6 Jornada Internacional de Medicin de Fluidos

Junio 28 al Julio 1 de 2011

LOSS CONTROL of NATURAL GAS and LIQUID

PIPELINES
James E. Gallagher, CEO
Savant Measurement Corporation

Measurement of fluids applies to steady-state

mass flow conditions for fluids that, for all
practical purposes, are considered to be; clean,
single phase, homogeneous and Newtonian
under the operating conditions of the facility. All
gases, most liquids and most dense phase fluids
associated with the petroleum, petrochemical
and natural gas industries are usually considered
to be Newtonian fluids.

adverse publicity, potential penalties, and legal

liabilities.
In short, equitable and accurate
measurement is essential to business. It affects
the validity of financial and operating reports as
well as the corporate reputation (Cash Flow,
Profit and Loss, Balance Sheet, Royalties,
and Taxes).
It
is
essential
that
material
quantity
measurements be precise and accurate with
minimal bias errors.
Furthermore, it is
incumbent upon those involved in custody
transfer to establish and maintain the
traceability chains that link their measurements
to appropriate domestic and international
standards. In this manner, fiscal transfers can
be done equitably with the confidence of both
seller and buyer alike.

All measurement systems are based on the

mass
measurement
concept
and
the
conservation of mass principle.
Designing and operating an accurate flowmeter
application require understanding the fluids
physical properties. An envelope must be drawn
around the process (or operating) conditions,
and identifying any special conditions.

The capital and operating resources (CAPEX,

OPEX) applied for fiscal transfers must be
commensurate with the total cost of
measurement the capital cost of technology,
the operating cost of technology, industry
practice or standards, regulatory compliance and
the total fiscal exposure or risk (commodity
value times throughput), the strategic and
tactical business direction, and competitors
strategy.

Understanding the physical principles upon

which the selected flowmeter is based and
comprehending its sensitivities to physical and
process conditions are critical. Most importantly
designing
and
operating
an
accurate
measurement facility requires compliance with
the Law of Similarity.
At a flowmetering facility, there are two types of
uncertainty. The average of the many readings
may be offset from the true value (bias error)
and/or the readings may be randomly scattered
about the offset (random error).

The amount of uncertainty is governed by the

investment of resources (CAPEX and OPEX)
combined with the inherent uncertainty
associated with the method of measurement
(primary, secondary and tertiary devices) and the
fiscal exposure or risk.

The designer and/or user must consider the

custody transfer facility from a holistic viewpoint
or the big picture. The user must define the
desired uncertainty to the designer in order to
build, operate and maintain the facility properly.

With respect to fiscal measurement, risk

management is relatively simple and supported
by senior management.

Measurement errors can have both immediate

and long-term impact on profits. Inaccurate
measurement may result in loss of customers,
1

6 Jornada Internacional de Medicin de Fluidos

Junio 28 al Julio 1 de 2011
fluid conditions set the loss performance of the
system.

High Fiscal Exposure Facilities

For high fiscal exposure facilities (commodity
value x throughput), higher capital and operating
resources are allocated to manage the risk to
within an acceptable level. For instance, for a
high throughput facility, the investment should
consist of parallel flowmeter operation with a
spare meter run. The owner or the connecting
party would operate the facility. For liquids, a
permanent prover would be installed onsite to
prove at least every week or per batch. The
frequency of inspection, testing, verification and
calibration would be at least every week, or by
total quantity. The facility would be designed
and maintained beyond the industry standards to
minimize the risks (fiscal exposure).

UNCERTAINTY TERMS
Several concepts and terms are somewhat
confusing when statisticians discuss uncertainty.
To ensure clarity, the following terms are
described to eliminate confusion.
The reader should understand that two terms,
subject to interpretation by the statistician, are
critical in assessing the uncertainty correlated
(or partially correlated) and uncorrelated. Most
disagreements in uncertainties are based on the
assumptions surrounding these terms and their
application in estimating the uncertainty (U95 or
95
U ).

Low Fiscal Exposure Facilities

Confidence Interval is an interval that provides
an upper and lower bound for a specific
population whose value is unknown.
This
confidence interval estimate has an associated
degree of confidence of containing the
population parameter.

For low fiscal exposure facilities, lower capital

and operating resources are allocated to
manage the risk to within an acceptable level.
For these facilities, no spare meter run is
installed. Instead, the facility is shutdown on
failure. For liquids, a portable prover is utilized
to calibrate the meter at least once per month or
less. The facility is designed and maintained to
industry standards as a minimum.

