METER STATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Authors:
Ms. Sarah Simons, Southwest Research Institute®
Mr. Terry Grimley, Southwest Research Institute®
Mr. Chester Whinery, Southwest Research Institute®

ABSTRACT
Meter readings can be strongly affected by meter station piping design, flow pulsation levels, vibrations,
and the resulting flow velocity profiles. Meter stations are frequently designed without full
consideration of these factors leading to flow meter reading errors. Field case studies of different types
of problems experienced at meter stations will be used to demonstrate these effects. This paper will
discuss considerations in orifice, turbine, and ultrasonic meter station design resulting in
recommendations for header flow velocities, pulsation amplitudes, and piping design and support.
INTRODUCTION
The recent boom in natural gas production has led to an increased need for gas compression
infrastructure, including meter stations that can transport larger volumes of gas at higher velocities and
pressures. When improperly designed, these meter stations may create poor conditions for accurate
flow measurement. Among the factors that should be considered when developing a meter station are
the static pressure environment (for pulsation minimization), the flow distribution between multiple
meter runs, the velocity profile development and the mechanical vibration levels in the installed
equipment. Measurement accuracy can be improved through the understanding of the influence of
these factors on various meter types and by identifying and mitigating potential sources.
METER STATION PIPING DESIGN
The choice of the basic header piping configuration is normally constrained by factors other than
optimizing a station for accurate flow measurement. Factors including available space, cost, future
expansion, and location of existing connections, will often influence the overall station configuration.
The location of the inlet and outlet connections on the headers should be examined to ensure
symmetric flow balance when the meter-run sequencing approach requires equal distribution among
the meter runs. While center-fed headers should have inherent flow balance because of symmetry, they
may also generate additional turbulence that can influence flow measurement. End-fed header designs
provide reduced inlet turbulence, but may also lead to flow balance issues with multiple runs.
The rules that most apply for headers were developed based on studies focusing on the behavior of
orifice meters. Some differences exist when applying the same approach to measurement with
ultrasonic meters, since the meter capacity for a given line size is significantly more than that for an
orifice meter. Velocity limits in the header piping are typically kept below 30-40 ft/s to reduce inertial
effects that could result in poor flow distribution amongst parallel branches. Header diameter rules of
thumb typically involve making the header area 1.5 to 2 times the equivalent area of all the meter runs
that will be open simultaneously. However, if the velocity limit in the meter run is allowed to reach 100
ft/s, as is sometimes done for ultrasonic meters, then the required header area ratio becomes 2.5 to 3.3
times the total meter run area. The resulting header diameters are between 10% and 50% larger for a
given meter run configuration than has been traditionally designed.

Southwest Research Institute® Page 1

Meter Station Design Considerations
Multi-run header designs that utilize vertical risers that elbow into the meter run should consider the
separation distance between the header piping and the elbow. Studies (Habrink, et al., 1989,
Williamson, et al., 1993) have shown that maintaining 10 pipe diameters or more separation reduces the
flow coupling effects that occur with flow direction changes. Thus, full-body swirl can be reduced along
with profile distortion by using longer risers. Alternatively, in-plane header designs reduce the tendency
to create swirling flows.
With any header configuration, flow conditioners can be used to further improve the velocity profile
that reaches the meter. Thick perforated plate flow conditioners provide a significant advantage over
legacy flow conditioners, like tube bundles, that can actually create measurement issues. Different
meter technologies and configurations have different sensitivities to profile distortion, so the level of
profile distortion that can be tolerated varies. The slight increase in pressure drop in a meter run caused
by a perforated plate flow conditioner can improve the stability of the flow balance in multi-run
headers.
The use of blinded tees can be used to reduce the transmission of ultrasonic noise from pressure
regulating valves (as discussed later), when ultrasonic meters are utilized in the station design. However,
the blinded-tee configuration includes “dead-legs” (non-flowing areas) that can create low frequency
pulsations and increase turbulence levels (Grimley and Bowles, 2011). The residual flow effects from the
dead-legs can have a significant effect on the meter performance.
One of the key elements to consider during the implementation of any metering station is the flow
calibration of the meters. Regardless of the meter type, there is benefit to flow calibrating the meter
using the field piping configuration. This approach reduces the effects of residual imperfections in the
velocity profile and can provide the meter operator with confidence that the meter will function
properly when it reaches the field.
PULSATION MINIMIZATION
Since unsteady pressure fluctuations can lead to flow measurement errors of over 30%, it is necessary to
minimize pulsation amplitudes in the piping system for measuring accuracy. Meters are normally
calibrated based on the assumption of steady flow. The meter coefficient data or correction factors are
derived from carefully controlled and conditioned steady flow; therefore, any pulsations will distort the
readings. The effect of pulsation amplitudes in a metering system is typically represented in terms of
velocity perturbations. Guidelines for absolute allowable levels of pulsations can vary for each type of
meter, and also depend on the frequency of the pulsations. This is an area that is currently being
researched by various companies and consortiums. There are few industry guidelines related to
pulsation limits in measurement applications, but API 14.3 for orifice measurement recommends that
the root-mean-squared value of the differential pressure measurement should be less than 10% of the
average differential pressure for good flow measurement. The turbulent velocity fluctuations that are
typically present will result in a 3 to 5 % variation in velocity even in steady flow situations. Piping design
may increase the turbulence level; however, flow turbulence should not be confused with pulsations
that have discrete frequency content.
Pulsations in metering areas can be defined as any periodic fluctuations in pressure and flow that occur
faster than the meter system can respond. Typically this includes variations in pressure that occur at a
rate of one cycle per second (1 Hz) or faster. The majority of pulsation problems at metering sites result
from acoustic resonances involving one or more piping components in or near the meter station. There
are two types of pulsation sources that can excite the acoustic responses in the piping: Machinery and
Flow-induced.

