization, 2008, ISO GUM, Uncertainty of Measurement Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement.

Copyright 2012 by ASME