For measurement, the confidence interval is

usually stated at 95 % (U95). In other words, 95
out of 100 measurements should fall within the
estimated uncertainty. Likewise, 5 out of 100
measurements should fall outside of the
estimated uncertainty.

Loss Performance
Annual loss control performance for
maintained systems is as follows

wellThe U95 confidence interval equates to two

standard deviations for a normal or Gaussian
distribution of the measurand.

transmission gas pipeline system should

be 0.10 to 0.50 %
gas gathering system is a function of the
amount
of
pipeline
condensate
(retrograde and injected condensate).
crude oil pipeline trunkliine system
should be 0.035 to 0.05 %
crude oil gathering system should be
0.05 to 0.10 %
refined products pipeline system should
be 0.025 to 0.05 %

Correlated or Partially Correlated refers to an

artefact,
measurand
and/or
calculation
interdependent (not independent) with respect to
its uncertainty estimation.
For example, an orifice flowmeters coefficient of
discharge (Cd) and empirical expansion factor
(Y) are interdependent due to empirical
experiments. The expansion factor experiments
for the determination of the expansion factor
were based on Cd determinations on
incompressible fluids versus Cd determinations
on compressible fluids.

Annual loss control targets are driven by the

CAPEX and OPEX assigned by senior
management. In other words, the uncertainty of
the selected equipment, the calibration interval,
the quality of the personnel, the corporate
measurement policies and practices, and the

Discrimination, by international agreement, is

defined as a term to describe how finely an
instrument (smart transmitter, flowmeter, and so
2

6 Jornada Internacional de Medicin de Fluidos

Junio 28 al Julio 1 de 2011
forth) can measure a parameter. For example, a
glass thermometer, graduated in 0.2 F
increments, has a maximum discrimination of
0.1 F.
Discrimination defines how many
decimal places the user can read the instrument.

For example, the rangeability of a flowmeter,

stated by the manufacturer, is limited by the
linearity and repeatability specifications as well
as the upper limit of the device due to
mechanical damage.

Discrimination is frequently confused with the

terms sensitivity, resolution or accuracy.
These terms have completely different meanings
and
should
never
be
confused
with
discrimination.
An instrument with a high
discrimination may have a low accuracy (high
uncertainty). A concise analogy is an analog
versus a digital watch.

Typical rangeability for a gas turbine flowmeter is

5:1 to meet the 0.05% repeatability and 0.50%
linearity with an upper limit of 120% of maximum
flowrate due to bearing considerations.
Typical rangeability for a smart temperature
transmitter equipped with a 100-ohm RTD
sensor is 20:1 to meet the 0.20 F (which
includes
the
repeatability
and
linearity
specifications) with an upper limit based on the
sensor span.

Linearity of an instrument is a measure of an

instruments ability to deviate from its predicted
performance.

Repeatability (r) of an instrument is an

indication of its ability to produce the same
results when it is used to measure the same
variable in succession.
Simply stated,
repeatability is the ability to tell the same story
over a short time period without changing any of
the variables (pressure, temperature, flowrate,
density, viscosity and so forth).

Typical linearity of a fiscal flowmeter without

linearization is 0.50% in natural gas service
and 0.15% in liquid service over a specified
flow range or turndown (usually 10:1 turndown in
laboratory, 5:1 turndown in field).
Typical linearity of a fiscal flowmeter with
linearization is 0.25% in natural gas service
and 0.025% in liquid service over a specified
flow range or turndown (usually 5:1 turndown in
field).

Repeatability is often confused with accuracy. If

an instrument exhibits poor repeatability, it has
low accuracy (high uncertainty). If an instrument
has good repeatability, it does not infer that it
has excellent accuracy, since it can exhibit a
high systematic (bias) error resulting in the same
wrong answer every time.

Measurand is a term that refers to a parameter

that is being directly measured (Pf, Tf, dP,
flowrate, gas composition and so forth) or a
parameter that is being predicted (indirectly
measured) by other sensors (tp, b, SOStp and
so forth).

Reproducibility (R) of an instrument is an

instruments ability to stick to the same story
over a long time, or over variable conditions and
between operating personnel.

Random Error is the scatter of data (or a

sensors output) that deviates from a mean value
in accordance with the laws of chance (Gaussian
distribution).

