Theory and Application of Pulse Interpolation to Prover Systems Class #4140.1-2007 Galen Cotton Cotton & Co.

LP 2226 Bauer Drive Houston, TX77080 USA

PROPOSITION Here we take an in-depth look at the use of Pulse Interpolation as it applies to reduced volume provers (captured piston provers in current API parlance) and the danger implicit in relying on the technique where the fundamental conditions implicit in its use do not prevail. The application of API MPMS 4.8 Appendix A may be inappropriate for some measurement technologies. PULSE INTERPOLATION Pulse interpolation is a technique employed in reduced volume meter provers for the purpose of producing a generally faster more efficient verification of meter performance while keeping the provers physical size much smaller than would otherwise be the case. What is a flowmeter prover? A flowmeter prover is either; (1) a device designed to collect the discharge of fluid from a flowmeter for comparison to the value indicated by the flowmeter (either mechanically or electronically produced), or (2) a calibrated section of pipe with appropriate indicators and displacer to define a calibrated section of known volume for comparison to the flowmeters indicated output of fluid on the fly. In the first case, the device might be a calibrated can or tank used for a volumetric comparison, or a tank mounted on scales and compensated for buoyancy so as to produce a comparison by weight of volume (mass). Where a volumetric comparison is made with a can or tank, the meter might be equipped with a mechanical counter allowing a direct comparison to the tank reading. The second type is sometimes referred to as a conventional prover in pipeline operations. Conventional pipeline provers are designed to make such a comparison on the fly and rely on the collection of pulses generated by the flowmeter under test for comparison to the calibrated volume delineated by the detector switches on a section of pipe. These provers are conventional in the sense that they comply with the long standing requirement to produce a comparison discrimination of one part in ten thousand and are of such size as to cause a flowmeter under test to produce at least 10,0001 indices (pulses) during the proving process. The design of free piston and ball provers must also allow for sufficient distance between detector switches so as to limit their error contribution. Comparison of an analogous volume To understand the basic operation of a prover its important to remember that the liquid flowing through the meter is not fluid being collected or displaced through the prover. This could not be otherwise given that many provers are located at a distance from the meter under test. The prover compares an analog of the fluid discharged from the meter, not the actual fluid. Think of it this way; liquid confined in a conduit is incompressible; liquid moving through the meter is connected via the liquid column to the fluid being discharged through the prover. Move X amount of fluid through the meter and a like amount will move through the prover at the same time. Conventional provers utilize a mechanical switch at the beginning and end of their calibrated sections to delineate the prover volume and provide a means to start and stop the collection of flowmeter pulses during the proof. These switches are typically actuated by a free ball or piston moving along with the liquid column which is launched into the stream at the beginning of a proof run. Before the deployment of captured piston, reduced volume meter provers (formerly referred to as small volume, ballistic, or compact provers), provers were sized to collect a minimum of 10,000 pulses from the meter during the

592

transit of the ball or piston between detectors. This insured that the prover would not contribute more than 0.01% to the uncertainty of the proving result. 1 10,000

= .01%

The one in ten thousand rule is intended to accommodate the variability encountered due to random starts and stops in the data collection as a result of non-synchronicity between detector activation and the leading edge of the first and last pulse collected.

The degree to which the pulse train is out of synch with the prover detectors.

Start Detector

10,000 pulses

Stop Detector

In addition, where balls or spheres are used, the sphere contributes to the overall uncertainty as a result of variability in geometry between the sphere and its intersection with the intrusive detector switch. That uncertainty is generally considered to be on the order of 1mm for each switch.

