Aga-Reference-Paper OK PDF

2011 Operations Conference & Exhibition
Nashville, TN, May 25 to 27.
Exploring a ‘Total Energy Concept’ (TEC)

for Natural Gas Metering
MARTIN BRAGG [Lead Author], Vice-President Technology (Electronic), Elster Group

MIJNDERT VAN DER BEEK, Senior Scientist, NMi / VSL Dutch Metrology Institute
JOS BERGERVOET, Senior Metrological Expert, Elster-Instromet BV
GWILYM FOULKES, Flow Measurement Consultant, FlowMAC Ltd., UK
SAUL JACOBSON, Chief Electrical Engineer, Elster-Instromet, Australia
JOACHIM KASTNER, Division Director Gas Quality, Elster GmbH
HENK RIEZEBOS, Senior Expert Gas Flow & Flow Acoustics, KEMA, Nederland BV
JURGEN DE WIJS, Manager Project Engineering, Integrated Metering Solutions, Elster NV/SA
Format:
1. Abstract
2. Introduction / Background
3. Gas Quality
4. Methods (new methods related to the concept)
5. Results
6. Summary and Conclusions
7. Acknowledgements
8. References
Copyright Statement
All Rights Reserved. This document is sole property of Elster NV/SA and is subject to the conditions that it or any
information contained therein will not be used in any way detrimental to our interests and that all copies will be returned
immediately on demand. It is subject to change without notice.
Permission to reproduce this document by any means or any medium is granted to the American Gas Association.
The copyright owners shall be acknowledged within any reproduction of this document.
PAGE: 1 of 61
1.0 ABSTRACT
In this paper, we consider the theory supporting a Total Energy Measurement Concept (TEMC,
abbreviated herein as “TEC”) for Natural Gas metering systems deploying both Turbine and
Ultrasonic flow meters in-series (“twin set”). The ‘first stage’ laboratory results of an installed
system is discussed based on general principles, current and working standards/recommendations, and
related to laboratory results that were recorded during actual calibrations. Data is shown for normal
calibration conditions.
The paper provides an insight into theoretical and practical engineering resulting in experiential
learning for a new ‘Total Energy Concept’ (TEC) deploying a Turbine meter, an Ultrasonic flow
meter, a Gas Chromatograph, and a TEC dedicated supervisory system.
2.0 INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND
This paper is a continuation of the work presented by Bragg et al in 2009 at the AGA meeting entitled:
“Performance Analysis of an Operational Metering Station using Ultrasonic Flowmeters (May 19 - 21,
2009)”. In this latest work, it is intended to ‘explore’ a concept by providing both discrete theoretical
information and practical experiences as a result of the 2009 paper in reviewing ‘Metering Stations
Operational Performance.’ Discrete in that the authors do not present results from custom built
fabrications of real life TEC systems, but the results from a number of installations that deploy the
essential components coupled with new developments that suggest the possibility of a workable TEC.
This paper is not intended to be a single (stand-alone) piece of work, but the first of a series of papers
on the subject. The concept is not new, in itself, however with advancing technologies being readily
deployed in such a concept there are new opportunities. The main areas of discussions are those of
flow metering (Turbine and Ultrasonic), Gas Quality, and a dedicated Supervisory Suite that form a
total concept solution.
A Total Energy Measurement Concept (TEC) is a concept that considers a given metering system as a
whole instead of a number of discrete individual components. By deploying measurement
redundancies, that are present in almost every metering installation, or by deliberately introducing
additional measurement redundancies, a system is constructed that detects ‘maintenance or time
induced measurement inaccuracies’ when they occur. Subsequently, the system design is guarded
over the total life of the installation. Maintenance and recalibration intervals can be extended or
performed only when the system itself highlight’s that there is a requirement. In essence, the TEC
metering system becomes an ‘intelligent system’ that is able to determine its ‘health’ and confirm its
original design intent with reference to the total measurement uncertainty. For a definition, the lead
author proposes that: “An intelligent metering system learns how to react to a given circumstance so
that it may maintain its original design intent/objectives (after: Bragg, 2011)”.
Firstly, let us define what a flow measurement is: “Flow measurement is the quantification of bulk
fluid movement. It can be measured in a variety of ways (Wikipedia®, 2008)”.