Simply stated, reproducibility is the ability of the

instrument to tell the same story over a long
time-period with changing variables (pressure,
temperature, flowrate, density, viscosity and so
forth).

Random errors are errors that drift in an

unbiased
manner,
and
whose
mean
measurement approximates the mean value.

Reproducibility is often confused with accuracy.

If an instrument has poor reproducibility, it is
bound to have poor accuracy; but, if it has good
reproducibility it does not necessarily mean it is
accurate (although it could be) since it could be
indicating the same wrong answer every time.

Random errors are errors associated with

instrumentation properly verified and calibrated
using traceable field reference standards.
Rangeability of an instrument is defined as the
range over which it meets the stated
performance specifications.
3

6 Jornada Internacional de Medicin de Fluidos

Junio 28 al Julio 1 de 2011
Systematic (or Bias) Error is the offset from
the true value, rather than the scatter around the
mean value (random error).

To repeat a salient point, the amount of

uncertainty is governed by the investment of
resources (CAPEX and OPEX) combined with
the inherent uncertainty associated with the
method of measurement and the fiscal exposure
or risk.

Systematic or bias errors are the most significant

impacts for measurement personnel.
Systematic or bias errors may be categorized
into three classes: (1) known biases that are
calibrated out (calibration of a flowmeter); (2)
known biases that are ignored (considered
insignificant); (3) unknown biases eliminated by
control of the variables (testing, inspection,
verification, calibration and certification).

Many factors influence the overall measurement

uncertainty associated with a flowmetering
application. The uncertainty is dependent not
just on the hardware or equipment, but also on
the hardware's performance, the software's
performance, the method of calculation, the
method of calibration, the calibration equipment,
the calibration procedures and the human factor.

For custody transfer measurement, bias errors

are due to an uncontrolled parameter(s) resulting
in mis-measurement, breach of trust between
the parties, possible litigation and unacceptable
loss performance.

The methods for estimating the uncertainty

associated with flowmetering are

95

Uncertainty (U95 or U ) is the estimated interval

within which the true value is expected to lie
within a stated probability (or confidence
interval).

Root Sum Square (RSS)

Monte Carlo

Both methods, if calculated properly with

reasonable assumptions, should produce similar
uncertainty estimations.

Uncertainty is usually stated at the U95

confidence interval. Measurement personnel
commonly refer to this as accuracy.

The most common method, the RSS method, is

covered to a certain detail in ISO 5168.

To have a low uncertainty (high accuracy) the

measurement
should
exhibit
acceptable
repeatability, reproducibility, linearity and a low
bias error.

The Monte Carlo method, briefly presented in

ISO 5168, employs numerous high-level
computer simulations.
We will present the RSS method for natural gas
applications. In the authors opinion, the RSS
method clearly demonstrates to the designer
and/or operator the areas that drive the
uncertainty.

Uncorrelated refers to an artefact, measurand

and/or calculation independent with respect to its
uncertainty estimation.
For example, the pressure, temperature and gas
composition measurands (Pf, Tf, RDid) at a
flowmeter facility are independent of the AGA8
equation of states uncertainty.

Roadmap of Uncertainty
All flowmeters have a roadmap for uncertainty
estimations.

MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY
Measurement uncertainty (or accuracy) has
systematic and random errors. Even the most
accurate measurement facility has uncertainty.

6 Jornada Internacional de Medicin de Fluidos

Junio 28 al Julio 1 de 2011

S o u rc e s o f U n c e rta in ty
fo r
F lo w m e te rs
C o pyrig ht 2 0 01

C a lib ra tio n S ta n d a rd

P re d ic tiv e P ro p e rtie s

E m p iric a l M e te r F a c to rs

C a lib ra tio n S ta n d a rd s

F lu id P ro p e rtie s

P rim a ry E le m e n t

S e c o n d a ry D e v ic e s

D e fic ie n c ie s o f
G e o m e tric S im ila rity

re s u lt in

D e fic ie n c ie s o f
D yn a m ic S im ila rity

While these roadmaps may vary due to the

selected flowmeter technology, they all start with
the basic roadmap shown above.

