Proving Liquid Ultrasonic Meters

Using a Small Volume Prover and

Master Meter

Colin Lightbody
Measurement Technology specialist
Daniel Measurement & Control
 Transit Time Liquid USM – How it works?
Transducer locations placed for optimum measurement accuracy
Transducers act alternately as transmitter and receiver
Downstream pulses traverse stream more quickly than upstream
pulses
Q = Vaverage ⋅ A
where
Q = flow rate
Vaverage = mean velocity of the fluid in the pipe
A = area of the pipe

For multipath Liquid USM

n
Vaverage = ∑ wi vi
Multipath Liquid USM 1

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 2
 Why are we proving?
Meter factor shall be determined by proving the meter at
stable operating conditions

Proving is primarily a function of regulatory and

contractual requirements

Proving conditions shall be as close to the actual

metering conditions as practical

The essential purpose of proving is to confirm the

meter’s performance at normal operating conditions

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 3
 Four Basic Requirements

(1) Prove under normal conditions

The meter must be proved under the same conditions as it
is normally expected to operate.

(2) Adequate prover capacity

The meter prover must have a capacity large enough to
provide proving runs of adequate duration.

(3) Sufficient number of runs

A sufficient number of runs must be made to establish a
valid proving…and valid Meter Factor

(4) Traceable results to regulatory standards

Calibration of the meter prover must be traceable to
calibrated test measures.

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 4
Setting Liquid USM Response Time

It is essential to have flow pulse signal processing respond

quickly to minimize potential meter factor bias errors

It is recommended that any signal processing configuration

settings in the transmitter be minimized
– Sample interval – the time period between ultrasonic flow rate
samples
– Number of samples – the number of ultrasonic samples processed
for each flow measurement update
– Pulse output adjustment – amount of damping or filtering of the flow
measurements that produce the pulse output signal

Any changes made to LUSM’s speed of response requires

the ultrasonic meter to be re-proven

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 5
 Meter Performance – Flow Lab or in
in--situ?
As with all custody transfer liquid flow meters, a meter
factor should be determined by proving the meter at
stable operating conditions
– In-situ proving is normally preferred because it
verifies the meter’s accuracy under actual operating
conditions
– Laboratory proving is normally not preferred because
laboratory conditions may not duplicate the operating
conditions

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 6
 Liquid Ultrasonic Meters – Very Sensitive Wee Souls!
• LUSM’s take snapshots of fluid velocity
along one or more sample paths.
• Variations in velocity along each path
are random as turbulent eddies and
the variations in local flow that produce
them are entirely random.
• Very high viscosity flows?
• Not entirely sure!!
• Does anyone have experience of “laminar
proving?”

• As a result the output from an

ultrasonic meter will produce a greater
degree of data scatter due to their
ability to measure minute variations in
velocity.

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 7
 Proving Liquid Ultrasonic Meters – What’s
wrong with my turbine proving approach?
• The differences between Turbine and Ultrasonic
technologies means a different approach is required
• Turbine Meter Ultrasonic Meter
• Sees all of the flow • Samples the flow at discrete
chord locations (2, 3, 4, 5 or 8
• Local turbulence is depending on meter model)
averaged by the rotor
• Local turbulence is averaged by
• The rotor can turn at only many samples
one rate
• Short term repeatability is a
• Little data scatter due to function of turbulence
inherent inertia of the
measurement element • Data scatter due to ability to
measure minute variations in
• Uniform pulse train velocity ie: turbulence
• Non-uniform pulse train

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 8
 Proving Liquid Ultrasonic Meters

Liquid Ultrasonic Meters are “manufactured” or

“synthetic” pulse type meters Uniform pulse output – Turbine meter
Frequency normally very constant
There are two consequences of this which can affect
proving results.
– Proving accuracy can be affected by any delay in
pulses due to processing speed of the transmitter
– Ultrasonic meters produce a non-uniform pulse
output and have a varying frequency. This can cause Non-uniform pulse output – Ultrasonic meter
Frequency variation due to ability to measure
difficulty in obtaining traditionally acceptable (i.e. minute variations in velocity
turbine meter!) repeatability figures while proving
Proving run repeatability is traditionally used as an
indication of whether the proving results are valid
Proving run repeatability may not fall within the typical 5
run, 0.05% span of repeatability, however proving runs
shall repeat within the API Ch 4.8 and Ch 5.8 guidelines

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 9
 How do we Prove
Liquid Ultrasonic
Meters

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 10
 All New State Of The Art Prover ☺

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 11
 Proving Result - Pulses
1st prover Final prover 1st prover 1st prover
Final prover Final prover
detector detector detector detector detector detector

1200.1234 1199.9876 1200.1121

interpolated pulses interpolated pulses interpolated pulses

Turbine Meter
Repeatability 0.011%

22,850.1214 22,902.6761 22,887.9017

interpolated pulses interpolated pulses interpolated pulses
Ultrasonic Meter
Repeatability 0.23%

Increasing the number of pulses does not necessarily improve repeatability

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 12
 Proving Result - Pulses
1st prover Final prover
detector
Ultrasonic Meter Run # 1 detector
849,313 whole pulses

