CITADEL Engineering Company

Flow Meter Calibration Procedure

Master Meter Proving Method (Ultrasonic)

Revision
Number ISSUED BY REVIEWED BY APPROVED BY

Muhammad Tahir 1 Reza Ariaee 2 Shahriyar Majlesein 3

00
17 April, 2022 18 April, 2022 19 April, 2022

01

02

1
Instrument & Metering Engineer
2 Team Lead FMC department
3 Chief Executive Director (CEO) - ISO 9001 Lead Auditor, ISO/IEC 17025 & 17020 Lead Assessor, ASQ-ASME-AMMA

Member)

Doc No: CEC-FMC-PRD-EN-0004 Revision No.: 00 Revision Date: 04/19/2022

 CITADEL Engineering Company
Flow Meter Calibration Procedure
Master Meter Proving Method (Ultrasonic)

1. SCOPE

This Procedure covers calibration of Ultrasonic Flowmeter as MUT using Coriolis flowmeter as a
master meter.

The requirements in this Procedure are intended for single-phase liquid hydrocarbons. Meter
proving requirements for other fluids should be appropriate for the overall custody transfer accuracy
and should be agreeable to the parties involved. This document does not cover master meters to be
used for the calibration of provers. For information concerning master meter calibration of provers,
see API MPMS Chapter 4.9.3. This document describes the flow test procedure of the ultrasonic
flow meter. The ability of the meter to measure the correct flow rate, is the functional characteristic
to be tested. The deviation between the measured volume flow and the reference measurement
shall be within the required limits. If not, further investigation is needed.

2. How Transit Time Ultrasonic Flow Meters Work?

A transit time ultrasonic flow meter uses the transit times of the signal between two transducers to
determine fluid velocity. The transducer transmits ultrasonic pulses with the flow and against the
flow to a corresponding receiver, as shown in Figure 1. Each transducer alternates as a transmitter
and a receiver.

Figure 1: Transit time principle for ultrasonic flow meters

Consider the case of fluid stationary in a full meter spool. In theory, it will take precisely the same
amount of time for a pulse to travel through the fluid in each direction, since the speed of sound is
constant within the fluid. If fluid is flowing through the pipe, then a

pulse traveling with the flow traverses the pipe faster than the pulse traveling against the flow. The
resulting time difference is proportional to the velocity of the fluid passing through the meter spool.
Single and multiple acoustic paths can be used to measure fluid velocity. Multi-path meters tend to
be more accurate since they collect velocity information at several points in the flow profile.

Doc No: CEC-FMC-PRD-EN-0004 Revision No.: 00 Revision Date: 04/19/2022

 CITADEL Engineering Company
Flow Meter Calibration Procedure
Master Meter Proving Method (Ultrasonic)

The transit time of the ultrasonic signal is measured and used with other variables to calculate flow.
Although the ultrasonic signal is traveling in a straight line, it is traveling at an angle, θ, to the pipe
axis, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Variables for calculating transit time

3. Equipment Required for Calibration

• Master flow meter with calibrated Pressure and Temperature Transmitter.

• Cables and interface converters to be used between the meter and the safe area.
• PC or laptop for logging of data, checking of signal quality and calculation of correction
factors.
• Portable process calibrator
• Digital Multi meter
• General purpose Hand Tools.

4. INTRODUCTION

The use of liquid ultrasonic meters for liquid petroleum applications such as custody transfer or
allocation measurement is gaining worldwide acceptance by the oil industry.

Ultrasonic meters are inferential meters that derive the liquid flow rate by measuring the transit
times of high-frequency sound pulses. Transit times are measured from sound pulses

traveling diagonally across the pipe, downstream with the flow and upstream against the liquid flow.
The difference in these transit times is related to the average liquid flow velocity along multiple
acoustic paths. Numerical calculation techniques are then used to compute the average axial liquid
flow velocity and the liquid volume flow rate at line conditions through the meter.

