Chief Metrologist NMi EuroLoop

Vloeistofkalibraties 2.0

Jos van der Grinten

Chief Metrologist

NMi EuroLoop

Contents

• Introduction

• Calibration principle

• Piston prover

• Traceability

• Comparison

• Conclusion & recommendations

Flow & Analysis Event, De Kuip, Rotterdam, 10 - 11 June 2015 2

Introduction

• EuroLoop’s hydrocarbon liquid flow facility

– Calibration finished

– Applying for extension of our current scope

– Intercomparisons required

Why do we need three different liquids?

• Reynolds numbers 1 000 – 4 000 000

– Transition between laminar and turbulent turbulent

• Velocity profile changes with Re (parabolic flat)

• Ultrasonic meters are sensitive to profile

• Corrections in firmware accuracy in wide range


Introduction – Specifications

Specifications liquid flow facility Small circuits Large circuits

Flow 10 – 1 200 m3/h 30 – 5 000 m3/h

Dimensions of meters 4” – 12”

(100 – 300 mm)

12” – 30”

(300 – 750 mm)

Flanges and pressure classes ANSI 150, PN 10 ANSI 150, PN 10

Kinematic viscosity 1, 10, 100 mm2/s

(cSt)

1, 10, 100 mm2/s

(cSt)

Temperature stability Better than 0.2 °C Better than 0.2 °C

Maximum back pressure 10 bar(g) 10 bar(g)

Overall uncertainty volume by

master / piston

0.06% / 0.02% 0.06% / 0.02%

Overall uncertainty mass by

master / piston

0.07% / 0.04% 0.07% / 0.04%


Calibration principle

• Master Meter Method / Piston prover method

– Mass conservation – Line pack correction

– Double timing method – Eq. of State

– Corrections for systematic deviations


p / t

Master MuT

p / t t t

Calibration principle

6 Flow & Analysis Event, De Kuip, Rotterdam, 10 - 11 June 2015

Piston Prover


Traceability

• Prover diameter

– (1128.001 ± 0.045) mm

– (569.250 ± 0.023) mm

• Distance switches

• Prover volume

– U = 0.0047% ~ 0.0072%


m

Piston Prover

Master Meter

Meter under

Test

Traceability – Temperature

• 48 ultrasonic temperature measurements

– Temperature average in pipe crossection

• VoS = VoS(p, t, x)


Traceability – Temperature – VoS


1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1350

1400

1450

1500

15 20 25 30 35 40

Pro

du

ct V

elo

city

of

Sou

nd

(V

OS)

[m

/s]

Temperature [°C]

Velocity of Sound (VOS) vs Temperature

100 mm²/s at 9.5 barg

100 mm²/s at atm. Pressure

10 mm²/s at 9.5 barg

10 mm²/s at Atm. Pressure

1 mm²/s 9.5 barg

1 mm²/s at atm. Pressure

Comparison – set-up • Trapil and EuroLoop

• Two 8” Krohne meters

A: 7 path Altosonic 5 Next Generation model

B: 11 path Transfer Standard

• Meter A tested at both labs

• Meter B tested in combination with meter A at EuroLoop

• Flow conditioner 5d before meter A

• Small prover as reference at EuroLoop

• Big prover as reference at EuroLoop


Lab Pipe configuration

EuroLoop 10” > 8” – 15d – 13d – 5d – FC – 5d – A – 5d – 10d – FC – 7d

– B – 5d – 8” < 10”

Trapil ... – FC – 5d – A – 5d – ...

Comparison – A & B correlation

• Correlation plot at EuroLoop


-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

De

viat

ion

Mu

T B

[%

]

Devation MuT A [-]

MuT A versus MuT B

1 mm²/s

10 mm²/s

100 mm²/s

Comparison – meter A – small PP


-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

De

viat

ion

[%

]

Reynolds number [-]

Gasoline 0.80 mm²/s

Heating oil 5.6 mm²/s

Heavy crude 64 mm²/s

Oil 315 mm²/s

EuroLoop 1 mm²/s

EuroLoop 10 mm²/s

EuroLoop 100 mm²/s

Comparison – meter A – both PP

15

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

De

viat

ion

[%

]

Reynolds number [-]

Gasoline 0.80 mm²/s

Heating oil 5.6 mm²/s

Heavy crude 64 mm²/s

Oil 315 mm²/s

EuroLoop 1 mm²/s

EuroLoop 10 mm²/s

EuroLoop 100 mm²/s

Euroloop 1 mm²/s LP



Flow & Analysis Event, De Kuip, Rotterdam, 10 - 11 June 2015

Comparison – En – Theory

• Normalized difference

– En < 1 results agree

– En > 1 results differ

• Confidence level of 95.4%

• Interpolation of e and U in Re domain


iii

iii

i

ii

iii

UUUU

eeee

ReReReRe

(Re)

ReReReRe

(Re)

1

11

1

11

2

2

2

1

2

21 )(

UU

eeEn

Comparison – En – Small PP


0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

No

rmal

ize

d d

evi

atio

n E

n [

-]

Reynolds number [-]

En 1 mm²/s

En 10 mm²/s

En 100 mm²/s

En range No %

En < 0.5 16 52

0.5 < En < 1 11 35

En > 1 4 13

Total 31 100

Comparison – En – Big PP

18

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000

No

rmal

ize

d d

evi

atio

n E

n [

-]

Reynolds Number [-]

Preliminary results obtained with big piston prover

En 1 mm²/s

En 10 mm²/s

En 100 mm²/s

En range No %

En < 0.5 16 84

0.5 < En < 1 3 16

En > 1 0 0

Total 19 100

Flow & Analysis Event, De Kuip, Rotterdam, 10 - 11 June 2015

Conclusion

Bilateral comparison

• All results for meter A are in a band of ±0.15%

• No correlations between meter A and B at

EuroLoop

• Between Re = 1000 and Re = 10000

meter curves are significantly different when

using different products at both labs

• Results obtained at both labs generally agree

Small prover: 87% En < 1 and 52% En < 0.5

Big prover: 100% En < 1 and 84% En < 0.5

• Meter artifact causing differences at low Re.

19 Flow & Analysis Event, De Kuip, Rotterdam, 10 - 11 June 2015


Thank you

Questions?

• Closed loop calibration facility


Documents

Chief Metrologist NMi EuroLoop