A Practical Approach to Modelling LNG Train Design for
DANIEL MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL WHITE PAPER
Minimizing Measurement & Allocation Uncertainty
A Practical Approach to Modelling LNG Train Design for Minimizing Measurement & Allocation Uncertainty
ABSTRACT
Our ability to measure accurately has formed the basis of
trade in all industries. As a consequence, the performance
of measurement systems will affect the profitability of any
business. In the Oil and Gas Industry measurement systems
are used for fiscal and custody transfer purposes, for process
plant operations and for plant efficiency monitoring. It is of
great importance therefore that these systems are engineered,
operated and maintained to industry standards and within
equipment specifications.
This paper highlights the implications of measurement
uncertainties on LNG product allocations and how, through
a study of these uncertainties and the implementation of a
Measurement Upgrade Enhancement Project, the final Allocation
Uncertainty was more than halved. The study addressed each
of the metering elements associated with the allocation process
and identified which of these had the greatest impact (and/
or required attention). The measurement upgrade addressed
issues affecting key meter performance such as flow profile
effects and valve noise with respect to ultrasonic measurement.
A major factor in the success of the project was the use of a
Measurement Exposure Model (MEM) which determined the
measurement uncertainties associated with key metering points,
and the impact they had on the final LNG Product Allocation. By
using the MEM to focus on the effect of these measurement
uncertainties, unnecessary modifications/upgrades were
avoided and savings made in the overall project.
INTRODUCTION
1 MEASUREMENT AND ALLOCATION
The following are basic questions that should be asked of any
LNG Production facility:
• What does X% uncertainty of LNG measurement
mean and how can this be improved?
• To what extent do the plant measurement systems
affect the LNG product allocation?
• What is the minimum acceptable financial risk to Joint
Venture (JV) partners on an LNG complex and how
can this be improved?
These are some of the issues which have to be addressed
page 1
www.daniel.com
among JV partners for equity on a multi-train LNG complex. This
situation can arise if the ownership among LNG trains and the
commercial terms governing their operation are different. Thus
a single LNG facility using shared resources where applicable,
may have multiple trains (plants) where there can be several
owners and several feed gas streams, as is the case at Atlantic
LNG Company of Trinidad & Tobago.
The problem of accurately determining the LNG production of a
train arises because of the following:
1. The absence of reliable LNG flow measurement at the
outlet of the trains.
2. Shared LNG storage at the facility.
3. Recycling of LNG vapours from tank storage into the
production streams.
The first constraint is dictated by the manufacturers’ products.
Reliable dynamic LNG measurement technology is actively
being researched by a number of flow measurement vendors
with the main challenges being the ability to accurately measure
LNG leaving the trains and the ability to prove such a meter.
In addition, there are no dynamic LNG flow measurement
standards.
The second constraint is from a standpoint of practicality. It is
good to have the option to pump LNG production to several
tanks. With the cost of an LNG storage tank being in the vicinity
of 250-300 million USD it is prudent to share this facility since
this would strengthen the project economics. However, this
complicates ownership traceability where LNG production is
commingled across several storage tanks.
The third constraint is the recycling of the LNG vapours from
storage, loading and LNG cooldown to production facilities
means that shared production from one train/owner/shipper can
be allocated to another.
As a result of the above issues, the allocation process used to
determine the LNG production of a train on a multi-train facility
can be very complex. This product allocation will be governed
by the commercial terms and will be largely a function of mass,
energy or standard volume balanced equations, for example,
DANIEL MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL WHITE PAPER
Train Production = Inlet - Fuel Consumption-NGL Production -
Train Losses
It is worth noting that static custody transfer measurement, as
outlined by The International Group of LNG Importers (GIIGNL),
takes place on LNG tankers at an uncertainty of ±0.2-0.3%,
however what about dynamic LNG train production?
The key question then becomes, what are the uncertainties
associated with these measurement points and what impact
does it have on the LNG product allocation?
This paper highlights the implications of measurement
uncertainties on LNG product allocations and how the use
of a Measurement Exposure Model (MEM) assisted in the
implementation of a Measurement Upgrade Enhancement
Project thereby reducing the LNG and NGL product allocation
uncertainty by an average of 2 %. In executing this measurement
upgrade, the issue of valve noise and ultrasonic measurement
(inlet feed gas meters) was also addressed since the correct
installation and operation of inlet feed gas meters had the
greatest impact on the LNG Allocation.
2 BUILDING A MEASUREMENT EXPOSURE MODEL
(MEM)
A Measurement Exposure Model (MEM) is a mathematical tool
that monitors the facility’s measurement points and product
allocation equations to determine the individual and/or collective
impact of each measurement point on the allocation of products.
Figure 1 - Typical MEM Mimic Screen
page 2
In order to build the MEM, an accurate assessment had to
be made of the measurement systems associated with the
Allocation System. This was accomplished by completing a
comprehensive Audit of the metering elements feeding into
the Allocation System for the LNG Pant and assessing their
respective measurement uncertainties. The current operating
Measurement Uncertainties of meters used for Custody and
Allocation purposes were then used as an input by the Model
(the MEM) to establish the final Allocation Uncertainties in order
to quantify the financial “risk” to partners.
3 MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY ASSESSMENT
It should be appreciated that no measurement can be absolutely
precise, since there are inevitable biases/inaccuracies
introduced as a result of the measurement instruments chosen,
their calibration and installation. Uncertainty then is an estimate
of the limits to which one can expect an error to go, under a given
set of conditions as part of the measurement process. Whilst the
determination of measurement uncertainty is independent of the
MEM, it forms an essential input into the Model, if an accurate
assessment of an existing Allocation Systems Performance is
required. All relevant Measurement systems are independently
assessed and their Measurement Uncertainty established
using proven Calculation Techniques (API and ISO) complying
with the relevant Measurement System Guidelines for Design,
Operation and Maintenance.
A Practical Approach to Modelling LNG Train Design for
page 3
Minimizing Measurement & Allocation Uncertainty