T e rtia ry D e v ic e s

re s u lt in

flo w d is tu rb a n c e s
s w irl
a s ym m e try
im p ro p e r tu rb u le n c e

Uncertainties common to all facilities and

procedures result from the inability to:

Set and maintain a steady-state mass
flowrate (both space wise and time wise)

Measure mass flowrate without error

Separate flow stability error from the
flow standard error

Eliminate flow disturbance error (use of
HPFCs for inferential flowmeters)

Establish and maintain single phase,
homogeneous, Newtonian fluid

Measure or predict the pertinent fluid
properties

Flowmeter Calibration Uncertainties

The uncertainty in flowmeter calibrations
(artefact, central facility and in situ) can be
attributed to:

Performance characteristics of the
flowmeters

Measurement anomalies associated with
flow within the conduits

Prediction or measurement of fluid
properties

Measurement anomalies associated with
fluid phenomena

Uncertainty of the previously certified
reference standards

Design and operation of the calibration
facilities

Calibration procedures

The type and level of uncertainties vary

considerably due to the selected technology,
design and procedures.
Central Facility
For world class central calibration facilities, the
95
uncertainty (U ) stated at the time of flowmeter
calibration ranges from 0.15% to 0.25 % in
natural gas service and 0.025% to 0.05 % in
liquid
service.

6 Jornada Internacional de Medicin de Fluidos

Junio 28 al Julio 1 de 2011

12" Meter Calibrations

Lab A = 1.0032, Lab B = 1.0036

0.0050
0.0040
0.0030
0.0020

Error

0.0010
0.0000
0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

-0.0010
-0.0020
-0.0030
-0.0040
-0.0050
Velocity (ft/sec)

Typically, the master flowmeter assembly

(artefact) is calibrated at a laboratory that has
demonstrated minimal bias (round robin tests).
To ensure control of the variables, in situ
calibration facilities visually inspect and recalibrate the flowmeter assembly (artefact) on a
scheduled time interval to ensure control
(minimization of bias error).
The master
flowmeter assembly is called a control artefact.

Natural Gas Inter Laboratory Results of a

MUSM Flowmeter Assembly (Artefact)
Laboratory bias errors must be minimized for a
world class central calibration facility. In fact,
continual evaluation by both the facility operator
and the user community is essential to maintain
confidence in the laboratorys performance.
World class central calibration facilities use an
in-house flowmeter assembly (control artefact) to
demonstrate control of the variables.

Natural Gas Application

For natural gas applications, the uncertainty
95
(U ) stated at the time of flowmeter calibration is
usually 0.25 % using situ calibration facilities.

Round robin testing of a flowmetering assembly

(artefact) by several central calibration facilities
is necessary to ensure a minimization of bias.
Analysis of the artefact calibration results would
demonstrate the presence of an uncontrolled
bias error.

Liquid Application
95
For liquid applications, the uncertainty (U ) is
usually 0.020% for a pipe prover.
Secondary Device
Uncertainty

An analysis, shown above, clearly indicates the

consistency of results (minimization of bias)
between the two laboratories evaluation of an
ultrasonic flowmeter assembly (control artefact).

and

Fluid

Density

The manufacturer of the secondary device

estimates the uncertainty, or provides an
equation for the user to estimate the uncertainty
at the U95 confidence interval.

In Situ Calibration Facility

Natural Gas Application

For secondary devices (Pf, Tf, GC, flow weighted
sampling) employed in the prediction of fluid
density (tp, b), the secondary devices U95 is
not the value introduced into the mass flow
uncertainty equation (qm/qm).
The value

Similar to a central calibration facility,

minimization of bias error of the artefact (master
flowmeter assembly, or liquid prover) must be
demonstrated to establish confidence.

6 Jornada Internacional de Medicin de Fluidos

Junio 28 al Julio 1 de 2011
introduced into the mass flow uncertainty
equation is the error of the fluids flowing density
(tp/tp) due to the error of associated with each
secondary device that is employed in the fluid
density.

flowmeter in parallel are uncorrelated. In other

words, the bias associated with each flowmeter
is assumed to not be in the same direction, or of
the same magnitude.
In essence, a parallel flowmeter facility should
always have a lower uncertainty than a single
flowmeter facility due to partially correlated and
uncorrelated measurands.

To determine the fluid density error, a sensitivity

analysis is performed using the normal
composition of the natural gas stream, operating
at the normal Tf and Pf conditions.

EXAMPLES
OF
FLOWMETER
UNCERTAINTIES in Natural Gas Service

Liquid Application
For secondary devices (Pf, Tf, APIobs, Tobs, flow
weighted sampling) employed in the prediction of
95
fluid density (tp, b), the secondary devices U
is not the value introduced into the mass flow
The value
uncertainty equation (qm/qm).
introduced into the mass flow uncertainty
equation is the error of the fluids flowing density
(tp/tp) due to the error of associated with each
secondary device that is employed in the fluid
density.

