Peer Reviewed
The Effects of a Short-Radius Elbow on
Electromagnetic Flowmeter Accuracy
KADE J. BECK,1 RYAN P. WELLER,1 STEVEN L. BARFUSS,1 AND MICHAEL C. JOHNSON1
1
Utah State University, Logan, Utah
This study was conducted to show the effects that a short-
radius elbow has on electromagnetic flowmeter accuracy.
Previous laboratory studies have shown that non-ideal pip-
ing affects the accuracy of electromagnetic flowmeters. The
results of this study indicated that many of the meters
tested did not meet their own manufacturer’s specified
accuracy either in straight pipe or with the required straight
Keywords: accuracy, calibration, disturbance, electromagnetic
This article analyzes the effects of a short-radius
elbow on electromagnetic (magnetic) flowmeter accu-
racy. Kelner (2003) showed that upstream piping con-
figurations may cause flow measurement errors. The
purpose of this research was to explore meter perfor-
mance for a common—but not optimal—magnetic
meter installation. The results of this study are not
intended to be used for or against specific magnetic
flowmeter manufacturers. However, this study is
intended to provide a general sense of “off-the-shelf”
magnetic flowmeter accuracy.
Magnetic flowmeters are a type of fluid flowmeter
that uses Faraday’s law of induction to measure volu-
metric flow rates. Faraday’s law of induction states that
as a conductor of width D with velocity V passes
through a magnetic field B, a flux e is created (Eq 1).
e = DVB
In magnetic flowmeters, two magnets in the meter
spool generate a magnetic field, which is held constant.
The fluid passing through the meter spool is the conduc-
tor, and the conductor width is the inner diameter of
the meter spool. Consequently, the velocity of the fluid
is directly proportional to the magnetic flux produced.
Magnetic flowmeters measure this flux as a voltage
using two or more electrodes.
To improve accuracy, meter manufacturers often provide
installation guidelines for users. Recommendations for
E12 B E CK E T A L . | J UL Y 20 18 • 1 10 :7 | JO U RN A L A W WA
pipe installed upstream of the meter and downstream of a
short-radius elbow. However, nearly all meters in this
study were repeatable to within
0.55% when installed in
straight pipe. The results illustrate that when a magnetic
flowmeter is to be installed in either straight pipe or piping
with upstream disturbances, a laboratory calibration will
improve the installed accuracy of the meter.
upstream and downstream pipe length between a distur-
bance and the magnetic meter vary between manufacturers
and researchers. Lomas and Liptak (2003) suggest that a
conservative estimate of 3–5 pipe diameters (3D–5D)
upstream and 2–3 pipe diameters (2D–3D) downstream of
the magnetic meter is needed. Lomas and Liptak do not
quantitatively define why this is a conservative installation
guideline. Thorn et al. (1999) state that the general recom-
mendation for meter installation is 5D upstream and down-
stream of the meter to ensure good accuracy. However,
Thorn and colleagues did not quantify “good accuracy.”
Hanson and Schwankl (1998) claim that manufac-
turers generally recommend between 8D and 10D
upstream and 2D downstream and assert that this stan-
dard has been accepted as a general guideline for mag-
netic meter installation without clearly identifying its
origin. Although there are speculations regarding the
ð1Þ source of this guideline, researchers still debate its origin
(Hanson & Schwankl 1998).
The British Standards Institution BS7526 (BSI 1991)
requires 10D of straight pipe upstream and 5D down-
stream of the magnetic meter. Because of the variance in
research recommendations, a standard installation con-
figuration may not be conclusive.
Other researchers have also noted that the same
hydraulic disturbance caused different measurement
effects in various magnetic flowmeters (Luntta &
Halttunen 1989). Furthermore, Halttunen and Luntta
(1993) conclude that “the general behavior [of magnetic
flowmeters] can be estimated, but if the accuracy of the
meter is important, the estimation must be based on
individual knowledge of the meter.” Not surprisingly,
this article demonstrates that measurement errors vary
for the same hydraulic disturbance among various
meters—even from the same manufacturer.
The study presented here was conducted in Logan, Utah,
at the Utah Water Research Laboratory. The results repre-
sent data from seventeen 10 in. magnetic flowmeters from
13 different manufacturers. The focus of this article is not
on the 17 flowmeters specifically, but more on the applica-
tion of the magnetic flowmetering technology. The authors
want to emphasize that magnetic flowmeters continue to be
an excellent means for managing and measuring water.
Meter manufacturers often provide installation recom-
mendations to help users produce flow measurements
within a given accuracy range. Even the manufacturers
of magnetic flowmeters provide varying recommenda-
tions on the required number of pipe diameters that
should be installed, both upstream and downstream of
the meter. Table 1 summarizes the installation and accu-
racy parameters of each of the meters that were tested.
By following the installation recommendations, manufac-
turers assert that meter accuracy specifications will be
met within the manufacturer’s velocity range. As indi-
cated in Table 1, the 17 meter manufacturer specifica-
tions varied from 0 diameters (0D) to 5D of straight pipe
