AGA Report No.

11 Revised
Measurement of Natural Gas by Coriolis Meter

Angela Floyd
ConocoPhillips Company

The original AGA 11 document was developed in 2003 to meet the requirements for the
transmissions gas companies’ use of the meters in custody transfer applications. During
this time some independent review of the meter performance had been carried out namely
to establish the capabilities of the meter and to prove the water calibration proposed by
the manufacturers could be translated to a comparable gas calibration. These documents
were presented in the original technical paper which was included in the original 2003
document as an appendix.

The documents described the fundamentals of the meter and offered recommendations
for installation. They touched on various outputs available from the meter and the use of
the software provided. Overall, it was a good start at introducing the Coriolis meter in
natural gas measurement.

Even though the liquid Coriolis meter had been used for many years, its use in the gas
industry had been avoided due to the uncertainty requirements; the relatively large
pressure drop and a basic misunderstanding of the meter capabilities – and limitations.
Another hurdle for the meter installation was its inability to provide “actual” cubic feet
measurements. Remember, we are talking a direct mass meter. The gas industry is
drenched in volumetric measurement while much of the downstream market where the
liquid meters were used was happy to use mass measurement. The lack of an accepted
standard did not help either.

Through the years to 2009, many of the majors had done independent evaluation of
Coriolis meters in gas service. This was a test period where many of the features of the
meter were identified, addressed or avoided altogether. The lack of maintenance and
installation requirements was always a plus for the meter but proving and the “black box”
syndrome had many potential detractors.

While some operators forged ahead with unmanned installations and custody transfer
stations, others dabbled. Many were limited to their company software which meant huge
changes to accommodate the mass or actual volume input from the meter.

The layout of the documents required improvement and alignment with the latest revision
of AGA 9 for USM and AGA7 for Turbine meters proved a successful format. In reading
through these documents you will see the similarity in content and structure as well as
data presentation. The performance based content and layout of the document should
increase familiarity and ease of reference for those used to using the AGA 7/AGA 9
reports as well as providing an established layout for the new reader.
So, after 6 years of “playing” with the meter it was determined that enough additional
data and experience had been gained to update the existing AGA 11 document to;

1) Improve the level of detail in the use of the meter

2) Discuss the diagnostic capabilities of the meter
3) Discuss calibration capabilities
4) Offer guidelines on the calculation processes available in the software
5) Offer guidelines in determining uncertainty

1.0 Detailed Use of the Coriolis Meter

By now many users could offer suggestions on how to get the best performance from
the meter based upon their own flowing parameters. Although they followed basic
principles of installing the meter upwards to avoid liquid buildup, they were now
more aware of the importance of installing the meter in a bypass design and how to
install the appropriate instrumentation with improved results.

Fig 1 Installation example

The figure above shows an example of a Coriolis meter installed in a by-pass line. This is
recommended to allow the meter to be re-zeroed for verification and also to reduce the
need to shut down the line for the re-zeroing or maintenance process.

The Coriolis meter in gas measurement applications is typically one or more pipe sizes
smaller than the upstream and downstream piping it is connected to, requiring the use of
reducers and expanders in the design. It should be noted that excessive lengths of small
diameter pipe, rapid flow diameter reductions, rapid changes in flow direction (tees, short
radius elbows, etc.) can adversely affect piping pressure drop. Therefore, conservative
piping design techniques should be incorporated when the pressure drop is of concern in
any particular application.

The piping design should consider the following:

• Flow Direction • Filtration

• Flow Stream protrusions • Sample Port Location
• Meter Mounting • Gas Velocity
• Orientation

In addition to the normal considerations of vibration and noise when installing a meter,
more detailed discussion on the consideration of pressure and temperature compensation
are discussed in the new revision. It was recognised that although P and T are not
required to calculate mass or base volume, they are important parameters in the
fundamental performance of the meter accuracy. Therefore, to account for temperature
changes due to Youngs – Modulus on the sensor tubes, a temperature measurement
should be taken upstream of the meter. Many meter designs have the temperature sensor
incorporated into the meter design for this purpose. Similarly, the effects of pressure on
the sensor tube stiffness should be accounted for by taking a pressure measurement either
up or downstream of the meter. This value – when collected upstream of the meter - can
be used in the pressure compensation during calibration and set up of the meter.

Pressure compensation should be performed during initial calibration of the meter. As

flowing gas pressures are typically higher than the water calibration pressure, a negative
flow bias will be induced relative to the flow pressure effect specification for the
particular meter design.

Pressure compensation can by applied by ether a fixed value if the pressure is relatively
stable or via active line pressure if the pressure has more fluctuation. To establish a new
pressure compensation factor other than the original water calibration reference, eg on
natural gas, the calibration facility personnel should be instructed to disable the flow
pressure effect compensation.

The performance requirements of the Coriolis meter were reevaluated during the revision
of this document. It was determined that many of the meter manufacturers performance
requirements were based upon out-dated data and that field experience proved that many
of the meter designs were capable of providing greater uncertainty, especially if
calibrated. See table 1 below for changes on performance requirements.

As you can see from the increased uncertainty numbers below, the Coriolis meter is being
required to compete in a tighter performance range and therefore go head to head with
other gas custody metering. This and much of the terminology is taken from AGA 9!

2003 2011
Uncertainty Uncertainty
Repeatability +/- 0.5% 0.35% Of reading Qt≤Qi≤Qmax
+/- 1.0% 1.0% Of reading Qmin≤Qi≤Qmax
Maximum +/- 1.0% 0.7% Of reading Qt≤Qi≤Qmax
Mean Error
+/- 1.5% 1.4% Of reading Qmin≤Qi≤Qmax
Maximum +/- 1.0% 0.7% Of reading Qt≤Qi≤Qmax
Peak-Peak
Error
+/- 1.4% Of reading Qmin≤Qi≤Qmax

Table 1. Minimum Uncertainty Performance Specifications 2003 -2011

In addition to the performance values shown above, the data representation has been
recharted to show how the terminology now applies to the Coriolis meter. See Fig 2
below.