Or

593

If 2mm 100%

= 0.01%
Then

= 20 meters

This means that the minimum distance between detectors is set by this constraint. These constraints serve to limit the size of conventional provers to a rather large foot print resulting in a lack of portability, a requirement for substantial investment in real estate and physical supporting structure. Obviously, a prover of small size, portability, and reduced cost of ownership would be of great interest to the proving community, and so enters the reduced volume prover and the advent of pulse interpolation. INTERPOLATION: To estimate a value of (a function or series) between two known values. OR; in the case of reduced volume provers, how to collect whole pulses where synchronicity with the detector switches is entirely absent and interpolate the partial pulse resulting from the non-synchronous events of detector activation and pulse generation. Flow computers and other pulse recording devices can only collect whole meter pulses leaving any partial pulses uncounted, for example ;

These partial pulses would not be counted

Start Detector

Stop Detector

But, by various techniques the partial pulse can be accounted for and a floating point value determined that represents the test meters actual K-Factor (pulses per unit volume) with sufficient resolution to meet the established prohibition regarding the provers uncertainty contribution to the process.

594

PULSE INTERPOLATION METHODS Three methods of pulse interpolation have found favor among the worlds measurement engineering community and include; 1. Phase Locked Loop This technique is the only one of the three that does not utilize high speed clock time to perform the reconciliation. Instead, a circuit senses the frequency of the meter pulses and generates a parallel pulse output of substantially higher frequency determined by a fixed constant. The number of high frequency pulses are counted for the volume between detectors and then divided by the constant to produce a floating point number representative of the test meters true K-Factor. In other words, using the high speed pulses to divide the whole meter pulses collected to produce greater resolution. To achieve this, the oscillator frequency must be high enough to generate more than 10,000 pulses.

Partial pulses

N1= n/R Where: n = total high frequency pulses (Rf) R = Freq escalator constant f = test meter frequency

Start Detector

Stop Detector

2. Quad Timing Pulse Interpolation Quad timing involves the recording of four (4) distinct time intervals. The first two are made at the actuation of the first detector switch to measure (1) the interval between the detector operation and the first adjacent pulse (partial pulse time) and (2) the length of an immediately adjacent whole pulse. Similar measurements are taken at the actuation of the second detector. When their ratio is taken and added to the number of whole pulses recorded, a floating point K-Factor can be determined.

Partial Pulse interval (T1)

Partial Pulse interval (T3)

Whole Pulse interval (T2)

Whole Pulse interval (T4)

Start Detector N1 = n + (T1/T2) (T3/T4)

595

Stop Detector

3. Dual Chronometric Pulse Interpolation (API recognized technique) Dual Chronometry (Two Clock Method) Pulse Interpolation is the most common method employed and makes use of a high speed clock (1 Megahertz is typical) to resolve the magnitude of the uncounted partial pulse. The two clock registers are driven from the identical oscillator and their incremental accumulation begun by two distinct events; (1) the initiation of the first detector switch (A, Prover transit time), and (2) detection of the first whole pulse following initiation of the first detector switch (B, pulse collection time). Accumulator A stops on initiation of the second detector and accumulator B stops on detection of the first whole pulse following the second detector. In this way the proof run collects (1) meter whole pulses, (2) time to collect whole pulses, (3) prover calibrated volume (known), (4) prover transit time (time between detectors). Taking a ratio of these values produces the floating point K-Factor sought.

Detector Switch
A (time) K (factor) = D (Prover Vol.) Where: A = time for known displacement in seconds B = Time to collect whole meter pulses C = Accumulated whole meter pulses from meter D = Known displaced volume from prover X B (time for pulses) C (Pulses)

Displacer

CALIBRATED VOLUME (D) Elapsed time for Displacer travel (A) Whole meter pulses (C)

Time to collect pulses (B)