5. MEASUREMENT OF LIQUID HYDROCARBONS BY ULTRASONIC FLOW METER

Doc No: CEC-FMC-PRD-EN-0004 Revision No.: 00 Revision Date: 04/19/2022

 CITADEL Engineering Company
Flow Meter Calibration Procedure
Master Meter Proving Method (Ultrasonic)

Ultrasonic transit time flow meters use acoustic transducers that can send and receive high
frequency acoustic signals. The acoustic transducers are located in such a way that the generated
acoustic signals will travel diagonally across the pipe. Transit time methods rely on the
measurement of time intervals associated with transmission of acoustic signals across the pipe in
opposing directions. This methodology is not synonymous with the Doppler ultrasonic technique that
relies on the measurement of frequency shift in reflected acoustic energy.

The measurement is based on the fact that the acoustic signals that travel diagonally across the
pipe in the direction of flow (downstream) will take less time to cross than the one traveling in the
opposite (upstream) direction under flowing conditions. The time difference between the two
acoustic signals is proportional to the average flow velocity along the acoustic path.

Master meter proving is the method used to prove a line meter with a master meter. In order to
minimize the uncertainties of this method, every attempt should be made to determine the master
meter’s meter factor (MMF) by proving the master meter in the same fluid and flowing conditions
that will be experienced by both the line meter and the master meter at the time of the line meter
proving. In principle this method may have greater uncertainty than the direct proving method.

Master meter proving is used when proving by the direct method cannot be accomplished because
of meter characteristics, logistics, time, space, safety, and cost considerations.

6. CALIBRATION BY MASTER METER

Citadel mostly using the Coriolis Flow Meters as Master meters (Micromotion CMF Series) for
verification and calibration of Ultrasonic flow meters.

Master Meters shall be properly sized to prove a line meter such that the operating range of the line
meter falls within the proven operating range of the master meter. The master meter shall display
very good reproducibility and repeatability throughout its operating range. Suggested acceptable
performance of a master meter is that a flow variation of ±10 % results in no greater than 0.1 %
change in meter factor and at any flow rate used in the calibration. Master meters shall be selected
to minimize the effects of variances in flow rate and viscosity.

A selected portable meter or a meter at a test station meeting appropriate custody transfer
recommendation can be assigned as a master meter. The meter selected should be known, from
proven performance, to be reliable and consistent, and capable of calibration to specified accuracy
tolerances. In the absence of an in-situ prover, a master meter shall not be used for another
function other than proving meters and shall not be in service when no meters are being proved.

Master meters shall be properly maintained to minimize wear, corrosion, and build-up of material
that may occur as a result of draining down lines and during periods of inactivity, especially if the
meter is in portable service. If the master meter is in portable service; the inlet and outlet
connections should be capped to protect against damage from corrosion and intrusion of foreign
objects during storage. Care shall be taken to protect the meter during transportation, handling and
installation.

7. REPORTING THE RESULT – PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

To display the result of a calibration, the nature of the meter output has to be understood.
Flow meters may indicate flowrate or quantity in a number of different ways. There may be

Doc No: CEC-FMC-PRD-EN-0004 Revision No.: 00 Revision Date: 04/19/2022

 CITADEL Engineering Company
Flow Meter Calibration Procedure
Master Meter Proving Method (Ultrasonic)

a mechanical or electronic display indicating quantity or flowrate, or an electronic output

based on pulses, frequency or current (mA). The output may be in the form of a differential
pressure.

Where the output or display is based on the rate measurement (i.e. frequency, flowrate etc),
readings normally vary a little during a calibration test point. It is normal to average the readings
taken at a controlled sample rate across each calibration determination.

If the output is based on quantity passed (i.e. total pulses or display of quantity) the reading
of the display has to be compared with a quantity of fluid measured by the standard. If the
display is a visual one, clearly the flow has to be stopped to read the display unless some
form of photographic reading triggered from the calibration process is used. If the output is
electrical, electronic gating can coincide with a trigger signal from the standard.