upstream of the meter and 0D to 3D of straight pipe
downstream of the meter. Personal communications with
meter manufacturers and the authors’ experience suggest
that these variances are largely due to specific meter vari-
ables, such as signal strength, number and location of the
meter electrodes, actual inside diameter of the meter
spool, and axial rotation of the spool in relation to the
upstream disturbance when the meter is installed.
TEST PROCEDURE
Two specific tests were conducted for each of the
17 meter calibrations. All test setups used a 10 in., stan-
dard wall, carbon steel pipe with flanged couplings. The
TABLE 1 Manufacturer meter installation specifications
Meter number 1 2 3 4 5 6
Accuracy—
% 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5
MFR 2 2 2 2 3 1
recommended
upstream pipe—
diameters
MFR 1 1 1 1 2 0
recommended
downstream
pipe—diameters
MFR—manufacturer
Dash indicates that the value was not reported.
first test established how the off-the-shelf meter per-
formed in a straight pipe with more than 20D of straight
pipe upstream and 10D downstream of the meter. The
second test introduced a disturbance by installing a 90
short-radius elbow at 3D upstream of the meter (30 in.
from the downstream flange of the elbow to the
upstream flange of the meter). For this setup, each meter
was always installed so that the electrodes were in plane
with the elbow (i.e., the elbow was in the horizontal
plane, and the meter electrodes were horizontal).
It should be noted that installing a meter downstream of
a 90 short-radius elbow is only one of an infinite number
of non-ideal installation conditions in which a magnetic
flowmeter may be installed. Table 1 indicates the straight
upstream pipe requirements for 11 of the 17 meter specifi-
cations, which recommend ≤3D of straight pipe upstream
of the meter in order for the meter to meet its own
accuracy requirement. Accordingly, for this research, the
authors selected an upstream length of 3D as a comparison
for all meters (see Figure 1). It is significant to note that if
any external disturbances (e.g., noise, interference) were
present, each of the meters was subject to them because the
tests were all conducted under the same laboratory condi-
tions. Therefore, all comparative tests provided relative
differences regardless of external disturbances. All tests
provided adequate pipe downstream of the meter to meet
manufacturer specifications.
RESULTS
Test flow rates were determined using gravimetric
weight tanks as a reference. The weight tanks are traceable
to the National Institute of Standards and Technology and
have uncertainties of approximately 0.11%.
Figures 2–5 present the data for the straight pipe and
3D tests. The horizontal red lines indicate the manufac-
turer’s published specified accuracy. The meters are repre-
sented anonymously by the number shown on the
horizontal axis. The vertical axis represents meter error as
a percentage difference from the laboratory velocity. The
test velocities calculated during each test are represented
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.25 0.25 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
3 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 0
— 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 0
B EC K ET A L. | JU LY 2 01 8 • 11 0: 7 | J O UR N AL AW W A E13
 off-the-shelf test in conditions that are significantly better
FIGURE 1 Test setup than each manufacturer requires. Although many meters
did not satisfy their own stated specifications, most of the
meters were repeatable. To illustrate this, the range from
each meter’s initial accuracy test (Figure 2) was
centered—or corrected—to zero. The bias was removed
so a direct comparison between meters could be made.
This method is a common approach to ensure in-field
accuracies after a laboratory calibration.
Figure 3 shows that after mathematically removing
the bias from original straight pipe test data, 14 of the
17 meters satisfied the accuracy specifications defined
by the manufacturer. The three meters that did not sat-
isfy their specified accuracies after correction failed
because the deviation of the lowest flow rate expanded
the range significantly. The horizontal black lines in
Figure 3 represent accuracy bands of
0.55%. All but
one of the meters in this study fall within this band after
the bias correction.
Figure 4 illustrates the test data with the meter
installed 3D downstream of the short-radius elbow
(3D test) and with the straight pipe bias removed. As
seen in Figure 4, even with the straight pipe bias
D—diameters
removed, only one of the 17 meters satisfied its own
accuracy specifications. This implies that using an
off-the-shelf magnetic meter will not always guarantee
by varying colors and shapes on the figures. All velocities accurate results.
shown are within the velocity range specified by the man- Figure 4 also shows that every meter in this study
ufacturer. Table 1 is inserted for convenience in each responded differently to the same non-ideal meter installa-
figure. tion, which confirms the research performed by Luntta
Figure 2 represents the data collected in straight pipe and Halttunen (1989). As noted previously, the authors’
conditions. Only three of the 17 meters in this study sat- experience suggests that this result is most likely due to
isfied the accuracy limits given by manufacturers in an the variances in each meter manufacturer’s design, such as