Fig 2. Graphical representation of meter performance specifications

2.0 Diagnostic Capabilities of the Coriolis Meter

Each manufacturer offers a range of diagnostic capabilities in the meter sensor and
transmitter. These diagnostics may be automatic and integrated in the meter. They may
require a manual process or the use of an external component. The main objective of
these diagnostics is to use the internal measurements and output signals of the meter.
These signals will provide indication of malfunction or change in the meter performance,
or the flowing media going through it. This can be very useful to ensure stability of the
meter and it process. During meter calibration a baseline should be established to
fingerprint the particular meter performance. This baseline can then be used as a
reference throughout the life of the meter to determine the health of the meter and to
establish maintenance intervals or alarm limits for operations.

The following is a list of examples of parameters that a manufacturer may provide for
diagnostic measurement via a local display or a digital interface (e.g. RS-232, RS-485):

• EPROM checksum • Alarm and failure indicators

• Configuration change flag
• Drive gain or power indication
• Pickoff or signal amplitude
• Temperature output(s)
• Live zero flow indication
• Status and measurement quality
indicators
• Flowing density or flow tube
resonant frequency
• Flow tube health indication
• Flow tube balance or symmetry
• Frequency output test
• Digital status output test

3.0 Calibration Capabilities

As previously stated, manufacturers typically calibrate the Coriolis meter with water in
their own or other certified facility, and this data is translated for gas application. This
revised AGA 11 document now requires the manufacturer to provide data on a number of
tests performed on his given meter model. These tests should include alternative
calibration fluids such as air or gas and include the uncertainty of the measurement for
the meter under these tests. The manufacturer should advise the user of limitations or
restrictions to the operational range of the meter in such gas service.

It is recommended that at least 5 flow rate test points be reviewed during calibration and
at least one verification point be reviewed if a calibration factor is applied. To minimize
or eliminate any indicated bias error, a calibration adjustment factor may be applied to
the meter. The accepted methods of applying factors are:

1) Using the flow-weighted mean error (FWME) over the meter’s expected flow
range (Calculation of FWME is shown in Appendix A).
2) Using a polynomial algorithm
3) Multipoint linear interpolation
4) Piecewise linearization method
In the field, meter verification consists of monitoring and evaluating metering conditions,
meter diagnostic outputs and/or ancillary devices of the system to determine if any
changes to the meter performance are indicated and to determine the cause of the
changes. The operator should consider design specific meter verification procedures
recommended by the manufacturer, and may include the following:

• Meter Transmitter Verification

• Coriolis Sensor Verification
• Temperature Verification
• Meter Zero Verification

This verification of parameters will direct the operator in determining if the meter
requires re-zeroing, re-calibration (In-situ or in a Lab) or modifications to the installation.

4.0 Guidelines on the calculation processes available in the software

Appendix E of the revised document provides detail of flow computer calculations used
with the Coriolis sensor output to calculate flow accurately, taking into account the
requirements of API 21.1, Flow Measurement Using Electronic Metering Systems,
Section 1, Electronic Gas Measurement.

The section covers the system architecture including discrete I/O communications and
provides the computations applied in the flow computer and/or transmitter software. This
important information has been displayed in a format which explains how the use of mass
measurement at actual flowing conditions can provide volume and energy at base
conditions. It explains how the gas physical properties and process conditions must be
applied for accurate results.

The computation and output of the Coriolis meter has been updated since 2003 to meet
the requirements of the operator end – users allowing an easier integration of the meter
into their present software and hardware systems.

5.0 Guidelines in determining uncertainty

One of the most important aspects of the meter and its installation is limiting the amount
of uncertainty added to it by design or installation practices. Although measurement
practices make reference to the meter uncertainty, it is important that the operator
understands the fundamental aspects and considerations which play into the uncertainty
number which appears on all vendor specification sheets and operator data sheets.

Therefore, this document has followed the direction of the AGA 9 in providing a
complete section (Section 10 and Appendix D) describing the aspects which affect the
Coriolis meter uncertainty.
As in all meters, the uncertainty is not only affected by the design of the meter but also
by the method used and where the meter is calibrated. Flow calibration facilities carry
their own uncertainties of operation, based upon their primary standards and contributing
instrumentation. The facility’s repeatability and reproducibility capabilities are often the
quoted uncertainty and must be considered and included in the overall calibrated meter
uncertainty.

Conclusion

The revision of AGA 11 has been made possible by the dedicated efforts of multiple
operators and end-users in the Natural Gas market place. The drive to have more accurate
measurement and have metering options which cover all areas of the market, has led to a
document which offers practical user-interface guidelines and instruction on how to get
the best performance from the Coriolis meter when operated and installed as directed.

Reference List

• AGA Engineering Technical Note XQ0112, Coriolis Flow Measurement for

Natural Gas Applications, American Gas Association, 400 N. Capitol Street, N.W.,
4th Floor, Washington, DC 20001
• AGA Engineering Technical Note M-96-2-3, Ultrasonic Flow Measurement for
Natural Gas Applications, American Gas Association, 1515 Wilson Boulevard,
Arlington, VA 22209
• AGA Report No. 3, Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related
Hydrocarbon Fluids, American Gas Association, 1515 Wilson Boulevard,
Arlington, VA 22209
• AGA Report No. 7, Measurement of Gas by Turbine Meters, American Gas
Association, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209
• AGA Report No. 9, Measurement of Gas by Multipath Ultrasonic Meters,
American Gas Association, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209

AR-001510