Several examples of uncertainties have been

prepared to assist the reader in understanding
the impact of differing technology, parallel
flowmeter designs and process conditions (Pf, Tf,
gas composition) for transmission quality natural
gas (GOM Outlet of Gas Plant).
To assist the reader, differing flowmeter
assemblies and the associated secondary
devices are presented in Figure 1 for specified
process conditions (Pf, Tf) of 985 psig and 70 F.

To determine the fluid density error, a sensitivity

analysis is performed using the normal API60 of
the liquid stream, operating at the normal Tf and
Pf conditions.

All of the uncertainty calculations have been

based on the GOM Outlet of Gas Plant
composition.

Parallel Flowmeters
In statistics, there is an assumption concerning
the normal distribution of bias errors. The
assumption states that the bias errors for each

6 Jornada Internacional de Medicin de Fluidos

Junio 28 al Julio 1 de 2011

Flowmeter Uncertainty Calculations

Type
Orifice
Orifice
Orifice
Orifice

(1,6,7,8,9)

Ultrasonic
Ultrasonic
Ultrasonic

(2,6,7,8,9)

Ultrasonic
Ultrasonic
Ultrasonic

(3,6,7,8,9)

Turbine
Turbine
Turbine

(4,6,7,8,9)

Rotary Displacement
Rotary Displacement
Rotary Displacement

(5,6,7,8,9)

Parallel
Meters

U95
(%)

1
2
3
4

0.49
0.41
0.37
0.35

1
2
3

0.77
0.65
0.60

1
2
3

0.40
0.35
0.33

1
2
3

0.59
0.51
0.47

1
2
3

1.05
0.89
0.81

(1,6,7,8,9)
(1,6,7,8,9)
(1,6,7,8,9)

(2,6,7,8,9)
(2,6,7,8,9)

(3,6,7,8,9)
(3,6,7,8,9)

(4,6,7,8,9)
(4,6,7,8,9)

(5,6,7,8,9)
(5,6,7,8,9)

Notes:
(1) Assumes dual chamber orifice fitting Cd/Cd per AGA Reoprt No. 3
(2) Assumes multipath ultrasonic MF/MF of + 0.70% per AGA9 without linearization
(3) Assumes multipath ultrasonic MF/MF of + 0.25% per AGA9 with linearization
(4) Assumes gas turbine MF/MF of + 0.50% per ISO 9951 without linearization
(5) Assumes rotary displacement MF/MF of + 1.00% without linearization
(6) Assumes GOM Outlet of Gas Plant composition
(7) Pf of 985 psig and Pf/Pf of + 1.3 psig, then tp/tp is + 0.15%.
(8) Tf of 70 F and T f/Tf of + 0.2 degF, then tp/tp is + 0.06%.
(9) Assumes online GC or flow weighted sampling system, then tp/tp is + 0.25%.

Flowmeter Uncertainty Summary Pf of 985 psig, Tf of 70 F

management how to optimize the investment of
resources (OPEX) to achieve managements
strategic level of loss performance.

STATISTICAL WEIGHTING
Statistical weighting is a tool to optimize the
investment of resources (CAPEX and OPEX)
and manage the fiscal exposure to an
acceptable level for the business.
Stated
another way, it identifies to management how to
optimize the investment of resources (CAPEX)
to achieve managements strategic level of loss
performance.
In addition, it identifies to

A properly controlled measurement system

exhibits a loss performance lower than the
uncertainty associated with a single flowmeter
station due to statistical weighting.

6 Jornada Internacional de Medicin de Fluidos

Junio 28 al Julio 1 de 2011
Step Three

To
understand
the
system
uncertainty
associated with the global population of
measurement points, the statistician or engineer
assembles the global population into subgroups
of receipts, deliveries and inventory. For a
transmission system, gas gathering system, gas
distribution system and gas processing plant
there are three distinct subgroups of the global
population

The statistician obtains the mass

flowrate through each receipt point on a
monthly or yearly basis.

Step Four
The statistician calculates the weighting
factor based on the portion of the
monthly or yearly fraction of the total
mass receipts.