Where electronic digital outputs such as serial or field bus data transfer is used, rate
measurements can be sampled or quantity can be read at the end of the calibration period.
This type of output cannot normally be triggered electronically to synchronize with a
calibration standard, therefore extreme care must be taken to recognize update and
processing times if a dynamic calibration method is used.

The result of a calibration is normally given in tabular form listing the measurements from
the standard and the device. Information on the influence factors and the amount of raw
data given will vary depending on the calibration specification.

The presentation of meter and standard readings is not the most helpful to interpret the
result of the calibration. It is therefore normal to calculate a performance indicator. A
performance indicator can be used to display the result in a way which best displays the
performance of the meter across the flow range. It will also allow the determination of a
quantity when the meter is used in practice.

A number of different performance indicators are commonly used.

K-factor: Used for meters with pulsed outputs proportional to quantity passed. K-factor is
expressed as pulses per unit quantity (e.g. pulses per m3 or pulses per kg)

Meter factor: The generic definition is “correction factor” in the VIM but in the flow meter
industry the term “meter factor” is used. The meter factor is normally dimensionless and is
calculated as the ratio of the meter output to value determined by the standard. This can
be computed from rate measurements or quantity measurements. Units should be the
same. Example:

Doc No: CEC-FMC-PRD-EN-0004 Revision No.: 00 Revision Date: 04/19/2022

 CITADEL Engineering Company
Flow Meter Calibration Procedure
Master Meter Proving Method (Ultrasonic)

Where
F is the meter factor;
Q is flowrate;
V is volume;
i is indicated by the device and
s is the measured value from the standard.

As with the K-factor, this is the number which the output is multiplied to give the true reading.

Error: Error is the difference between the indicated value and the value determined by the
standard. Relative error is the error divided by the value determined by the standard and is
normally expressed as a percentage.

It is important to always define this equation in a calibration report as some industries use a
different convention. This is best described as the inverse or negative error and this is based
on the standard minus the indicated value.

Error can also be defined for meters with electrical outputs of pulses, frequency, volts or mA.
In this case the indicated value is calculated from the output reading and the predetermined
relationship (normally linear) between the output value and the equivalent quantity or
flowrate.

An example is if a meter is configured to provide 20 mA = 10 l/s and 4 mA = 0 l/s. The value

of Qind would be the flowrate calculated from the measured current and the linear relationship
derived from the maximum and minimum settings.

8. PROVING
Field (in-situ) meter proving provides a means of establishing the meter factor for the Ultrasonic
meter under actual operating conditions.
There are various methods of applying the meter factor to indicate the actual quantity measured
through the meter. The adjustment from indicated to actual quantity can be made by varying the
meter factor or K-factor. These factors can reside in either the UFM SPU or accessory equipment or
be applied manually. The preferred method is to apply a meter factor in the accessory equipment
because of its audit trail capability. It is important that the method selected be used consistently.
Note: A UFM is calibrated by the manufacturer to determine one or more calibration coefficients that
are entered into the UFM SPU. These coefficients, although adjustable, should remain unchanged.

Doc No: CEC-FMC-PRD-EN-0004 Revision No.: 00 Revision Date: 04/19/2022

 CITADEL Engineering Company
Flow Meter Calibration Procedure
Master Meter Proving Method (Ultrasonic)

Any factors changed that can affect the quantities measured by the meter must be retained in the
audit trail. In applications where the flow rate varies during normal operation, it may be desirable to
determine meter factors over a range of flow rates. The various meter factors can then be used to
linearize the output from the UFM at varying flow rates. If the meter is used to measure bidirectional
flow, a meter factor should be developed for each direction.
In addition to the initial proving of a UFM when installed in the field, periodic proving is necessary to
confirm or re-establish the performance accuracy of the UFM. Meter proving should be performed if
any of the following events occur:

 Anytime the meter is RE-ZEROED.