SWITCH HYSTERESIS The detector switches utilized in captured piston, reduced volume provers are non-intrusive and highly accurate. Typically mounted on an external instrument package these optical devices have demonstrated a degree of repeatable performance (point of actuation) undreamt of when the industry standard was the unidirectional and bidirectional pipe prover. Pulse interpolation would be, for all practical purposes, beyond our employment but for these devices. Unlike their predecessor plunger switches on conventional provers, their repeatability or absence of hysteresis far exceeds the limit of uncertainty contribution of one in ten thousand. PROVING Why some meters will, and some are so reluctant So why, if the technique is so good, do some meter types exhibit a greater variance of repeatability, and where repeatability can be established during proof still exhibit poor reproducibility? Repeatability the ability of a meter and prover system to repeat its registered volume during a series of consecutive proving runs under constant operating conditions. (API MPMS Chapter 1) Reproducibility the ability of a meter and prover system to reproduce results over a long period of time in service where the range of variation in operating conditions and fluid properties are small. (API MPMS Chapter 1)

596

Proving reports demonstrate repeatability for a specific number of comparison runs while meter factor control charts are used to monitor performance over time. Utilization of API MPMS 4.8 Appendix A and the statistical reduction techniques for dealing with random error described in API MPMS 13.2 may produce a repeatable meter factor for meters that still do not exhibit reproducible results. Why? Painting with a broad brush, experience indicates that technologies such as conventional turbine meters tend to prove easily and consistently with captured piston provers in a minimal number of runs. Moreover, meter factor control charts are easily employed as, barring damage and wear, their meter factors are imminently reproducible. This tends to be true of PD meters, as well, where turbine type pick up systems are employed instead of stack mounted transmitters. In other words, in meter types that employ parallel sensing systems rather than driven systems, whether mechanically driven or the result of computational derivation, and where only inertial effects have an impact on the pulse output. Many have written about manufactured pulse delay and have ascribed to the notion that turbine meters, for instance, also have an output delay in an effort to lump a biased output delay with random inertial effects. Output delays (versus inertial effects) are quite different in their genesis and are not amenable to reduction using techniques for reduction of random errors. Inertial effects result in random variations in reported flowrate and frequency. A turbine meter, due to inertial forces, cannot respond instantaneously to minor changes in flowrate, so it lags. The build up energy in the rotor results in its overcoming the initial inertial delay and with excess energy it tends to overshoot the general Flowrate a phugoid oscillation (yes, thats real word). Eventually, inertia serves to dampen these oscillations until a more or less steady state of rotational velocity is attained as dynamic forces and drag balance each other out, until the next variation in bulk flowrate. This response to change in flowrate is random and generally evenly distributed about the mean rotational velocity as seen in the following example of a turbine meters output

. Turbine Output showing lead/lag oscillation in response to changing Flowrate The reporting or signal generation system for a turbine meter is not mechanically coupled to the rotor (in most cases) and merely reports the rotational velocity of the rotor system real time and without adding any delay to the output. Much the same can be said of PD meters with classical turbine pickups to indicate rotation without any intervening gearing. PD meters with gear train driven pulse generators are quite another matter as the gear train tends to backlash and windup to produce a mechanical delay not unlike that seen in microprocessor generated pulse systems. Systems that produce an output subsequent to rather than correlated with the flow measurement process, whether mechanically derived or computed, produce biased error rather than and in addition to any random error. They are not amenable to reduction using statistical methods intended to produce a mean value from a normally distributed, random data set (that would be API MPMS 13.2). API MPMS 4.8, Appendix A and API MPMS 13.2 .. What were they thinking? The purpose of this chapter is to provide procedures for recording, analyzing, and controlling variations in meter factors so that random uncertainties are understood and consistent with the objectives of parties affected by the measurement operations. (emphasis added) API MPMS 13.2 Clearly the framers intended the techniques described in Chapter 13, Section 2 should address the reduction of random error, not bias. A delay in signal output creates a temporal disconnect with the proving operation as it relates to meter generated data. That disconnect or displacement gives rise to biasing of the K-Factor that is inversely proportional to the delay time.

