Graduated in Electronic and Electrical Engineering

Various roles have included:

• Research into differential pressure generating devices at
the UK National Physical Laboratory
• Measurement Consultant KELTON Engineering
• Head of Allocation and Measurement for Maersk Oil
North Sea

MARK HAY Now responsible for the KELTON range of software

Operations products.
Manager,
KELTON
Comparison between using historical look-
up tables vs. algorithms for crude oil
volume correction factor (VCF)
determination.

Study conducted by James Speight and Mark Hay of KELTON Engineering.

Recurring questions
Should we use tables?
Should we interpolate between values?
How should we interpolate?
Can the value be calculated?
What are the requirements?
Volume correction
Oil is sold by volume at standard conditions
Measured at different pressure and temperature
Method of correcting to standard conditions is required
It’s good to fill cars on a cold day
Tables vs. calculation
ASTM-IP Petroleum Measurement Tables
Table 54
Table 6
Calculated VCF
ASTM D1250, IP 200 - Report on the Development, Construction, Calculation,
and Preparation of the ASTM-IP Petroleum Measurement Tables (1960)
 Implemented in FLOCALC®.net
 Calculation F073 - Table 54:1952
 Calculation F084 - Table 6:1952
 Table 54 vs. calculation
600 kg/m°

840 kg/m°

1000 kg/m°
-20°C 15°C 75°C 100°C
 Table 6 vs. calculation
0 °API

40 °API

1000 kg/m°
0°F 60°F 150°F 250°F
Comparison between tables and calculation
Table 54
 17121 Data points
 Max error 0.0001 (approximately 0.01%)
 1299 positive errors (approx. 1 in 13)
 759 negative errors (approx. 1 in 22)
Table 6
 19480 Data points
 Max error 0.0001 (approximately 0.01%)
 142 positive errors (approx. 1 in 140)
 245 negative errors (approx. 1 in 80)
Comparison between tables and calculation

1952 Tables
250,000 punch cards
Weighing over 2 tons used in calculation and proofing
Significance of discrepancy
Table 54: 1952
0.9795
Volume correction factor

0.9790

0.9785

0.9780

0.9775

0.9770
41.5 42.0 42.5 43.0 43.5 44.0
Temperature/°C

850 kg/m³ 855 kg/m³ 860 kg/m³ 865 kg/m³ 870 kg/m³
Significance of discrepancy
Table 54: 1952 vs. 2004
0.9795

0.9790
Volume correction factor

0.9785

0.9780

0.9775

0.9770

0.9765
41.0 41.5 42.0 42.5 43.0 43.5 44.0 44.5
Temperature/°C

1952: 865 kg/m³ 1952: 870 kg/m³ 2004: 865 kg/m³ 2004: 870 kg/m³
Flow computer implementation
Look-up tables
 Tables implemented to include error
 Interpolation between API or Density
 Temperature rounded to nearest interval
Calculation
 Interpolation not required

Which is correct?
Does it make any difference to the integrity of the measurement system?
Conclusions
 1952 Tables are not 100% consistent with the calculations they are based
on.
 The discrepancy is generally less than the least significant digit (0.0001).
 The error is insignificant compared with uncertainty in the measurement
and differences between table editions.
 The method of interpolation is insignificant and will not result in a
detectable bias
 Recommend using the calculation as this is easier to reproduce and
validate.
Thank you