Secondly, let us define the long-term goal of a TEC as proposed by the lead author to be: “A
systematic use of tools to identify significant variations in operational performance and output quality,
determine root causes, make corrections and verify results (Evans and Lindsay, 1999:345)”. This
definition is deployed within one manufacturer’s ‘MeasCon Technology®’ software packages that
are a number of developments, ongoing, as a direct result of this paper and that of the earlier AGA
paper in 2009. Today, there are two software systems installed in the world that deploy the first beta
test release of an early stage software package for Ultrasonic meters in ‘real life’ metering stations.
Thirdly, and specifically referring to a TEC supervisory suite, let us define a truth table: “A truth
table is a mathematical table used in logic - specifically in connection with Boolean algebra, Boolean
functions, and propositional calculus - to compute the functional values of logical expressions on each
of their functional arguments, that is, on each combination of values taken by their logical variables
(Enderton, 2001). In particular, truth tables can be used to tell whether a propositional expression is
PAGE: 2 of 61
true for all legitimate input values, that is, logically valid (Wikipedia®, 2011)”. An example of a
typical truth table is shown as follows.
Finally, for a basic TEC one needs to determine flow rate, composition, temperature, and pressure
generally in accordance with the following ‘picture (formula).’ Such a TEC may be shown in the
following Picture with a single flow meter. As a basic TEC this system is acceptable, however this
paper proposes that a second meter be deployed for the reasons that shall be discussed in the following
sections.
Standard State p0, T0

Metering State pm, Tm Volume Vm at
Volume V0 at
Standard Conditions Metering Conditions
pm  T0 1
E  V0  Hs0    Vm  Hs0
p0  Tm K
Calorific Value Hs0
at Gas Law Deviation Factor K
AGA-8 DC 92: K(p,T,xi)
S-GERG-88:
Gas Quality Measurement:
• Gas Composition: xi
• Gas Parameters: Hs0, r0, xCO2
In summary, one can deploy a number of basic concepts within such a metering system with reference
to its overall performance. For example, comparing the performance of the individual flow meters
and further considering their combined results: comparing the measured Speed-of-sound (SOS) with
that calculated to a recognised standard (AGA-10); continuous monitoring of the flow meters via a
health check programme; historical mean deviation checks (flagging sudden changes); and deploying a
variant of the traditional ‘truth table’ to highlight the probable source of a subsequent measurement
error.
PAGE: 3 of 61
Picture 01
A TEC with two flow meters would, ideally, be based on two differing fundamental measurement
principles as shown in the following Picture 02.
Picture 02
Within this paper’s section ‘5.0 Results’ we shall address the question of: “Which meter is first in a
series installation and why?” Traditionally, a great deal of time and effort is spent during the design
phase of a metering system to ensure that the metering has an overall ‘acceptable performance.’ For
the owners of gas stations it is very important to have some means of control over the performance.
Performance implies various aspects, not only ‘accuracy’ but also safety, reliability, security of
PAGE: 4 of 61
supply, control of environmental aspects (noise, emission, carbon footprint, etc.), and costs. By cost
we refer not only to the costs of purchase (CAPEX) but also costs of maintenance, subsequent
recalibration, and regular performance monitoring (OPEX).
In referencing the various aspects of accuracy, one can use uncertainty models to direct the effort to
the largest contributors (sub-components). This helps in the design stage to find the appropriate
balance between CAPEX and OPEX with the desire for an ever lower uncertainty of measurement.
In more recent publications, the authors note the question of “What recalibration and/or maintenance
intervals shall be deployed in order to maintain the system’s original design uncertainties?” The
authors’ noted that the balance shall be found between the individual system’s OPEX and the desired
uncertainty of the final measurement. The latest trends, within our industry, appear to suggest that
one should use vendor specific diagnostic and performance monitoring tools to assess the condition of
the individual components within a metering system (for example, healthcare diagnostics monitoring).
It may be noted there are a number of relevant individual standards for the ‘component parts’ of a
typical metering system as follows.