FIGURE 2 Straight data

4.00%

3.50%

3.00%
Velocity 0.96-1.04 fps
2.50%
Velocity 3.70-4.15 fps
2.00%
Deviation—%

1.50% Velocity 7.86-8.15 fps

1.00%
Velocity 11.5-12.3 fps
0.50%
Velocity 15.4-16.4 fps
0.00%

-0.50% Manufacturer accuracy

specification
-1.00%

-1.50%

-2.00%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Meter Number

Meta number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Accuracy – ±% 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.25 0.25 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
MFR. recommended US pipe – diameters 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 0
MFR. recommended DS pipe – diameters 1 1 1 1 2 0 - 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 0

DS—downstream, MFR—manufacturer, US—upstream

E14 B E CK E T A L . | J UL Y 20 18 • 1 10 :7 | JO U RN A L A W WA
 FIGURE 3 Mathematically corrected straight data

1.50%

1.00%

Velocity 0 .96 -1.0 4 f ps

0.50%
Velocity 3 .70 -4.1 5 f ps
Deviation—%

0.00% Velocity 7 .86 -8.1 5 f ps

Velocity 1 1.5 -12.3 f ps

-0.50%
Velocity 1 5.4 -16.4 f ps

-1.00% Manufa cturer accuracy

specification

-1.50%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Meter Number

Meta number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Accuracy –±% 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.25 0.25 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
MFR. recommended US pipe–diameters 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 0
MFR. recommended DS pipe–diameters 1 1 1 1 2 0 - 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 0

DS—downstream, MFR—manufacturer, US—upstream

signal strength, number and location of the meter elec- the bias from the raw 3D test data by centering the
trodes, and the actual inside diameter of the meter spool. ranges on zero. After applying the new bias adjustment
Figure 5 presents the results without the straight pipe from the raw 3D test data, 10 of the 17 meters in this
bias correction and, instead, mathematically removes study satisfy accuracy specifications at 3D downstream

FIGURE 4 Mathematically corrected 3D test deviation using corrected straight pipe data

2.00% Velocity 0 .45 -0.5 2 f ps

1.50% Velocity 1 .60 -1.7 6 f ps

1.00% Velocity 2 .85 -2.9 8 f ps

Velocity 4 .05 -4.3 0 f ps

0.50%
Velocity 5 .20 -5.4 3 f ps
0.00%
Velocity 6 .41 -6.6 8 f ps
Deviation—%

-0.50% Velocity 7 .63 -8.0 6 f ps

-1.00% Velocity 8 .77 -9.0 1 f ps

-1.50% Velocity 9 .84 -10.1 f ps

Velocity 1 1.1 -11.3 f ps

-2.00%
Velocity 1 2.3 -12.7 f ps
-2.50%
Velocity 1 3.3 -13.8 f ps
-3.00%
Velocity 1 4.5 -15.2 f ps
-3.50% Velocity 1 5.6 -16.5 f ps

-4.00% Velocity 1 8.3 -20.4 f ps

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Manufa cturer accuracy
Meter Number specification

Meta number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Accuracy–±% 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.25 0.25 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
MFR. recommended US pipe–diameters 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 0
MFR. recommended DS pipe–diameters 1 1 1 1 2 0 - 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 0

DS—downstream, MFR—manufacturer, US—upstream

B EC K ET A L. | JU LY 2 01 8 • 11 0: 7 | J O UR N AL AW W A E15
 FIGURE 5 Mathematically corrected 3D test deviation using corrected raw 3D data

1.50% Velocity 0 .45 -0.5 2 f ps

Velocity 1 .60 -1.7 6 f ps

Velocity 2 .82 -2.9 8 f ps

1.00%
Velocity 4 .05 -4.3 0 f ps

Velocity 5 .19 -5.4 3 f ps

0.50%
Velocity 6 .41 -6.6 8 f ps
Deviation—%

Velocity 7 .63 -8.0 6 f ps

0.00% Velocity 8 .77 -9.0 1 f ps

Velocity 9 .84 -10.2 f ps

Velocity 1 1.1 -11.3 f ps

-0.50%
Velocity 1 2.3 -12.7 f ps

Velocity 1 3.3 -13.8 f ps

-1.00% Velocity 1 4.4 -15.2 f ps

Velocity 1 5.6 -16.5 f ps

-1.50% Velocity 1 8.3 -20.4 f ps

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Manufa cturer accuracy
Meter Number specification

Meta number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Accuracy - ±% 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.25 0.25 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
MFR. recommended US pipe - diameters 2 2 2 2 3 1 3 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 0
MFR. recommended DS pipe - diameters 1 1 1 1 2 0 – 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 0

