Diagnostics for Liquid Meters – Do they

only tell us what we already know?

Terry Cousins - CEESI

DIAGNOSTICS FOR LIQUID METERS-DO THEY
ONLY TELL US WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW?

T. Cousins CEESI CMSI

INTRODUCTION

• Over the years there have been many papers on

the use of diagnostics.
• However, in most cases the analysis is the result
of a combination of very knowledgeable
engineers and hindsight.
• Much of the work with Gas meters with higher
uncertainty.
• Most of the diagnostics are of poor resolution
when it comes to small changes in performance.
INTRODUCTION-PROFILE EXAMPLE

• For example a change in profile in a multi-path ultrasonic

flow meter
– What change in the meter uncertainty, if any does it
indicate?
– It often really only says that possibly something
should be done, maybe!!!!
– Most production flowlines, however, change their
properties with time and so the problem is continually
how much “change” requires some action.
INTRODUCTION

• To a degree the issue can be resolved on liquids by

meter proving.
• Gas measurement has never had the luxury of an onsite
calibration of meters,
– the nearest being “check” metering
– So a concept such as diagnostic analysis of the meter
operation was accepted with open arms.
– It at least gives some form of potential indication of a
change in the operation or performance of the meter.
• On the liquid side proving should be the real arbiter, but
there is pressure both economically and commercially to
stop the use of provers.
PROVING AS A DIAGNOSTIC

• Proving for particular meters, especially Turbine meters is a

true diagnostic.
– It gives a measure of the change in uncertainty and value
of the meter calibration with time and installation.
– For Turbines it gives a good indication of potential failure
by looking at the repeatability.
WHY NOT ALWAYS USE PROVING FOR LIQUIDS

• With such a good diagnostic why would we want any other

diagnostic method? Like all good things in life there are some
downsides, both real and imaginary.
– Provers are still costly items:
– They require for good operation:
• Maintenance
• Good quality engineers/technicians.
– It is not sensible to keep them running continuously.
• so there will always be a gap of time when something
can be going wrong and cause a mis-measurement.
• This then has to be resolved retrospectively, never a
good situation for selling and buying high value
product.
WHY NOT ALWAYS USE PROVING FOR LIQUIDS

• Perhaps the biggest issue is the lack of compatibility with

modern meters such as USMs and Coriolis Meters.
– Lack of good short term repeatability.
– Only meet the repeatability criteria with large volumes
or large numbers of proves.
– Size – with USMs it is feasible to use one large meter
and not a number of small meters and proving is not
feasible.
USM & CORIOLIS DIAGNOSTICS OVERVIEW

• Those that relate to the general operation of the meter.

– Cable breaks, electronic hardware malfunctions,
software glitches, transducer failures, changes in data
configuration etc.
• Those that are influenced by the quality of the fluid.
– Flow profile (USMs).
– Buildup of materials in the pipe.
– Air entrainment.
– Water mixing.
– Corrosion/Erosion of meter tubes
DIAGNOSTICS OVERVIEW- TRENDING

• The most effective method of using internal meter

diagnostics is by Trending (Control charts)
• Absolute values of most diagnostics are very coarse.
– Some values are obviously wrong:
• For a USM a SNR of 10dB for a liquid is possibly a
sign of signal problems.
• However if between 20 and 80 it is probably ok.
• It is the changes with time that are mostly the best
indicator of a potential measurement issue.
• There are usually alarm limits but these tell you
something is happening, or has happened they do
not tell you the effect on the performance,
uncertainty, of the meter.
CORIOLIS DIAGNOSTICS – DRIVE GAIN

• Drive Gain is a measure of the amount of power the

transmitter has to use to keep the tubes resonating, as a
percentage of the total power available to the transmitter.
– For a given fluid, it takes a certain amount of power to
keep the tubes resonating.
– If the fluid consistency does not vary, the amount of
drive gain does not vary.
– Changes in fluid density and presence of bubbles in
the fluid cause changes in the drive gain.
• Therefore, the drive gain can be used to monitor fluid
consistency by comparing to the “known good” baseline.
CORIOLIS DIAGNOSTICS – DRIVE GAIN

• Drive gain can therefore indicate:

– Fluid properties (Gas or mixtures)
– Damage to the tubes (Erosion and corrosion)
– Hammer and overpressure will change the physical
shape of the tubes.
CORIOLIS DIAGNOSTICS – DRIVE GAIN

• The stability of the Drive gain is akin to the SNR of a

USM.
– It is an indicator of stability of conditions and fluid
properties.
Gas Gas Slug
Slug Gas
passed
Mainly starting mixture –
the
Liquid in the the slug
meter
Line
CORIOLIS DIAGNOSTICS – OTHER FEATURES

• Other diagnostics include checking for any changes in:

– Data Entry
– Zero error drift
– Temperature malfunction
– Cable issues
– Density
– Mass Flow
– Viscosity
USM DIAGNOSTICS – METER CRITERIA

• Updates
• Samples/Info
• Tdown/Tup (Transit Times)
• DeltaT (Time difference)
• Status
• Rejects
• Gain Up & Down
• SNR
• Impedance
USM DIAGNOSTICS – CACULATION CRITERIA

• Velocity (Each Path, hence profile)

• VNorm (Each Path)
• Sound Velocity (Each path and average)
• Profile Factor
• Flatness Ratio (Profile)
• Swirl
• Asymmetry
• Standard Deviation (Turbulence) – Although called
turbulence it is really a combination of flow turbulence,
acoustic noise, electrical noise, flow variations, swirl etc.
• Reynolds Number
USM DIAGNOSTICS – TYPICAL STD DIAGNOSTIC
EXAMPLE: USM DIAGNOSTICS – SIMILAR EFFECTS