Southwest Research Institute® Page 2

Meter Station Design Considerations
Machinery Induced Pulsations
The typical source of machinery pulsations at a metering station is a reciprocating compressor. Low
frequency pulsations can travel significant distances easily exciting piping acoustic natural frequencies
(ANFs) several hundred feet away from the compressor. Any metering station connected to a
reciprocating compressor should have a dynamic pulsation analysis performed according to API 618 to
determine the amplitude and frequency of any resultant pulsation excitations. Acoustic filters, side
branch absorbers, and orifices are pulsation control options that can be used depending on the
amplitude and frequencies of excitation.

Flow-Induced Pulsations

Broadband
Flow-induced pulsations can occur at discrete or broadband frequencies. Broadband pulsation or noise
is typically seen over a wide range of frequencies but at low amplitudes. They are introduced to a piping
system when high flow energy is present. Two common sources are flow-induced turbulence and high-
frequency acoustic excitation.
Flow-induced turbulence is generated by fully-developed turbulent flow. The turbulence is chaotic and
unsteady, resulting in broadband pulsations and randomly fluctuating pressures on the pipe wall.
Although turbulent flow exists in a straight pipe section, the dominant sources of turbulence that result
in problematic noise and vibration problems are generated by local flow disturbances such as partially
open valves, elbows, tees, and other pipe fittings. Turbulence can be reduced by following the guidelines
in the meter station design section as well as reducing pressure losses or piping diameter sizes in stages.
Flow control valves are the most common sources of high-frequency acoustic excitation in metering
stations causing acoustic-induced vibration (AIV). Low noise valve trim can reduce AIV as well as
reduction in flow energy through reduced pressure drop or mass flow through the valve. However, this
can significantly shift the broadband range of excitation frequencies to higher values such that there is
coincidence with the operation range of ultrasonic meters. Installing blinded tees has been shown in
practice to reduce the transmission of noise at high frequencies (Warner and Zanker, 1999). When
needed, it is best to install these tee-configurations downstream from the measurement location to
allow the ultrasonic meter to operate at higher pressure where the transducer signal to noise ratio is
more favorable and to avoid the turbulence created in the flow by the abrupt change in direction
created by the valve.

Discrete
The interaction of a gas flow stream with changes in the geometry of a piping system can introduce
pulsations at discrete frequencies into the system. The shear or boundary layer of fully developed
turbulent flow will separate creating the formation of vortices. Vortex-shedding occurs at regular
intervals creating an oscillating pressure field that can excite acoustic and mechanical natural
frequencies in the piping system. The most common source of low-frequency vortex-shedding in a
metering area is flow past a closed stub or dead leg (Broerman, et al., 2010). High frequency vortex-
shedding in metering areas can be caused by instrumentation (such as thermowells and sample probes),
orifice plates, and valve internals.
The Strouhal number relates the vortex-shedding frequency to the flow velocity and the characteristic
dimension of the piping geometry causing the flow disturbance. It is typically determined through
experimentation and practice and used to calculate the range of excitation frequencies in a piping

Southwest Research Institute® Page 3

Meter Station Design Considerations
system. To avoid discrete-flow-induced pulsations and vibrations in the piping system, a vortex-shedding
analysis can be performed to ensure separation exists between the excitation frequency and the natural
frequencies of the piping. Several standards, such as ASME PTC 19.3 and the Energy Institute (EI)
Guideline, as well as guidelines developed by engineering companies and consortiums, exist to evaluate
piping systems for potential flow-induced problems.