597

COMPUTATIONAL FLOWMETERS . A cautionary tale This class of flowmeter (computational) can readily be described as any of those devices that produce an output pulse that is computationally derived. That would include geared outputs driving pulse generators as gear change ratios are but a mechanical computation, however more typically these devices are those wherein a microprocessor produces an output as a result of sampling, integration, and computation of a representative output pulse (whether presented as a frequency or pulse per unit volume). This is as opposed to those devices that integrate the flow field mechanically (i.e., turbines), the representative pulse for which is produced by a parallel sensing system without appreciable delay. Several papers have now been written by various authors describing the result of tests confirming both the existence of computational delays and that bias is evident. The API study of manufactured pulses concluded that repeatability and bias issues were predominantly associated with captured piston provers (small volume provers) utilizing pulse interpolation, and that the largest prover available should be used or the master meter transfer method employed to reduce the bias to acceptable limits. Unfortunately, API does not recognize an acceptable limit, or for that matter that any bias should be accepted, though I suppose a comparison volume vast enough could mask any error. So, what mechanism gives rise to the bias, difficult to obtain repeatability, and poor reproducibility exhibited by this class of flowmeter? AN EXPLANATION Where non-computational flowmeters are tested against a captured piston prover a near perfect analog of the fluid passing through the meter is compared by the prover to a data stream that is well correlated in time. In other words, the first pulse that appears after the first detector is representative of fluid directly behind the prover displacer. Every subsequent pulse that appears is in the same physical relationship to the first detector and represents fluid entering the prover and further driving the displacer toward the second detector. When sufficient pulses and the fluid they represent have entered the prover and pushed the displacer to the end of the calibrated section, the displacer actuates the second detector and pulse collection ceases. We have had fluid pass through the prover correlated in time with its representative data points (pulses).

T1(Time
Flo

Collected meter
detecto

Prover comparison volume well correlated with collected meter pulses

In this scenario the first detector represents (from the prover perspective) the point in time where meter pulses come into existence and fluid enters the prover (T1). So what happens when the meter pulse that should represent the fluid just entering the prover is delayed? The fact that the pulse is delayed simply means that the fluid it represents is physically displaced downstream of its position. Instead of the pulse appearing immediately downstream of the first detector and representing the fluid just entering the prover, it represents fluid some distance downstream. The fluid represented by each pulse as it appears adjacent the first detector represents fluid whose physical location is governed by the time delay and the ratio of pulse delay to the duration of the proof. To illustrate;

598

displacement

?
Flo Data is not collected for this fluid due to the timing offset

This sketch shows a precision ultrasonic flowmeter under test (this could be any computational type) and the meter illustrates the relationship of generated pulse to fluid represented. They are displaced in time. The provers relationship to generated pulses and the fluid they represent is analogous to that of the meter and shows the displacement of the meter pulse and respective volume represented as it manifests at the prover. Once again, the prover displacer launches the proving cycle by actuating the first detector. The pulse appearing immediately adjacent the first detector represents fluid that is displaced in time from that just entering the prover and this relationship will prevail for the duration of the proof. Note that at completion of the proof we have collected pulses for the entire duration of the proof, weve displaced all of the fluid between the detectors in the process, but the pulses collected only represent a portion of the fluid displaced. OK, here comes the math for the error contributed by the ratio of delay time to prover transit time. If

A (time) D (Prover Vol.)

C (Pulses) B (Time for Pulses)

Knom (Nominal

Where: A = time for known displacement in seconds B = Time to collect whole meter pulses C = Accumulated whole meter pulses from meter D = Known displaced volume from prover Then a time biased K-factor is

KB (Biased K)

Knom (Nominal

D (prover Vol.) VolD (Delay D (Prover

Where: VolD is the pulse delay time expressed as a portion of the calibrated section proportional to proof duration.

And bias for a given flow rate is ..

% Bias

ABS

KB (Biased K) Knom (Nominal K)

599

-1

With increasing flowrates the bias produces ever smaller K-factors for a given pulse delay time. Likewise, increased delay times produce greater biases for a given flowrate. The following spreadsheets show the biased K-Factor for three flow rates and a constant delay time (170 milliseconds) absent any affect from run time variation between prover and pulse collection. When compared with actual provings, these K-factors are within 1 standard deviation of the average K-factor from multiple provings in field conditions (See Sample Proof Data Sheet).