Receipts into the system

Deliveries out of the system
Inventory of the fluid in the system

To achieve proper results, a statistician or

engineer must be educated on the application of
statistical
weighting
and
uncertainty
estimations. Remember, the selection of the
primary, secondary and tertiary devices impacts
the measurement facilitys uncertainty. This
concept requires knowledge of the field
equipment, the number of equipment, the
performance of the equipment and the number
of flowmeter assemblies at each site.

Step Five

Delivery Subgroup

The statistician assembles all delivery

points as a subgroup (producers,
pipelines, gas processing plants and
LNG plants).

While the following steps are briefly summarized,

a significant amount of effort is required to
properly estimate each measurement facilities
uncertainty and apply the statistical weighting
method.

Step One

Receipt Subgroup

The statistician assembles all receipt

points as a subgroup (producers,
pipelines, gas processing plants and
LNG plants).

Step Six
The statistician calculates the U95 for
each delivery point based on the
selected
equipments
performance
(primary, secondary and tertiary devices)
and the number of parallel flowmeters.
The statistician assumes the variables
are controlled and each measurement
point exhibits an insignificant bias error.
This assumes that the selected
equipment conform to the appropriate
measurement standards.
Step Seven
The statistician obtains the mass
flowrate through each delivery point on a
monthly or yearly basis.

Step Two
The statistician calculates the U95 for
each receipt point based on the
selected equipments performance
(primary, secondary and tertiary
devices) and the number of parallel
flowmeters. The statistician assumes
the variables are controlled and each
measurement
point
exhibits
an
insignificant bias error. This assumes
that the selected equipment conform to
the
appropriate
measurement
standards.

Step Eight
The statistician calculates the weighting
factor based on the portion of the
monthly or yearly fraction of the total
mass deliveries.
Step Nine
The statistician assembles all inventory
facilities as a subgroup (pipelines,
pipeline sections, and storage facilities).
9

6 Jornada Internacional de Medicin de Fluidos

Junio 28 al Julio 1 de 2011

Inventory Subgroup

Step Ten

anticipated loss performance and the allocation

of resources (CAPEX and OPEX) to achieve
senior managements goal of managing the
financial risks.

The statistician calculates the U95 for

each inventory point. The statistician
assumes the variables are controlled
and each inventory point (pipelines,
pipeline sections, and storage facilities)
exhibits an insignificant bias error.

For the example, we have seven (7) receipt and

seven (7) delivery points on the pipeline as
shown in following Table.

Step Eleven

For simplicity, we will ignore the inventory

associated with the system, the errors
associated with internal fuel consumption (gas
fired compression) and losses due to
maintenance and flaring activities.

The statistician obtains the mass for

each inventory point (pipelines, pipeline
sections, and storage facilities).
Step Twelve

We have assumed that the system has selected

orifice flowmeters, ultrasonic flowmeters with
linearization, and turbine flowmeters without
linearization.
Although unrealistic, we have
selected the examples in Figure 1 (Pf of 985
psig, Tf of 70 F) to simplify the example.

The statistician calculates the weighting

factor based on the portion of the total
mass for each inventory point (pipelines,
pipeline sections, and storage facilities).

The number of flowmeters assigned to each

measurement facility varies, therefore, the U95
uncertainty for each measurement facility varies.

Example of Statistical Weighting

An example of the statistical weighting concept
has been prepared to illustrate the layers of the

Point
R-4
R-3
R-2
R-5
R-6
R-1
R-7

Type
Orifice
Orifice
Orifice
MUSM
MUSM
MUSM
MUSM

Flowmeter
No.
Nom. D
4
12" (300 mm)
3
10" (250 mm)
3
10" (250 mm)
1
10" (250 mm)
1
6" (150 mm)
1
6" (150 mm)
1
4" (100 mm)

Receipts - Monthly
U95
Qvb
%
MM SCF
0.35
14,618
0.37
7,871
0.37
4,947
0.40
2,924
0.40
1,687
0.40
1,124
0.40
562
0.37

Point
D-4
D-3
D-5
D-2
D-6
D-7
D-1

Type
Orifice
MUSM
MUSM
Orifice
MUSM
MUSM
Turbine

Flowmeter
No.
Nom. D
4
12" (300 mm)
2
10" (250 mm)
1
10" (250 mm)
2
10" (250 mm)
1
4" (100 mm)
1
4" (100 mm)
1
4" (100 mm)