GAS METER STANDARD GAS PROPERTY STANDARD
Turbine Meter AGA 7 Compressibility SGERG88

ISO 9951 SGERG91
EN 12261 MGERG
Ultrasonic Meter AGA 9 AGA NX 19
ISO 17089-1 AGA 8
EN 14236 Base Conditions ISO 6976
Orifice Plate AGA 3 Composition ISO 6974
ISO 5167 ISO 10723
Conversion Device EN 12405 ASTM 1945
Calorific Value ISO 6976
GPA 2145
GPA 2172
Speed-of-sound AGA 10
Specific Heat AGA 10
Table 01: Field Verification and Validation of an Energy Measurement System after: Herwijn, 2008.
In concluding this introduction and background, it can be shown that the existing manuals and
standards do not totally reflect what a TEC is and how it shall be deployed within our industry.
2.0.1 Uncertainty
In this paper, we explore two areas of uncertainty being (i) traditional mathematical models, and (ii)
new approaches to a TEC system where we can deploy techniques and methods to reduce uncertainty
in the measurement device or devices (cross-checks). For (i) we explore the ‘long-term operational
uncertainties’ plus the ‘operational philosophy component’, and for (ii) we introduce new techniques
such as the TurbinScope® for Turbine meters. The TurbinScope® is to Turbine meters what the
traditional Healthcare and Condition Based Monitoring diagnostics are to an Ultrasonic flow meter.
For a TEC system, we have further expanded the traditional uncertainty models to address not only
design time influences, but also so called “maintenance and time induced uncertainties”. When the
design life of a metering system is 20-years or more the uncertainty model of such an installation shall
also include effects that occur within the 20-years life span. Commonly addressed equipment failure
shall be addressed, as historical practise, but one should also consider the effects such as incorrectly
performed maintenance. Even with periodic maintenance, a fault can exist for several months until it
is detected at the next scheduled maintenance period. This additional uncertainty of measurement
exists in ‘real life’ situations and shall, therefore, be addressed in an enhanced uncertainty model.
PAGE: 5 of 61
In this paper, we introduce the concepts of a TEC system that is able to detect such “maintenance or
time induced uncertainties”. Critically, to note, is that we propose to detect ‘instantaneous faults’
that are quite likely to occur during the life time of an installation and the influence of such events on
the total uncertainty of the system. Such an approach would greatly reduce the system’s total
uncertainty during its operational life span.
Such a TEC System may be deployed to increase the confidence within the overall performance of a
given metering installation. When confidence is increasing, maintenance and re-calibration can be
performed only when the system highlight’s that there is a need to do so. Such a design will reduce
the OPEX of a metering installation without negatively affecting the system’s total metering
uncertainty.
From the users’ perspective, the focus is upon the individual metering station components such as:
measurement of volume; gas quality; volume conversion; heating systems; pressure or flow control;
liquid and dust filtering; and odorisation systems. However, there is also the possibility to cross-
check the individual measurement’s to obtain an overall performance with a reduced uncertainty.
2.1 THE TURBINE FLOW METER
New technology introductions for Turbine meters are reducing pressure drop up to 50%, providing a
bi-directional measurement capability, the TurbinScope® diagnostic tool is introduced for
‘diagnostics’, and the auto lubrication system are some of the latest innovations from the world of
Turbine meters.
The following sections will explore these innovations in a little more detail in considering one
manufacturer’s product line. Here we may note the newer advanced design offering both uni and bi-
directional metering with lower pressure drop and high flow velocities being ideally suited to a TEC
system deploying two meters in series. Such a recommendation, deploying two meters in series, may
be noted in the standard “Gas supply systems - Natural Gas measuring stations - functional
requirements; NEN-EN 1776 (en); 1999; Annex B1 (1)”. This standard is being updated and due for
re-release in 2011.
Picture 03
A typical flow curve, for the new meter, under varying pressures is shown as follows.
PAGE: 6 of 61
Deviation curve SMRI-2 Size 400 Picture 04
Version Qmax 4000 and 6500
1
deviation [%]
-1
-2
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Re relative to Re_Qmax_air
E atm E 8bar E 20 bar E 50 bar
Note: the following text is extracted from the manufacturer’s literature.