Case Study of a Pulsation Problem in a Metering Station

A meter station recently experienced high vibrations causing shaking of the piping, ground, and
instrument lines; high noise levels; and disabling of electronics used in meter readings. A field study was
performed to obtain pressure and vibration data over a range of flows and operating conditions. High
pulsation amplitude was clearly seen at 40 Hz. This corresponded to several mechanical piping response
modes near that frequency creating vibration problems.
It was determined by pressure transducer data that the source of the pulsations was vortex-shedding
excitation of bypass piping around a valve in the main line (see Figure 1). Vortex-shedding of the flow
past the tandem tees connecting the bypass line to the main line excited the acoustic natural frequency
of the two identical closed piping stubs at certain operating conditions. Although the gas flow velocity of
excitation was considered normal to low at less than 60 ft/s, two identical acoustic standing waves
located in close proximity to each other can create resonances that sharply increase in amplitude due to
feedback with each other.

Figure 1. Piping Area Causing Pulsation Problems

Pulsation levels in the main line were amplified by an order of magnitude in the bypass line near the
closed valve as shown in Figure 2. As a point of reference, the recorded pulsations were 170 times
greater than API 618 allowable levels at 40 Hz.

Southwest Research Institute® Page 4

Meter Station Design Considerations
 Figure 2. Pulsation Amplitude Factor vs. Frequency in Bypass Area Piping

To eliminate the pulsation problem, the bypass valve was partially opened thus changing the reflective
end condition of the piping stubs and shifting the acoustic natural frequency of the line as well as
disrupting the excitation source.
VIBRATION REDUCTION
Often metering areas are not well supported since traditionally flow through the headers is well below
50 ft/s with low turbulent energy. However, with increases in flow through stations allowed by newer
ultrasonic meters, many stations are experiencing increasing vibration problems and the need to
improve the support spacing and design for these areas.
Excessive piping vibration in meter stations can be driven pulsation energy or turbulent flow. As part of
a new piping installation, it is important to review the restraints on the piping system to ensure that
adequate mechanical restraint exists to control the sources of vibration that may be present. Ideally,
pulsation amplitudes should be relatively low in a meter station to ensure flow meter accuracy, but it is
usually not possible to completely eliminate all excitation sources.
Vibration problems in piping systems typically occur when the mechanical natural frequency of the
piping is low enough to be coincident with frequencies of excitation (pulsation) in the system. For
pulsations generated by a reciprocating compressor, API 618 recommends that all mechanical natural
frequencies in the piping be above 2.4 times the compressor speed (RPM/60.) This is equivalent to
placing the mechanical natural frequencies 20% above the second order (2X) of the compressor running
speed, which is a good solution since most reciprocating compressors tend to produce the highest
pulsation amplitudes at 1X and 2X their operating speed.
For other systems, where low frequency broadband turbulence is the primary excitation source, SwRI
typically recommends that all mechanical natural frequencies in the piping system be kept above 10 Hz
to reduce the risk of excessive vibration. Depending on fluid densities, flow velocities and measurement
technology, other limits may be more appropriate.
The mechanical natural frequencies in a piping system are controlled by both the piping restraint types
and locations. The mechanical natural frequencies of the piping are usually estimated using classical
beam theory equations to develop clamp spacing guidelines. More advanced beam-type finite element
techniques can also be used. Forced response calculations are usually not required.

Southwest Research Institute® Page 5

Meter Station Design Considerations
Different types of piping restraints provide varying amounts of dynamic (vibration) control. A well-
designed full encirclement strap-type clamp typically provides the most effective dynamic restraint.
Other types of supports/restraints (such as guides, springs, hangers, or simple weight supports) are
often required to accommodate thermal expansion of a piping system or other reasons. However, these
other types of piping clamps are typically much more flexible and usually provide significantly less
effective vibration control.
It is also important that all piping restraints attach to a structure that is rigid enough to enforce the
stiffness properties of the clamp itself. A clamp attached to a tall elevated steel structure with only a
single slender column will provide very little lateral stiffness near the top of the structure, for example.
All ground level pipe clamps should ideally attach to a well-sized concrete pier or some other rigid
foundation. Also, all clamps should be lined with a fabric pad (such as Fabreeka or similar), since it
provides improved pipe-to-clamp contact and is a good source of damping.
Additional guidance on this topic can be found in the API 618 and API 688 standards as well as the
Energy Institute Guideline (see reference section).