DS—downstream, MFR—manufacturer, US—upstream

of a 90 short-radius elbow. Meters 5 and 13 are out- user to appropriately correct the data and account for
side of specification by 0.01%. Meters 15 and 17 appear that unique installation condition. Figure 5 shows an
to fall outside accuracy specifications due to the lack of example of this calibration and demonstrates that a sim-
repeatability of the meter for this installation condition. ulated laboratory calibration will significantly improve
From Table 1, the manufacturers of these two meters meter measurement performance.
(15 and 17) claim an accuracy of
0.2% with 3 or Figures 3 and 5 demonstrate that magnetic flowme-
more diameters of straight pipe. It should be noted that ters remain an excellent choice for flow measurement.
these two meters (15 and 17) would pass an accuracy Although the technology’s application affects the ability
specification of
0.4% for this specific installation con- to accurately measure flow to the resolution claimed,
dition. Meters 1, 6, and 12 are outside of specification the magnetic flowmeters in this study demonstrate an
because the lowest flow rate expands the range signifi- approximate repeatability of
0.55% and
0.75% in
cantly. The black lines in Figure 5 represent
0.75%. straight pipe and 3D downstream of an elbow,
All but three of the meters (1, 6, and 12) fall within respectively.
this band. The results of this study are limited to 10 in. mag-
netic flowmeters from 13 manufacturers installed in
straight pipe as well as 3D downstream of a short-
CONCLUSIONS radius elbow. Further research regarding additional
The authors of this study recommend laboratory cali- disturbances would add to the understanding of mag-
brations to ensure the accuracy of magnetic flowmeters. netic flowmeter accuracy. Expanding the data to differ-
A comparison of Figures 3 and 4 clearly shows that ent sizes of magnetic flowmeters as well as different
introducing a 90 elbow upstream of a 10 in. magnetic distances downstream of the elbow may provide addi-
flowmeter consistently causes the meter to be less accu- tional insights.
rate even though the results are repeatable. In this study, The results of this study add supporting data that
Figure 4 shows that applying a correction from a magnetic flowmeters do not always meet their own
straight pipe calibration is not sufficient to ensure accu- accuracy specifications and that installation conditions
racy in non-ideal flow conditions. affect meter accuracy even when the appropriate length
If a magnetic flowmeter is to be installed in piping of piping is installed upstream and downstream of the
that is less than ideal, the meter can be laboratory cali- meter. This study also demonstrates that laboratory cal-
brated in the same piping configuration, allowing the ibrations and the corresponding meter corrections are

E16 B E CK E T A L . | J UL Y 20 18 • 1 10 :7 | JO U RN A L A W WA
one viable solution for producing more accurate mea-
surements when the meter is installed for use.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Kade J. Beck is pursuing a master’s
degree in civil engineering at Utah
State University in Logan, Utah. He
began working at the Utah Water
Research Laboratory in October 2015
as a research assistant. Ryan P. Weller
is a graduate research assistant and
Steven L. Barfuss (to whom correspondence may be
addressed) is a research professor at Utah State
University, 8200 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322
USA; steve.barfuss@usu.edu. Michael C. Johnson is a
research professor at Utah State University.
https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1055
PEER REVIEW
Date of submission: 09/19/17
Date of acceptance: 03/13/18
REFERENCES
BSI (British Standards Institution), 1991. Methods of Evaluating the
Performance of Electromagnetic Flowmeters, BSI 31. BS7526
(BS 7526/ISO 9104). BSI, London.
Halttunen, J.E. & Luntta, E.A., 1993. Modeling in the Analysis of
Installation Effects on Flowmeters. Proc. 6th International
Conference on Flow Measurement, Taejon, Korea.
Hanson, B.R. & Schwankl, L.J., 1998. Error Analysis of Flowmeter
Measurements. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 124:
5:248. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1998)124:5(248).
Kelner, E., 2003. Flow Meter Installation Effects. http://asgmt.com/
wp-content/uploads/pdf-docs/2007/1/033.pdf (accessed Apr.
28, 2017).
Lomas, D.J. & Liptak, B.G., 2003 (4th ed.). Flow Measurement.
Instrument Engineers Handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla.
Luntta, E.A. & Halttunen, J.E., 1989. The Effect of Velocity Profile on
Electromagnetic Flow Measurement. Sensors and Actuators, 16:4:
335. https://doi.org/10.1016/0250-6874(89)85004-8.
Thorn, R.; Melling, A.; Kochner, H.; Haak, R.; Husain, Z.D.;
Wass, D.J.; Wadlow, D. et al., 1999. Flow Measurement. The
Measurement, Instrumentation and Sensors Handbook. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, Fla. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780415876179.
ch28.
B EC K ET A L. | JU LY 2 01 8 • 11 0: 7 | J O UR N AL AW W A E17