 When the flow sensor installation or mounting conditions are modified.
 When the UFM density measurement is calibrated, if the UFM is configured to indicate
volume.
 When the meter assembly is repaired.
 When any of the assembly components have been replaced.
 If a change in the fluid temperature, pressure, or density occurs beyond user-defined limits
as determined from field experience.
 When a flow rate change occurs that will cause a shift in the meter factor in excess of
predetermined tolerance limits. The meter factor shift due to flow rate shall be determined
from field proving experience.
 At the request of parties involved in custody transfer.
 On a schedule based on throughput, elapsed time, or contract.
 Anytime the accuracy of a meter is in question.
 When a change in the direction of flow through the meter occurs, if a meter factor has not
been determined for the new direction.

9. STORED ZERO VALUE VERIFICATION

Valves to stop flow through the UFM to allow zeroing are required. It is preferable to have shut-off
valves located both upstream and downstream of the meter to block it in during zeroing. As a
minimum, a block-and-bleed valve located downstream of the meter is required.

10. DENSITY VERIFICATION

Accurate determination of the line density is critical to successful proving of a UFM when the prover
and the UFM do not measure in the same units
Note: For some dense-phase fluids, such as ethylene and high-purity ethane, these guidelines may
not be sufficient.
Two-phase flow (liquid/gas) can adversely affect meter performance. A UFM installation should be
equipped with air/vapor eliminator equipment, as necessary, so that measurement accuracy is not
degraded.
The UFM should be oriented in a position that will assure that the measuring tube or tubes are
completely filled with fluid under all flow and static conditions or proving).
Consider the:

 Ability to sample product for hydrometer/lab tests.

Doc No: CEC-FMC-PRD-EN-0004 Revision No.: 00 Revision Date: 04/19/2022

 CITADEL Engineering Company
Flow Meter Calibration Procedure
Master Meter Proving Method (Ultrasonic)

 Ability to attach pycnometer or master densitometer.

11. CONDITIONS

Proving conditions should be as close to the actual metering conditions as practical. Occasionally
there may be exceptions to this requirement; however, the essential purpose of proving is to confirm
the meter assembly performance at normal operating conditions.
The conditions under which a meter is Proven are:

 Stable product composition.

 Stable product temperature and pressure.
 Stable flow rate.
 System valves and seals have been checked to ensure there is no leakage.
 Trial runs have been conducted to evacuate any air/gas from the system.

Requirements for stability of temperature, pressure, and product composition will vary, depending
on the proving method being employed and the properties of the fluid being measured.
If the UFM is configured to indicate mass and is being proven against a gravimetric tank prover,
then the stability of the fluid properties is less critical because there is no need for a density
determination.
If the UFM is configured to indicate mass and is being proven against a volumetric standard
(volumetric tank prover, conventional pipe prover, small volume prover, or volumetric master meter),
it is essential that the density remain stable. Stabilizing the density minimizes variations in density
between the prover, meter and the density determination used in the calculation. Since the
measured flowing density will be used to convert the prover volume to a mass or the UFM mass to a
volume, any difference in the density and the true flowing density during the proving will result in
errors in the calculations. This in turn will result in an error in the meter factor. Therefore, to
minimize errors, it is extremely important that the density remains stable during the proving. As an
alternative, the proving system may incorporate an on- line densitometer, calibrated at regular
intervals. This density reference is particularly useful in eliminating errors, if the density varies
during a proving.
The need for stable fluid density also applies to a UFM configured to indicate volume being proven
against a gravimetric tank prover.
If there are density variations during the proving, it is likely that additional proving runs will be
required to obtain an acceptable meter factor. The data should be reviewed for outliers. Any outlying
points should be scrutinized to determine if they were caused by density variations during the
proving. These points may not be valid and may result in an incorrect meter factor if used in the
average. Good proving practices and good judgement will be required when trying to compare mass
measurements versus volume measurements.
To determine fluid properties:
Pressure and temperature measurement devices should be installed as close to the prover and/or
flow sensor as practical, so the measured temperature and pressure are representative of the fluid
temperature and pressure in the prover and/or flow sensor.
If the density is calculated based on temperature and pressure, additional pressure and temperature
measurements upstream and downstream of the UFM flow sensor may be required to determine the
average density in the flow sensor.