Case Study of a Poorly Supported Metering Station with Vibration Problems

A specific example of increased flow causing vibration problems in an existing metering station is
described as follows. An on-site study was requested to resolve high vibrations causing shaking of the
piping, ground, and meter instrument lines. This resulted in instrumentation reading errors and
concerns that small-bore connections may fail. A field study was performed to obtain pressure and
vibration data over a range of flows and operating conditions. No significant pulsation amplitudes were
measured in the system eliminating pulsations as the source of vibration problems. The metering station
had acceptable vibration levels during low flow; however, due to a recently increased demand on the
station, the flow had significantly increased beyond the maximum velocity design point.
The compressor station feeding into the metering area increased the flow to the meter station by
adding another compressor that increased velocities in the header. It was determined that the lack of
piping restraint and poor physical design of the meter station was the source of the high vibrations. U-
bolt clamps are often acceptable in metering lines assuming there are no unusual sources of excitation
and flow velocities are not excessively high. However, with the additional compressor, flow velocities
were in excess of 65 ft/s in the header piping requiring stiffer support designs and better support
placement to reduce the effects of turbulent vibration.
A general arrangement drawing of the metering area can be seen in Figure 2. The station’s two metering
lines fed into a larger header bottle downstream of the ultrasonic meters, the bottle overhanging the
metering runs by several feet. The header connected with a tee and vertical valve to a tee with a blind
flange connection at the end of a meter run. While blind tees are generally included in ultrasonic meter
runs to reduce high frequency noise, this design also creates more flow turbulence. The header bottle
was insufficiently restrained, and was the primary source of vibration. The vibration frequencies seen on
the bottle translated to the dead end of the tee below and throughout the metering lines. The
unrestrained mass of the valves upstream of the header bottle and the header itself created unsafe and
unacceptable piping vibration levels at higher station flow rates.

Southwest Research Institute® Page 6

Meter Station Design Considerations
 Figure 2. General Arrangement of Meter Station

The meter station’s inlet piping connected to another elevated header bottle, but the inlet side header
did not experience excessive vibration, as the vibration amplitudes were within allowable limits. The
differences in the vibration environments can be attributed to the direct connection of the inlet piping
to the bottle as well as the additional restraint on the inlet piping that included a U-bolt clamp close to
the inlet header. These two differences added more stiffness to the elevated inlet header, compared
with the unsupported downstream header.
Additionally, downstream of the metering outlet header was more elevated piping associated with the
bypass line. This bypass piping was also unrestrained and located approximately 5 feet above the
connecting outlet line (Figure 3). This piping area also experienced unacceptable vibration levels.

Figure 3. Outlet Piping and Flow Control Valve Bypass Piping

To eliminate the vibration problem, ideally the elevated piping would be lowered to the same elevation
as the meter lines, but this option was too difficult to implement. Various restraint types were
recommended for each of the unsupported elevated piping elements. First, angle brace and vertical
supports that tied into the skid at the meter lines dead ends on the East and West sides were
recommended. Next, an elevated support to support the downstream header and the flow control valve
bypass line was recommended. This option was shown to be a valid solution through results from an FEA
model, but also was difficult to install. Instead, it was decided that it would be most beneficial to add
another metering area to reduce the flow through this metering station to reduce the flow turbulence
and resulting high vibrations.