The calculation process requires such information as: • Laboratory Analysis Uncertainties
• Calibration Procedures, frequency and tolerance
• Primary Measurement Element Uncertainties (Orifice, This information is used to calculate the individual Measurement
Turbine Meter, Coriolis, USM, Etc.) System Uncertainties and their consequent contribution to the

Figure 2 - Typical Input Screens for Uncertainty Assessment

• Secondary Instrument Uncertainties (DP, Pressure, overall LNG Train Metering Allocation Uncertainty (calculated
Temperature, Densitometer, Flow Computer, etc.) separately by the MEM).
• Correction Algorithms, Process Simulation Typical Custody & Allocation Measurement Systems include:
Assumptions, etc. • Gas Pipeline Meters (Custody)

Figure 3 - Typical Output Screens of the Uncertainty Assessment

DANIEL MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL WHITE PAPER page 4

• Train Inlet Meters (TIM) (Allocation)
• Train Liquid Output Meters (Allocation)
• Train Output Meters (Allocation)
• Storage Tank Measurements (Stock/Allocation)
• Fuel Gas Meters (Allocation
• Flare Gas Meters (Allocation)
• Gas Recycle Meters - where fitted (Allocation)
• Tanker Loading Measurements (Custody)
Using Figure 3 Output Data, the MEM user can enter the
estimated measurement uncertainty relating to the metering
element Operating Condition, thus enabling the Model to
simulate most working conditions and reflect the additional
uncertainty in Allocation for those conditions. This can be
particularly helpful where the operator needs to be cognisant
of the effect that instrument malfunctions or other failures may
have on the final Allocation uncertainty for the system.
4 MEASUREMENT EXPOSURE MODEL (MEM)
The Measurement Uncertainty Assessment forms an essential
input to the MEM. In cases where the LNG Plant is not yet
designed, design estimates of measurement uncertainty can
be entered into the MEM such that the Design Engineers can
accurately assess their impact on the Plant Allocation. This
aspect of the MEM is not to be underestimated, as it could save
considerable Capital Expenditure on unnecessary design for
uncritical elements of the Plant Measurement System. In the
case of an existing LNG Plant, weaknesses in the
measurement systems
provided can be identified,
thus providing substantial
justification for change,
in terms of misplaced
Allocation Revenue.
identify any “high risk” metering
elements in the system and establish the overall Allocation
Uncertainties.
The results are typically presented as follows:
• Measurement Uncertainty of each measurement point
expressed as a percentage and in terms of product
• Measurement Uncertainty associated with the Plant
Balance expressed as a percentage and in terms of
product
• Measurement Uncertainty associated with the Plant
Allocation expressed as a percentage and in terms of
product
• Cost based Risk Analysis to contributing Fields and
Owners for various operating scenario’s
Thus, once the initial uncertainty analysis has been performed on
each metering system to establish the Allocation measurement
point Inputs, then the MEM analysis can be performed to asses
the sensitivity of these points on the Plant Balance & Allocation
and the results documented.
Any trouble spots highlighted can be re-assessed in order to
maximize the Plants performance. In this way, attention need
only be focused on those elements that most affect the system
and the reduced risk associated with the changes can be
identified by the model.