Doc No: CEC-FMC-PRD-EN-0004 Revision No.: 00 Revision Date: 04/19/2022

 CITADEL Engineering Company
Flow Meter Calibration Procedure
Master Meter Proving Method (Ultrasonic)

Density measurement devices, if used, should be installed as close to the prover and/or flow sensor
as practical, so that the measured density is representative of the fluid density in the prover and/or
flow sensor.

12. TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE

The temperature and pressure measurements should be precise enough to allow accurate
determination of the applicable correction factors for both the prover and the fluid. The requirements
for temperature and pressure measurement precision will vary depending on which correction
factors are being applied in the determination of the meter factor. For determination of corrections
for the thermal expansion of the liquid CTLp or CTLm, the required temperature measurement
precision will be determined based on the thermal expansion properties of the liquid. For
determination of corrections for the pressure effect of the liquid CPLp or CPLm, the required
pressure measurement precision will be determined based on the compressibility of the liquid.
Experience with the specific liquid will be necessary to establish requirements for temperature and
pressure measurement precision.

13. NUMBER OF RUNS FOR A PROVING

The required number of Tests Runs for each proving varies depending on:

 Type of proving method being employed.

 UFM type and size.
 Operating flow rate and quantity of fluid accumulated during each proving run.

Experience with the meter/proving system will ultimately establish the number of runs required.
Typical examples of the number of runs performed for each proving method are given in Table 1.
Refer to API MPMS Chapters 12.2.3 and 13.1 for more details regarding the number of runs
required to achieve the same uncertainty as five runs at 0.05% repeatability.
The number of runs required to achieve the desired tolerance for meter factor uncertainty should be
defined and agreed to by all contractual parties. Once established, the same procedure should be
followed consistently in order to better track the performance of the meter. These requirements
should not differ from other custody transfer meters for similar applications.

14. REPEATABILITY

The repeatability is used as an indication of whether the proving results are valid.
There are two general methods of calculating the repeatability:

 one associated with the Average Data Method and the other associated with the Average
Meter Factor Method as described in API MPMS Chapter 12.2.3.
 The Average Meter Factor Method is recommended for determining repeatability because it
reduces the influence of changing fluid density and/or prover volume from the repeatability
calculations.

Doc No: CEC-FMC-PRD-EN-0004 Revision No.: 00 Revision Date: 04/19/2022

 CITADEL Engineering Company
Flow Meter Calibration Procedure
Master Meter Proving Method (Ultrasonic)

15. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR METERS AND PROVERS

The meter should be operated within its performance curve, and the prover should be operated
within its flow rate limitations. The meter should be proved as close as practical to the same
conditions under which it normally operates. Meter performance is dependent upon process
conditions. Therefore, during proving it is essential that flow rate be maintained within the normal
operating flow range of the meter.

16. DATA RECORDING

Manually recording data during the prove limits the ability to track changes in operating conditions
over the proving and may increase the uncertainty of the meter factor. For manual data recording, it
is necessary to prove under the following conditions to minimize meter factor uncertainty:
a) stable fluid composition,
b) stable fluid temperature and pressure,
c) stable fluid flow rate.
The use of automated data recording and computational software (proving computer) reduces the
uncertainty of the meter factor by averaging the changes in operating conditions and taking a
greater number of data points over the proving. The amount of variation that can be tolerated before
affecting the repeatability requirement and/or uncertainty varies by liquid hydrocarbon type and
actual operating conditions.
Temperature and Pressure Measurements

Accurate temperature and pressure measurements are necessary for all types of proving, except
direct mass proving.