2.1.1 Reduced pressure drop
A significant issue when deploying a Turbine meter and an Ultrasonic meter in series within a TEC
system is that of the historically lower flow range of the mechanical meter. Another historical issue
has been that of bi-directional flow measurement capability. New developments have started to
address these issues for which there is now the SMRI model of Turbine meter that is commercially
available. The pressure loss of the new generation SMRI-2 can be reduced down to 50% of that of
conventional SM-RI-X models, while the flow capacity has been increased to match the existing
Ultrasonic gas meter capacities for the same size. It’s also the first Turbine gas meter on the market
with optional bi-directional capability. It is designed to function perfectly together with an Ultrasonic
gas meter to achieve high redundancy rates with improved long-term stability. This makes it ideally
suited for import and export stations, underground gas storage, and bi-directional transmission lines.
The SM-RI-2 is certified according to the MID. There are uni-directional and bi-directional versions.
2.1.2 TurbinScope® diagnostic tool
This unique service is a breakthrough for examining Turbine meter performance under real operating
conditions. No need to remove the meter from the process. Data is collected on-site and is analysed
at the factory to determine meter and installation conditions. Possible outcomes of these analyses
include discovering misreading due to installation effects, Turbine blade damage, bearing damage,
flow pulsations and accuracy forecasts at minimum flow. This method has been approved by the
Dutch NMi.
2.1.3 Automatic lubrication
Manual lubrication by means of hand oil pumps has always been a maintenance issue for Turbine
meters. Now there is an automatic lubrication system, developed for Turbine gas meters, which is
controlled by the measured gas quantity and activated by the gas pressure of the pipeline (optionally
by separate nitrogen bottle, if pressure < 6 bar (g)). The amount of lubricant oil supplied is adjusted
depending on the bearing size and the operating flow of the gas meter. Hence the overall efficiency
of the Turbine gas meter is further enhanced. The auto lubrication system will have a positive effect
on the cost of ownership, owing to the fact that the meter does not necessarily need to be maintained
manually.
PAGE: 7 of 61
2.2 THE ULTRASONIC FLOW METER
In this section of the paper, we consider how far this metering technology has progressed by taking an
historical look at the technique after Jacobson. We further expand on the subject by considering ‘by
products’ of the fundamental measurement principle to yield information not previously
considered/deployed within a TEC system.
In 1966 Lindsay[1] published his work on the history of acoustics including the Speed-of-sound in air
in 1635. Piezoelectricity was discovered in 1880 by the Curie brothers, whose work forms the
foundation for the majority of Ultrasonic sensors in today’s process control measurements. Lord
Rayleigh’s first edition of ‘The Theory of Sound’ was published in 1877 before atomic theory, modern
physics, quantum mechanics, and before relativity theory. Ultrasound has a long-established history
that is well documented. Electronics used within Ultrasonic measuring systems realised a significant
development during 1939 - 1945 as a result of both radar and sonar. Milestones in Ultrasonic flow
metering can be traced back to the late 1940’s, however there were also significant shifts in
technology during the 1960’s as a result of both military and space projects. Since these dates, there
has been continuous development in technologies within this field of measurement.
An Ultrasonic Flow meter for gas has the advantages seen in its liquid counterpart: high turn-down,
non-intrusive, no pressure drop, bi-directional measurement, no moving parts, maintenance free and it
can be used with a wide range of pipe sizes. Ultrasonic gas meters have the advantage over most other
technologies of being able to measure at low and high pressure, and of providing a composition
independent flow velocity measurement (profile effects notwithstanding). Ultrasonics is also unique
among flow metering methods in that the transducers may be ‘clamped on’ to the outside of the pipe
wall, and no penetration of the pipe is required. Clamp-on is generally defined as being both non-
invasive and non-intrusive, however designs were proposed in the past two decades that are partially
invasive and non-intrusive. Originally limited to liquid applications only, in recent year’s clamp-on
techniques have been applied to gas as well[2]. Applications also include temperature extremes,
thermal buffers such as coiled foil or bundles of many thin rods enable transducers to be used with
fluids, including gases, well above their Curie point as well as down to cryogenic temperatures[3][4][5].
Two methods have principally been used for Ultrasonic gas flow metering, namely, Transit-time and
Tag Cross-correlation. Doppler methods, which have seen widespread use in liquid Ultrasonic flow
meters, have not been used for gas, due to the absence in general of suitable reflectors (scatterers).