Typically the MEM attributes

measurement uncertainties
to each of the measurement
points, then calculates
the flow weighted impact
these uncertainties will
have on Plant Balance
and Allocation. These
calculations can be based
on estimated (or measured)
flow rates through the
various meters. By using
this technique, the MEM can
Figure 4 - Typical Input & Output Screens of MEM
A Practical Approach to Modelling LNG Train Design for
Minimizing Measurement & Allocation Uncertainty
As can be seen from the Mimic illustrated in Section 2.0, the
whole Allocation Process depended on the Train Inlet Meters
(TIM) to enable back allocation of all the Atlantic LNG Plant
OUTPUT products to the Gas Delivery Points (GDP), it follows
that their measurement accuracy is of prime importance. The
MEM demonstrated the cost of the measurement uncertainty
to the Operators and their Partners by reference to a live Mimic
responding to reported Allocation data.
5 MEASUREMENT PROJECTS JUSTIFICATION
The objectives of Capital expenditure plant projects can be
generally categorized into two main areas:
• Maintaining and Sustaining Production (Reliability
Projects): Major upgrades and/or overhauls to plant
equipment aimed at improving the cost of operation
and for mitigating against equipment obsolescence.
• Throughput and Yield Projects (Optimization
Projects): Equipment enhancements and upgrades
geared towards increasing the production capability of
the asset.
With measurement projects both of the objectives can be
achieved.
As shown in the MEM, the single biggest measurement
point is the inlet measurement to each of the LNG trains. In
general, although measurement projects may not generally
increase production it is the perception of the production that
is being addressed. This perception translates into financial
exposure risk for all parties. As can be seen from the MEM an
improvement in the train inlet measurement uncertainty from 5%
to 1% translates to an improvement in Allocation Uncertainty of
2% or in other words a financial exposure benefit of 2% to the
shareholders.
Therefore, using traditional techniques for project justifications
such as NPV, Pay Pack and IRR measurement projects may be
justified on this basis.
As in the case of the Train Inlet Measurement Upgrade project
assuming that a 4% reduction in measurement uncertainty can
be practically achieved then this project should be evaluated
in relation to other initiatives competing for financial resources.
For example, assuming that three days of downtime on a facility
are required for the measurement upgrade and the total cost of
the project is 1.2 million USD, for an LNG complex with annual
production target of 576 TBtu this gives an NPV (financial risk)
of 444 million USD and a payback in less than 1 year with a
profitability index of 17.
page 5
Assumptions: Gas Price $ 5.00 per MMBtu,
Discount Factor of 10%,
Capital Outlay = Loss production + Cost of project= $25.2MM
Project Life cycle 20 years.
Of interest to note, is that once other projects are undertaken
which increases the 576 TBtu for the facility then this project
financing can be further enhanced, therefore giving economic
benefits to perpetuity. Therefore it is imperative that on an LNG
complex inlet measurement uncertainty be optimized.
6 TRAIN INLET MEASUREMENT
As shown from the MEM an improvement in inlet measurement
meant a significant reduction in LNG allocation product
uncertainty. The challenge for the project team would be
to improve the Train inlet measurement to 1% or better thus
improving the allocation uncertainty by 2%. The project team
chose to improve on the existing single path ultrasonic meters
by replacing them with multi path ultrasonic meters. Since the
inlet measurement to the LNG train significantly impacted on the
apportioned LNG, it had to be as close as possible to custody
metering systems.
Ultrasonic meters (USM) were selected as the preferred flow
measurement technology for the following reasons:
1. Endorsed by various regulatory bodies, standards and
codes for custody measurement, e.g. AGA Report 9, UK
Department of Trade & Industry’s Petroleum Measurement
Guidelines and the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.
2. High accuracy can be achieved in the field when properly
installed and maintained.
3. High turndown ratios available for individual meters.
4. Minimum pressure drop.
5. Strong diagnostic built in capability.
6. Low maintenance as compared to other technologies e.g.
Orifice or Turbine meters.
However, the USM can be susceptible to noise generated by
control valves. This noise, typically referred to as white noise
affects the performance of the meter. Also, the level of noise
generated by a control valve is a function of the flow-rate,
differential pressure drop, pressure and valve trim characteristics.
7 USM NOISE REDUCTION STRATEGIES
Most control valve manufacturers achieve their low noise levels
by pushing their audible (20Hz-20kHz) emissions out of the
audible range and into a range (20-200kHz) which typically
affect USM detection signals. This was illustrated during our
DANIEL MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL WHITE PAPER page 6