Southwest Research Institute® Page 7

Meter Station Design Considerations
IMPACT ON VARIOUS METER TYPES
Pulsations result in distorted velocity profiles and include cyclical variation in the bulk velocity that affect
the flow measurement in varied ways depending on the sensing technology. The most well-known
adverse effect of pulsations is commonly referred to as the square root error (SRE) for orifice meters.
Since the orifice flow rate is proportional to the square root of the pressure differential, the presence of
dynamic flow leads to sampling and averaging errors resulting from the difference between the average
differential pressure and the average of the square root of the differential pressure. The interaction of
pulsations with the pressure sensing (gauge) lines can also distort the values presented to the pressure
sensor and lead to additional errors (Durke, et al., 2012). In addition to the differential pressure
measurement error, velocity profile distortions caused by pulsations cause a shift in the orifice discharge
coefficient that results in additional error.
Turbine meters utilize a rotor that is designed to turn in proportion to the flow through the meter. In the
ideal situation, this proportionality is independent of the flow rate. However, when turbine meters are
exposed to pulsating flow, the inertia of the rotor does not allow the meter to instantaneously respond
to flow variations. The result is that the rotor lags the flow fluctuations and the meter flow rate
indication is incorrect; typically, the meter over-registers.
Coriolis flow meters rely on the inertial force imparted on a flow tube that results from electro-
mechanically oscillating the flow tube at its natural frequency. Sensors detect the phase shift that results
from flowing fluid and the meter electronics convert this into a mass flow rate. Although Coriolis meters
are largely immune to pulsations, the presence of pulsations or vibrations that interact with the flow
tube motion can prevent the sensors from properly measuring the phase difference and result in
measurement error. The frequency at which Coriolis meters operate varies depending on the meter size
and design but, in general, the natural frequency values are greater than 100 hz.
Ultrasonic meters (USMs) measure the transit time of high-frequency (greater than 100-200 Khz)
acoustic pulses traveling at angles through the gas flow. Each pair of transducers samples the velocity
profile along a specific path and the velocity measurement results from multiple paths are typically
combined to determine the overall flow rate. Pulsations can change the shape of the velocity profile
across a pipe thereby changing the measurement samples. Depending on the methods used to combine
the path velocity measurements and the severity of the velocity profile distortion, significant error can
result. A portion of the error is also a result of the meter’s sampling frequency relative to the pulsation
frequency, but even with perfect sampling, errors would still be expected from the profile distortion.
Broadband pulsations and noise resulting from pressure control valves can interfere with the
measurement of acoustic pulses and cause flow measurement errors (McKee, 2009). Some valves shift
acoustic frequency noise into the ultrasonic frequency range to reduce environmental noise, but in
doing so, may create a noise source for the transducers used in ultrasonic meters.
SUMMARY/DESIGN GUIDELINES
Various factors, specifically, flow pulsations, mechanical design, and flow velocity profiles should be
considered when designing a meter station to avoid vibration problems, instrumentation connection
failures, and meter reading errors. The following guidelines are recommended for a robust design that
minimizes the likelihood of problems:
1. Evaluate the sources of pulsation in the metering area and determine if they are above
recommended levels. If not, acoustic filters or other pulsation minimizing techniques should be
used to meet the below levels.
a. 3-5% velocity perturbations from discrete pulsations

Southwest Research Institute® Page 8

Meter Station Design Considerations
 b. 3-5% velocity perturbations from turbulence
2. Allow uniform flow profile development and reduce turbulence and swirl for metering accuracy
a. Meter run header gas flow velocities should stay below 40 ft/s
b. Minimize the use of blind tees and elbows—for ultrasonic meters, consider placing blind
tees on the flow control skid rather than the meter skid
c. Calibrate flow meters using the field piping configuration
3. Reduce vibrations by following best practices for clamp spacing and support types
a. Determine the potential sources of vibrations for clamp spacing
b. Evaluate the energy in the system when choosing support types
c. API 618, 688, and the EI guideline provide specific rules

Southwest Research Institute® Page 9

Meter Station Design Considerations
REFERENCES
1. Habrink, B., Zirnig, W., Hassenplug, H., Kerber, W., and Zimmerman, H., “The Disturbance of
Flow through an Orifice Plate Meter Run by the Upstream Header,” 5th International IMEKO
Conference on Flow Measurement FLOMEKO, Dusseldorf (FRG), pp 75-90, October 9-10, 1989.
2. Williamson, I., Botros, K., and Price, G., “Flow Characteristics and Orifice Meter Error Caused by
Upstream Headers in Multi-Run Meter Stations,” ASME Fluids Engineering Division, Summer
Meeting, Washington, D.C., June 20-24, 1993.
3. Grimley, T., and Bowles, E., “Turbulence and Its Effects In Measuring and Regulating Stations,”
Proceedings of the 87th International School of Hydrocarbon Measurement, Oklahoma City, OK,
May, 2011.
4. Durke, R.G., Bowles, E.B., George, D.L., and McKee, R.J., “Effects and Control of Pulsation in Gas
Measurement,” Proceedings of the 88th International School of Hydrocarbon Measurement,
Oklahoma City, OK, May 2012.
5. McKee, R.J., “Pulsation Mitigation and its Effects on Metering,” Proceedings of the 2009
Western Gas Measurement Short Course, Salt Lake City, UT, May 2009.
6. Warner, K. and Zanker, K., “Noise Reduction in Ultrasonic Gas Flow Measurement,” 4th
International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement, Denver, CO, June 27-30, 1999.
7. “Guidelines for the Avoidance of Vibration Induced Fatigue Failure in Process Pipework”, 2nd
ed., Energy Institute, London, 2008.
8. API 618
9. API 688

Southwest Research Institute® Page 10

Meter Station Design Considerations