Doc No: CEC-FMC-PRD-EN-0004 Revision No.: 00 Revision Date: 04/19/2022

 CITADEL Engineering Company
Flow Meter Calibration Procedure
Master Meter Proving Method (Ultrasonic)

Proving systems with automated (computerized) recording of the required meter and prover data
reduces proving uncertainty as compared to manual measurements. These two operating
conditions should be stabilized (in equilibrium) for best proving results. Stability of these conditions
during the proving reduces meter factor uncertainty.
Location
Prover temperature and pressure measurement shall be taken at locations as described in API
MPMS Ch. 4.2, API MPMS Ch. 4.4, and API MPMS Ch. 4.5 as applicable.
Meter temperature and pressure measurement shall be taken at locations as described in API
MPMS Ch. 5.1 as applicable.

17. ACCURACY

Temperature and pressure values shall be within the ranges of the appropriate volume correction
equations/tables (API, GPA).
Thermometers or temperature transducers used for proving shall be the highest practical resolution
as recommended in API MPMS Ch. 7.
Pressure gauges or pressure transducers shall be selected with a resolution that enables the
recording of pressure values as required in API MPMS Ch. 12.2.
Discrimination
The proving temperature and pressure values shall be recorded as required in API MPMS Ch. 12.2.

18. OPERATING PRESSURE

It is essential that both the prover and meter pressures be higher than the equilibrium vapor
pressure of the liquid during proving. In lieu of an actual test, or test data to determine back
pressure requirements, the minimum back pressure should be 2 times the pressure drop through
the flow meter plus 1.25 times the equilibrium vapor pressure (reference API MPMS Ch. 5 meters—
various sections for minimum back pressure requirements).

19. DENSITY
There are various ways to determine density. For proving calculations, it is important to distinguish
between flowing, observed, and base density, how each is determined, and when and where each
might be applied to a proving. Density measurements may be made online or off-line via a
representative sample. Density may be calculated from composition or published equations. API
MPMS Ch. 4.9, API MPMS Ch. 11.1, and API MPMS Ch. 14.6 should be referenced for more
information on density determination and calculation. Density values shall be recorded as
recommended in API MPMS Ch. 12.2 and API MPMS Ch. 5.6.

20. PROVING METERS WITH PULSE OUTPUT

Pulse-generating meters are the most commonly used devices. The output is pulses per unit
quantity (pulses/cubic meter, pulses/gallon, pulses/barrel, pulses/pound, etc.). The electronic pulses
from the meter should be continuous and produce a nonintermittent (non-burst type) signal.
Noncomputational Technologies
Some meter technologies use the energy of the fluid stream to produce electronic pulses that are
proportional to the rate of flow. Typical noncomputational meters are displacement meters and
turbine meters.

21. COMPUTATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

Electronic flow meter technologies use sampling methodologies to determine flow rate. The meter
pulse output is a result of computations from the electronic sampling. At any instant in time the
meter pulse output will represent flow (or quantity throughput) that has already occurred (i.e. the

Doc No: CEC-FMC-PRD-EN-0004 Revision No.: 00 Revision Date: 04/19/2022

 CITADEL Engineering Company
Flow Meter Calibration Procedure
Master Meter Proving Method (Ultrasonic)

flow pulses lag the measured flow). Computational technologies include Coriolis and ultrasonic
meters, and any meter using computing electronics to generate a pulse. These meters can be
proved using the techniques described by this chapter, but because of the computer calculations
involved in producing pulses from such meters, it may be difficult to obtain repeatability.
Proving Meters Utilizing Totalizers
Meters can be equipped with electronic or mechanical totalizers that read directly in quantity units
(cubic meters, gallons, barrels, pounds, etc.). When utilizing mechanical and electronic totalizers for
proving, the indication shall have a discrimination level (1 part in 10,000) as outlined in API MPMS
Ch. 12.2. For example:
a) the meter totalizer is incrementing in whole gallons (1 gallon) then the proof run shall be a
minimum of 10,000 increments (10,000 gallons)
b) the meter totalizer is incrementing in tenths of a gallon (0.1 gallon) then the proof run shall be a
minimum of 10,000 increments (1000 gallon)

22. PROVING LOCATIONS

The proving location and method will depend not only on regulatory and contractual requirements
but also on the meter installation and fluid properties.
Proving conditions shall be as close to the actual metering conditions as practical. Meter
performance may be affected by the following conditions:
a) flow rates;
b) piping configurations/flow conditions;
c) fluid pressure and temperature;
d) ambient temperature;
e) fluid type, density, viscosity, and composition/contaminants;
f) mechanical stress on the meter.
There are three types of proving locations—in situ, laboratory, and ex situ. These three proving
locations can produce different results and have different measurement uncertainties.
In Situ Proving
In situ proving is preferred because it is conducted on the meter’s actual operating fluid under the
meter’s operating conditions.