flow calibration of the meters where a control valve similar to The newly purchased 24” 4 path USM were calibrated at the
one used at the inlet of the facility was installed to determine following points as recommended by AGA Report 9. qmin,
the extent of noise generated, and to see how the meter tuning 0.10qmax, 0.25qmex, 0.40qmax, 0.70qmax, and qmax, together
(noise reduction techniques) would impact the performance. with two additional points. The meter’s performance was

To combat noise, most

USM manufacturers will
have a combination or
all of the following noise
reduction technologies
embedded in the meter’s
electronics:

• Signal Stacking
• Digital Filtering
• Correlation
Techniques
• Statistical
Methods

Figure 5 - Initial Calibration Results with USM and Flow Standard

Additionally installing blind
tees on the piping system, locating the meters far from noise checked with the control valve at 5 times the normal pressure
generating equipment and installation of silencers downstream drop in operation. The following is the sequence of the testing
will mitigate the impact of noise on the meter. performed and results from Colorado Engineering Experiment
Station Inc (CEESI):
8 FLOW TESTING RESULTS
As a requirement by AGA Report 9, USM being used for Calibration of the meter using the Flow standard as a referenced
custody transfer should
be calibrated at a Flow
Test Facility. Although
the Train Inlet Meters
(TIM) were not used for
custody transfer they
have significant impact
to the allocation of LNG
on a multi-train complex,
thus the meters were
calibrated by placing
a laboratory Flow
Standard Meter Bank
in line with the USM
being calibrated. The
Flow Standard Meter
Bank being used to
accurately measure flow,
had been calibrated
using standards that are
traceable to NIST.

Figure 6 – USM Flow Testing at CEESI

A Practical Approach to Modelling LNG Train Design for
page 7
Minimizing Measurement & Allocation Uncertainty
in Fig. 5 below shows the results (out of the box meter) in relation
to the flow standard. A meter factor per test point is applied as a
piece-wise (multi-point) linearization.

The above picture (Fig. 7) shows the valve and meter being

Figure 7 - USM and Control Valve at Flow Test Facility (CEESI)

8 shows the USM signal detection waveform with no noise
prepared for noise verification checks by comparing the present. Fig. 9 shows the USM signal waveform distorted by
performance of the meters with the Flow Standard Meter while noise generated by the control valve. Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 show
throttling the control valve at various differential pressures. Fig. the application of Stacking and Digital Filtering (Noise reduction

Figure 8 - Typical detection used by the USM for flow calculations

(No Noise)
DANIEL MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL WHITE PAPER page 8

techniques) respectively which were required to achieve a good

reading on the USM.