• Often a single diagnostic is not sufficient to determine a problem or

its effect.
– Usually a combination of diagnostic events is required
• Taking a multi-path USM as an example the same issue will appear
in different forms in different diagnostic properties, so swirl may
show up in flatness ration, asymmetry, swirl calculation, STD, gain
and SNR.
• All facets together would be needed to at least give a high
probability of a correct diagnosis.
EXAMPLE: USM DIAGNOSTICS – SNR

• SNR – Target > 20 Main Function: Signal Quality

• Fluid
– Viscosity too high
– Transition
– Laminar
– Swirl
– General flow noise
– Gas in Liquid
– Water in Liquid
– Particles in Liquid

• Transducers
– Poor transducer seating
– Transducer failing
– Build up on transducer housing
• Connection
– Poor wiring connections
– Solder failure
• Wiring faults
– Paths wired wrongly
– Cable broken
USM DIAGNOSTICS – COMBINED FUNCTIONS

• Presence of gas - Gain/SNR/VOS changes often on upper transducers,

profile + knowledge of the process.
• Presence of second liquid phase such as water – VOS, Flow profile,
SNR variations, the transducers affected depend on the density of both
fluids, profile + knowledge of the process.
• Presence of particulate matter – VOS, SNR, Gain, profile + knowledge of
the process. .
• Signal attenuation (High viscosities) – Gain/SNR/ Viscosity + knowledge
of the process.
• Transducer malfunction – Gain/SNR, profile, transducer number.
• Connection and Cable problems – Gain/SNR/Impedance
• Wax formation – Gain/SNR/Profile + knowledge of the process.
• Installation profile changes due to changing upstream conditions-
Profile, Standard deviation (Turbulence), Swirl + knowledge of the process.
DO THEY ONLY TELL US WHAT WE ALREADY
KNOW?

• The title of the paper asks the question whether diagnostics really tell us in
advance of an issue, before we have found it ourselves by some other
method.
– The answer is in theory yes, if the effect is large enough, and we
understand the diagnostics sufficiently.
• The real problem is that most users either:
– Do not trust the diagnostics.
– Find them too complex to use to work their way through.
– Do not bother to use them.
– Often a combination of all.
• Unlike proving which should be part of procedures for metering, I have
yet to find on liquid measurement a site where review of the
diagnostics is part of the measurement procedure.
DO THEY ONLY TELL US WHAT WE ALREADY
KNOW?

• Without this discipline in place there is very little chance of the diagnostics
being used before or even during an event.
– In general you only find that they are used by a technician, or engineer
who is “interested”, they have not become part of the mainstream
usage.
– Alarms are often ignored; you only have to look at flow computer audits
to see the reams of alarms left untouched, often because the alarm
limits are not sensible.
– The result is that in the event of a major issue they are also ignored until
some other feature, such as proving or a mass balance, highlights a
measurement deficiency.
TUBE BUNDLE MISSING
GAS IN TRANSDUCER POCKET?
GAS IN TRANSDUCER POCKET?

Calibration

Gain

SNR

Path Velocities
SO WHY ARE THEY NOT USED?

• It is clear from the preceding that diagnostics could have, if not prevented
an issue, at least very quickly pointed out a problem.
• The diagnostics for both USMs and Coriolis meters will not, unlike proving,
predict how much a calibration will change for a given incident, such as
profile change, gas in liquid mixture or build up on the meter.
• Also the diagnostics can be misleading or too coarse in the analysis of an
incident or change.
• However, it is clear that they can, at a minimum in many
circumstances indicate that
– There is a potential measurement issue
– Further in combination with proving it can be a powerful tool to
allow tracking in between proves,
– Also enables tracking back to the start of a measurement issue.
WHY ARE DIAGNOSTICS NOT USED TO PREDICT
EVENTS?

• For liquid metering the uptake on the use of diagnostics is small,

particularly compared to gas measurement.
– Some of this is the number of smaller companies that find it
difficult to find the resource to use this type of activity.
– They, however, do find the effort to carry out proving, although
often done though by external entities.
• The lack of ability to predict events is therefore more about the
process than the actual diagnostics themselves.
WHAT IS NEEDED TO INCREASE THE USE OF
DIAGNOSTICS

• It is therefore the process that needs to be changed to make

diagnostics more usable. This would include:
– Manufacturers making the diagnostics more accessible.
– There is, like proving, a need perhaps to provide services from
external “experts”
– There is a need to continue the publicity of the beneficial effects
of the use of diagnostics, but based on a realistic and practical
set of goals.
– There is a need to show the potential payback from using
diagnostics.
– Finally there needs to be a set of standards, to allow a user
to determine the benefits, needs and operation of
diagnostics for the different meters.
• Having that standard will work through into contractual
measurement and push the concept into a similar
acceptability as proving.
CONCLUSIONS

• There is little doubt that diagnostics for many meters are of great benefit in
determining the operation and potential performance.
• In liquid measurement they are not used to anywhere near the degree as in
gas measurement, probably due to a combination of proving and smaller
companies not having the resources to use them.
• Often they are therefore used after an event causing measurement error,
not because they cannot be physically used to either predict or detect the
event as it happens, but because of the way in which they are used, or in
many cases not used.
• What is needed is:
– Better training,
– More accessible presentation
– A set of good standards
– All would contribute greatly to making this tool more usable and enable
it to refute the title of this paper.