Ultrasonic Meter Run # 2

849,457 whole pulses

Repeatability 0.017%

Increasing proving volume improves Liquid USM repeatability

- Yet again SIZE MATTERS ☺

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 13
API Guideline to Proving Runs
Table B-1 – Proving an Ultrasonic Flow Meter
API Chapter 5.8, Table Repeatability = ((High Counts – Low Counts) / Low Counts) X 100

B-1 recognizes that an Runs Repeatability * Uncertainty

increase in proving runs 3 0.02% +/- 0.027%

4 0.03% +/- 0.027%
may be needed in order 5 0.05% +/- 0.027%
6 0.06% +/- 0.027%
to achieve a ±0.027% 7 0.08% +/- 0.027%

uncertainty of meter 8
9
0.09%
0.10%
+/- 0.027%
+/- 0.027%

factor 10 0.12% +/- 0.027%

11 0.13% +/- 0.027%
12 0.14% +/- 0.027%
13 0.15% +/- 0.027%
14 0.16% +/- 0.027%
15 0.17% +/- 0.027%
16 0.18% +/- 0.027%
17 0.19% +/- 0.027%
18 0.20% +/- 0.027%
19 0.21% +/- 0.027%
20 0.22% +/- 0.027%
* per API MPMS Ch. 5.8, Table A-1 to achieve +/- 0.027%
[File Name or Event] uncertainty of meter factor.
Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 14
 Proving Volume is Critical
The number of pulses API Chapter 5.8 2005 edition
generated during a prove is
Prover Volume vs. Meter Size
not the issue 5 Runs 8 Runs 10 Runs
0.05% 0.09% 0.12%
The proving volume is the
Meter Size (in.) Prover Size (bbl)
critical factor in achieving a 4 33 15 10
successful prove on a LUSM 6 73 34 22
8 130 60 40
Use Master Meter – Prover 10 203 94 62
12 293 135 89
combination or a prover with 14 399 184 121
sufficient volume 16 521 241 158

Table B-2 – Suggested Prover Volume to obtain

+/- 0.027% Uncertainty of Meter Factor

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 15
 48” 600# Meter Prover for Crude Oil Service
[File Name or Event]
Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 16
 That’s a Lot of Hardware! Any alternatives?
Proving LUSM – Master Meter - Prover
• In-situ prover – master meter combination is accepted and
recognized as a valid method to prove Liquid Ultrasonic Meters
• Small volume Prover or Ball Prover used in combination with a master
meter
• Master Meter is calibrated against prover in-situ under actual operating
conditions
• Master Meter proving is recognized by API and described in the
standard API MPMS Chapter 4.5
• This methodology allows for longer proving cycle to improve meter
repeatability
• Eliminates uncertainties due to laboratory calibration of master meter
on different fluids at different operating conditions

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 17
 34” Trailer Mounted Prover with Master Meter

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 18
 Prover--Master Meter Proving Procedure
Prover

Establish flow through the prover loop and verify the integrity of double
block and bleed valve
Adjust pipeline flow rate to desired setting and verify temperature stability
between line meter and prover loop
Prover the master turbine meter with prover to meet uncertainty
+/- .027% or better uncertainty of meter factor
Reconfigure prover electronics for master meter prove operation using
new K-factor of master meter
Prove LUSM (line meter) with master meter to +/- .027% or better
uncertainty of meter factor (recommend minimum 2 minutes per run)
Re-prove master turbine meter with prover to verify K-factor has not
changed more than 0.02% from initial prove
The above sequence is repeated for every flow rate tested OR if the
reprove of the master meter shows a change in K-factor greater than
0.02%

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 19
 Field Results

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 20
 In--situ Master Meter Proving
In
• 10 repeats per flow rate averaged, each proving run 1
minute duration – NO flow conditioning

1.005 0.40

1.000 0.30

Repeatability%
Meter Factor

0.995 0.20

0.990 0.10

0.985 0.00
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Flow Rate (BPH)

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 21
 In--Situ Master Meter Proving
In
• 10 repeats per flow rate averaged, each proving run 2 minutes in
duration – NO flow conditioning

1.010 0.40

1.005 0.30

Repeatability %
Meter Factor

1.000 0.20

0.995 0.10

0.990 0.00
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Flow Rate (BPH)

[File Name or Event] Increasing proving run volume improves repeatability

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 22
 Proving Considerations
As a general rule the longer the proving cycle the more
repeatable the results

While proving a range exceeding 0.05% in 5 runs does

not mean that a UFM is defective

Goal is to achieve +/- 0.027% meter factor uncertainty

at a 95% confidence level

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 23
 Summary
• While proving Liquid Ultrasonic Meters the Goal should be to achieve
+/- 0.027% meter factor uncertainty at a 95% confidence level.
Expecting turbine methodologies and figures to transfer will usually end
in disappointment
• Advancements in electronics and flow conditioning are resulting in
proving volumes becoming smaller
• See Gregor Brown’s presentation from Focus Group last year

• Successful field proving can be achieved providing proper

consideration of proving methodology is given
• Customers today are proving their meters in the field and reporting
excellent results using the small volume prover/master meter method

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 24
 Example of Turbine / LUSM / SVP metering skid

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 25
 Hopefully a topic for future meetings
Cryogenic prover for in-situ
proving of LNG LUSM’s

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 26
 Thank You

Questions?

[File Name or Event]

Emerson Confidential
27-Jun-01, Slide 27