Figure 9 - Noise as seen by the USM (Noise distorts the USM detection waveform)

Figure 10 - USM Noise seen with the Application of Stacking

With Stacking Applied only, the USM was still unable to register
a good reading.
A Practical Approach to Modelling LNG Train Design for
page 9
Minimizing Measurement & Allocation Uncertainty

Figure 11 - USM with Digital Filtering and Signal Stacking

The USM was able to register good readings

(Calibration Results)
Figure 12 – USM Calibration with Flow Standard and Control valve

The illustration above (Fig.12) shows the improvement of the
USM Calibration against the Flow Standard Meter Bank when
the control valve was throttled at various differential pressures.
9 PERFORMANCE OF USM VS CUSTODY ORIFICE
MEASUREMENT SYSTEM
After the flow calibration of the ultrasonic meters at CEESI the
next step was to execute the installation and commissioning of the
meters. The meters were shipped and stored until an opportune
time for installation. Having the control valve available at CEESI
proved invaluable, since the noise characteristics generated
by this particular valve were analyzed and this significantly
minimized the commissioning time. Furthermore this addressed
the concern as to whether the valve and meter in close proximity
DANIEL MEASUREMENT AND CONTROL WHITE PAPER
could fulfil plant flow regulation and product allocation. It must
be noted however, that in some of the installations, further
noise tuning (custom data filtering) was required. This was
readily observed on installations where the pressure drop was
significantly greater than that tested at the facility.
Figure 13 - The performance of the ultrasonic meters and the custody metering system on the facility
The diagram shows that percentage deviation between the
USM and the orifice measurement system is of 0.16%-0.6%
with the USM reading marginally higher than the orifice
measurement.
10 OTHER LNG TRAIN MEASUREMENT ISSUES
Although, the inlet measurement had the single largest impact
on the LNG train there are other areas where measurement
improvements can be made to the facility. However, these
must be done at the design stage thereby improving on the
overall allocation process. These areas include:
1. Fuel Measurement. Installing a good single point of
measurement for fuel enhances the quality of measurement
that can be installed and simplifies the number of allocation
points. For example on a facility with 3 LNG trains, having 1
meter per train for the fuel can replace 10 or more metering
points per train. This improvement reduces the cost of
operation and maintenance.
2. Marine Flare Measurement. There are a number of
practical challenges with installing good flare measurement
during plant operation (availability issues). Having marine
flare measurement implies that losses can be applied to
individual shippers accordingly if agreed commercially.
page 10
3. Vapour recovery measurement will aid in the traceability of
LNG production per train.
11 MAINTENANCE OF MEASUREMENT AND ALLO-
CATION UNCERTAINTY
With the inlet measurement being so critical to the allocation
of LNG and NGL on a multi train complex, this point of
measurement must be effectively maintained. Our experience
to date has shown that the USM probes must be kept clean for
good meter performance.
The piping system should be designed such that there is no
accumulation of liquid upstream of the USM. Additionally, if the
USM are in series with an orifice measurement system (custody),
the similarity of the analytical data in the USM and the custody is
of great importance to the flow registration alignment. Operating
the orifice custody metering skids at higher differentials per
stream also helps with the alignment of the readings registered
by both systems.
The USM should also be installed with double block and bleed
isolation valves so that the meter probes can be easily accessed
for maintenance. Effective isolation also facilitates the easy
removal of the meters for re-calibration exercises, typically
every six years.
Maintenance of secondary instrumentation, temperature and
pressure transmitters must also be done at regular intervals.
A Practical Approach to Modelling LNG Train Design for
Minimizing Measurement & Allocation Uncertainty
12 CONCLUSION
Maintenance of measurement uncertainty greatly affects the
allocation of products on a multi train LNG facility. It is therefore
important that all plant measurement systems be optimized for
minimum uncertainty. Building of a MEM can help technical
personnel on the facility quickly diagnose mis-measurement
issues and plan for future capital expenditure. Design engineers
would also benefit from using the MEM at the conceptual stage
of a project to plan out the specifications for the measurement
system.
Train inlet measurement, which is of great concern to all parties,
must be properly designed, operated and maintained to ensure
equity in the allocation. This paper highlighted the issues on
inlet USM measurement and control valves. Although USM
have gained custody appeal, their use must be planned and
coordinated with the flow/pressure regulation valve into the
facility, since USM are susceptible to noise induced by valves.
Ronald Roberts
Instrumentation & Controls Engineer II
Atlantic LNG Company of Trinidad & Tobago
Point Fortin Trinidad & Tobago
rroberts@atlanticlng.com
Justin Walter
Senior Measurement Consultant
Metco Services Limited
Aberdeen, Scotland
Justin.Walter@metco-uk.com
page 11
REFERENCES:
Allen Fagerlund et al, ‘Identification and Prediction of Piping
System Noise,’ Noise Conference Oct 2005.
Bill Johansen & Joel Clancy, CEESI ‘Flow Calibrating Ultrasonic
Gas Meters’ International School of Hydrocarbon Measurement
May 2003
Charles Derr, Daniel Measurement and Control ‘Energy
Measurement using Ultrasonic Meters & Gas Chromatography’
International School of Hydrocarbon Measurement May 2003
Gerrit Vermeiren and Sven Lataire, SGS ‘How Accurate is
the Shipboard Custody Transfer Measurement system?’ LNG
Journal July/August 2005
James E Gallagher, Savant Measurement Corporation, ‘Orifice
Flowmeters and the Estimated Uncertainties in Natural Gas
Service,’ International School of Hydrocarbon Measurement
May 2003
Kevin Warner and Klaus Zanker, Daniel Industries, Inc ‘Noise
Reduction in Ultrasonic Gas Flow Measurement’ 4th International
Symposium on Fluid Measurement June 1999.
Lars Farestvedt, FMC ‘Multipath Ultrasonic Flow Meters
for Gas Measurement’ International School of Hydrocarbon
Measurement May 2003
Ronald H. Dieck, ‘Measurement Uncertainty Methods and
Applications’ ISA 4th Edition 2007
STANDARDS:
AGA Report No 9 Measurement of Gas by Multipath Ultrasonic
Meters (1998)
ISO/TR 5168 Measurement of fluid flow: Evaluation of
uncertainties
ISO/TR 7066-1 Assessment of uncertainty in calibration and use
of flow measurement devices
ISO 13686 Natural Gas – Quality designation
ISO 14111 Natural Gas – Guidelines to traceability in analysis
ISO 14532 Natural Gas – Terminology
Emerson Process Management
Daniel Measurement and Control, Inc.
www.daniel.com