23. ASSESSMENT OF PROVING RESULTS

The Number of Runs

The estimated random uncertainty of a proving (meter factors or meter pulses) is the primary criteria
for an acceptable proving. A minimum of three consecutive proving runs is required. Any number of
consecutive runs from 3 to 30 can be used.
The preferred proving run uncertainty for custody transfer applications is ±0.027 % or less. Annex A
or API MPMS Ch. 13.1 can be referenced for the uncertainty calculation at a 95 % level of statistical
confidence. API MPMS Ch. 13.1 also states that in certain limited circumstances, a different degree
of (statistical) confidence may be required.
The method of determining the actual number of proving runs and the uncertainty for a proving shall
be the decision of the operating company. The values selected can be based upon many factors,
some of which are installed equipment, prover design, customer requirements, corporate
measurement policy, pipeline tariffs, contracts, etc.
An alternative method to determine acceptable proving runs using repeatability in place of
uncertainty as the criteria is described in Annex A.

Meter Factor

Doc No: CEC-FMC-PRD-EN-0004 Revision No.: 00 Revision Date: 04/19/2022

 CITADEL Engineering Company
Flow Meter Calibration Procedure
Master Meter Proving Method (Ultrasonic)

Meter factor reproducibility is defined as the ability of a meter and prover system to generate results
over a period of time where the range of variation of (change in) pressure, temperature, flow rate,
and physical properties of the liquid is negligibly small. The expected reproducibility is generally
determined by financial risk and experience with each individual meter and proving system or upon
a meter’s linearity as determined by its manufacture.
Determining acceptable meter factor reproducibility is an operating company decision. Common
practice for custody transfer applications is to accept new meter factors within 0.10 % to 0.50 % of
the previous meter factor.
Industry practice is to allow a greater combined reproducibility tolerance for inferred mass
measurement systems that include both volume meter (turbine) and density meter factors. The
tolerance is the sum of the volume and density meters’ acceptable meter reproducibility. This
greater tolerance should be extended to an inferred mass proving that incorporates density
determination to calculate the prover mass.
For inferred mass proving where density is to be determined at the prover, the random uncertainty
and reproducibility of the mass meter factor is affected by the meter performance, the choice of
prover density determination, its sampling frequency, and the density meter calibration. Assessment
of the mass meter factor should include evaluating the density uncertainty.
Where operating conditions are consistent, the statistical practices of API MPMS Ch. 13.1 can be
used to evaluate meter factor reproducibility. A common practice is to compare the new meter factor
against a 2-sigma limit of previously determined meter factors.
Statistical records of the meter factor should be maintained in accordance with API MPMS Ch. 13.2.
Meter factor data should be plotted in a “control chart” and reviewed to evaluate trending. An
excessive trend in one direction may be an indication of a problem.
Any of these methods for evaluating reproducibility are based upon the assumption that the liquid
and operating conditions are the same as the previous (negligibly small changes). For more specific
evaluation, separate control charts should be used where meter factors are tracked based on
physical properties, flow rates, individual fluids, etc.

Doc No: CEC-FMC-PRD-EN-0004 Revision No.: 00 Revision Date: 04/19/2022

 CITADEL Engineering Company
Flow Meter Calibration Procedure
Master Meter Proving Method (Ultrasonic)

Doc No: CEC-FMC-PRD-EN-0004 Revision No.: 00 Revision Date: 04/19/2022