600

A compilation of field proof data including bracketing for one standard deviation shows excellent correlation with predicted values (the K-factors with calculated delay bias above fall within these brackets).

MISSING METER PULSES While the foregoing illustrates the effect of the ratio of the delay time to prover transit time and the inherent variability of the bias, it is the smaller of the two major error components. There are three distinct error components. The largest contribution is made by the failure to capture the pulses representative of the delay time (clipped pulses). The full scope of error includes the ratio of delay time to prover transit time, pulses misapprehended due to the delay time, and failure to collect the true time for pulse collection. Clipped Pulses

Meter Pulse Collection Interval Normally, the interval for pulse collection is equal to the elapsed time from the first whole pulse detected after the actuation of the prover piston detector until the first whole pulse after the actuation of the second prover piston detector. Where the meter is a computational type, the correct interval is the interval following the first whole pulse after actuation of the first prover piston detector plus the delay time until the first whole pulse following the actuation of the second prover piston detector switch plus the delay time.

601

Correct Meter Pulse Collection Interval

IMPACT ON REPEATABILITY and REPRODUCIBILITY Repeatability is difficult to obtain simply because very minor changes in flowrate (a constant occurrence in that truly stable flow is difficult to obtain even in lab conditions) coupled with a varying computational cycle time (pulse delay time) produce significant variations in the meter K-Factor. Unlike the foregoing examples that are static representations, these are dynamic processes that produce constantly changing results. These variations have both the normal random content and, more significantly, variable bias content. The bias cannot be successfully resolved using the normal technique employed (API MPMS 4.8, Appendix A) and the result is unacceptable reproducibility, poor repeatability and variably biased K-factor. This paper focuses on Pulse Interpolation and little attention can be given to the impact of pulse delay on conventional provers, however even though proportionately larger proof volumes tend to mask the biasing imparted by pulse delay effects, they should not be disregarded. These biases trend toward lower K-Factors than the true value with the result of consistent under registration in metered totals unless very large comparison volumes are utilized in the proof. Where computational master meters are employed to verify a like technology, the error is obviously compounded. The lesson learned from MPMS Chapter 13.2, Chapter 4.8 Appendix A and other relevant API documents is that using the practices espoused therein are not a panacea nor should they be employed without a thorough understanding of the underlying principals that form their framework. The mandatory safeguard imposed by the use of meter factor control charts is critical and the acceptance of less than reasonable reproducibility is an error in judgment with dire consequences. CONCLUSION The advance in flow measurement technology made in recent years is truly impressive. Flowmeters today produce weight and volume measurements that were not dreamt of when the author began his career. Provers and the methodologies employed in their use are much older than the computational devices they are intended to verify. The designs presently in use were never intended for use against flowmeters whose outputs were not correlated in time with actual events, nor did their designers anticipate such flowmeters. As with all developments across a field of endeavor, some segments advance while others lag. The widespread adoption of microprocessor based flowmeter technologies in this instance guarantees it. It might be argued by flowmeter manufacturers that the prover folks need to catch up with the times, and the prover folks might reply that the flowmeter folks should design instruments to operate within existing standards. Its not a perfect world and somebody is always playing catch up. A technical solution (manufactured under US and foreign Patents) is on the horizon. (The techniques and concepts discussed here are the subjects of Us Patents Pending.) Dual Chronometric Pulse Interpolation (the US standard) is virtually the only method of the three discussed here that provides a basis for resolving this complex problem successfully. The successful elimination of pulse delay
602

effects will mean resurgence in the use of captured piston provers and greater acceptance of flowmeter technologies for custody transfer service that are shunned today, in many quarters, but will be embraced tomorrow. ADDENDA Sample Field Proving Data

603