North America / Latin America:

Headquarters
USA - Houston, Texas
T +1.713.467.6000
F +1.713.827.3880
USA Toll Free 1.888.FLOW.001

Europe: Stirling, Scotland, UK

T +44.1786.433400
F +44.1786.433401 Daniel Measurement and Control, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Emerson Electric Co., and a
division of Emerson Process Management. The Daniel name and logo are registered trademarks
Middle East, Africa: Dubai, UAE of Daniel Industries, Inc. The Emerson logo is a registered trademark and service mark of
Emerson Electric Co. All other trademarks are the property of their respective companies. The
T +971.4.811.8100 contents of this publication are presented for informational purposes only, and while every
F +971.4.886.5465 effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, they are not to be construed as warranties or
guarantees, expressed or implied, regarding the products or services described herein or their use
or applicability. All sales are governed by Daniel’s terms and conditions, which are available upon
Asia Pacific: Singapore request. We reserve the right to modify or improve the designs or specifications of such products
T +65.6777.8211 at any time. Daniel does not assume responsibility for the selection, use or maintenance of any
F +65.6777.0947 / 0743 product. Responsibility for proper selection, use and maintenance of any Daniel product remains
solely with the purchaser and end-user.

©2010 Daniel Measurement and Control, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized duplication in whole or in part is prohibited. Printed in the USA.
DAN-TECHNOLOGIES-A-PRACTICAL-APPROACH-TO-MODELLING-LNG-TRAIN-DESIGN-FOR-MINIMIZING-MEASUREMENT-&-ALLOCATION-UNCERTAINTY