33,733

Qm
Weighting
MM lbms
fraction
650
0.43
350
0.23
220
0.15
130
0.09
75
0.05
50
0.03
25
0.02
1,500

Deliveries - Monthly
U95
Qvb
Qm
Weighting
%
MM SCF MM lbms
fraction
0.35
13,156
585
0.39
0.35
9,558
425
0.28
0.40
5,397
240
0.16
0.41
3,936
175
0.12
0.40
787
35
0.02
0.40
562
25
0.02
0.59
337
15
0.01
0.37

33,733

1,500

U95
MM SCF
51.16
29.12
18.31
11.69
6.75
4.50
2.25

U95
MM lbms
2.28
1.30
0.81
0.52
0.30
0.20
0.10

123.78

5.50

U95
MM SCF
46.05
33.45
21.59
16.14
3.15
2.25
1.99

U95
MM lbms
2.05
1.49
0.96
0.72
0.14
0.10
0.09

124.61

5.54

Anticipated System Monthly Loss Performance

U95
Loss
Loss
Loss
%
MM SCF MM lbms USD/MSCF
USD
0.26
88.11
3.92
12.00
1,057,345

10

Daily
Qvb
MM SCF
487.25
262.37
164.92
97.45
56.22
37.48
18.74

Daily
Qvb
MM SCF
438.53
318.59
179.91
131.18
26.24
18.74
11.24

6 Jornada Internacional de Medicin de Fluidos

Junio 28 al Julio 1 de 2011
would visually inspect the flowmeter assembly at
a predetermined interval. When the SOSi values
deviate by more than 0.25 %, the GC and the
flowmeter assembly should be investigated to
identify the uncontrolled variable (bias error).

Statistical Weighting Example

As shown in the preceding table, the points have
been rank ordered by the anticipated losses in
MM lbms. This is attributed to the uncertainty
associated with each measurement facility.

In conclusion, the combination of the

Roadmaps (or Sources of Uncertainty) for
each flowmeter technology, the uncertainty
estimations (U95) for each measurement facility
and the statistical weighting method are tools
that can -

If a variable is uncontrolled, the loss

performance would exceed the uncertainty
estimations, but it would be influenced by the
weighting fraction.
In other words, the
uncontrolled variables associated with the
largest throughput facilities significantly impact
the loss performance.
The uncontrolled
variables
associated
with
the
smallest
throughput facilities slightly impact the loss
performance.

If the OPEX resources are allocated according to

the weighting fraction column, we should
experience a loss performance approximately
equal to 0.26 % (0.37 / 2).

The flowing density (tp) is not under a square

root function for linear flowmeters (ultrasonic,
turbine and rotary displacement). As a result,
linear flowmeters have twice the sensitivity to
mass flow errors attributed to composition, Pf
and Tf determinations than head class
flowmeters (orifice, venturi and subsonic flow
nozzles).

Identify error types and magnitude for

the primary, secondary and tertiary
devices
Identify areas of improvement for
existing
facilities
(upgrade
or
replacement)
Set achievable loss performance based
on the invested resources (CAPEX)
Identify OPEX requirements for each
flowmeter technology
Prioritize OPEX resource allocation for
each location
Prioritize loss investigation process

Senior management allocates the CAPEX

resources through the capital budget
process. Once the primary, secondary and
tertiary devices are selected, then these devices
drive the uncertainty for the facility along with the
appropriate OPEX resources.
The CAPEX,
OPEX and U95 are different for each flowmeter
technology.

So, the next question from management is

How can we improve our loss performance?
For an orifice flowmeter, a method to lower the
uncertainty (U95) is to calibrate the orifice
flowmeters using an in situ method for
statistically significant measurement facilities (R2, R-3, R-4, D-4 and D-2). When this is
accomplished, the uncertainty (U95) for three
orifice flowmeters in parallel operation will be
lowered from 0.37 % to 0.25 %.

Senior management should allocate the OPEX

resources according to the weighting fraction
column to ensure control of the variables through
predetermined intervals for inspection, testing,
verification, calibration and certification.

For an ultrasonic flowmeter with linearization, a

method to lower the uncertainty (U95) is to install
better GCs, sampling systems and smart
pressure transmitters (Pf). The operator should
monitor the predicted SOSi versus the SOSi
measured by the MUSM as an analytical
validation of the GC performance. Of course,
this assumes a zero film buildup on the
transducers and internal flowmeter body. To
ensure control of this variable, the operator
11