The Transit-time and Tag Correlation methods are described below. Transit-time principles have been
applied in gas flow measurements at audible frequencies too, as exemplified by the work of Kleppe
and colleagues[6]. Frequencies on the order of 1.5 kHz were used in CEM (continuous emissions
monitoring) applications starting around 1990.
The flow meter itself shall be able to derive the bulk flow rate within a closed conduit and ‘validate’
the resultant dataset. In other words, the meter shall become ‘smarter’ in its ability to determine the
validity of the flow rate dataset by ‘validation through a combination of acoustic path and advanced
diagnostics’ (including healthcare). Acoustic paths may be deployed in various configurations, as we
have seen within commercially available meters, to achieve a given design intent. Within these path
configurations, and accepting the prolific use of the gas Speed-of-sound (Sound speed or Velocity-of-
Sound) as deployed in AGA-10, the lead author believe’s that there are other ‘by products’ of the
operating principle (typically, Transit-Time and Tag Cross-Correlation) that may be used to determine
other gas properties, such as the gas composition, molecular weight, or calorific value.
2.2.1 Speed-of-sound (Sound speed or Velocity-of-Sound)
The Speed-of-sound for an ideal gas mixture consisting of components is given by the equation:
------------(8)
------------(9)
PAGE: 8 of 61
------------(10)
Where:
is the gas sound speed
is the universal gas constant
is the absolute temperature
is the specific heat ratio of gas component ‘I’
is the molecular weight of gas component ‘I’
... are the concentrations of the gas components respectively
In the case of a binary gas, where the ’s and molecular weights of the two gases are known, and the
temperature, , and the gas sound speed, , are measured, we have sufficient information to calculate
the respective concentrations of the two gas components, and [7]. There may also be sufficient
information for ‘pseudo-binary’ gases, consisting of a well defined gas mixture, for example, air, and a
second component, for example, hydrogen. In the case of a gas mixture of more than two
components, more information is needed to determine composition. Gases saturated with water
vapour are a special case, as the concentration of one component, H2O, can be determined directly
from saturated water vapour tables, if temperature and pressure are known.
Several researchers have recognised that, when a gas mixture is saturated, and the third component of
a ternary gas mixture is water vapour, the volume percent of the water vapour may be determined
using saturated water vapour tables. Examples where this has been exploited include an analyser
intended for monitoring the generation of hydrogen by electrolysis of water, which gives a saturated
mixture of H2 and N2[8], and the analysis of breathing gas, where the gas mixture consists of air, carbon
dioxide and water vapour[9].
The equations 8, 9 and 10 are accurate for ideal gases, and real gases will deviate somewhat. The
gases discussed above, nitrogen, methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen, etc., approximate ideal gases at
low pressure, but the ’s do exhibit a small temperature dependence. Water vapour is less ‘ideal’.
Equation 9 shows the for water vapour derived from two sources[10] and[11]. The relationship,
, was used to calculate from tables in[11]. In fact, based on empirical results for
‘simulated biogas’ consisting of a saturated mixture of methane and carbon dioxide, a good fit to
equations was obtained only by adjusting the for water vapour significantly from the published
values. Using the empirically determined it is possible to determine percent methane in biogas to
within 1% or 2% over the range of interest.
Another successful application of gas analysis based on sound speed is the determination of molecular
weight in flare gas[12]. Flare gas consists primarily of hydrocarbons, and the inventors determined that,
while the ’s varied with molecular weight, an empirical relationship exists between and molecular
weight:
----------------(11)
Using this equation, and the equation 8, we have sufficient information to calculate molecular weight
when gas sound speed and temperature are known.
Using the viral equations, this technique was extended to cases where known quantities of non-
PAGE: 9 of 61
hydrocarbons are included in the gas mixture[13].
2.2.2 Attenuation
Attenuation is perhaps a less robust parameter for determining gas parameters than sound speed.
Attenuation requires careful calibration and can be effected by flow turbulence, entrained particles or
droplets in the gas, or even transducer degradation over time. Nevertheless attenuation has been used,
separately or in combination with sound speed to determine gas properties. Petculescu et al [14]
describe a prototype sensor based on attenuation for multi-component gases, concluding that
‘...combining sound speed and attenuation measurement in a simple sensor offers the potential to
identify and quantify the gases making up a multi-component mixture.’ However, the authors are not
aware of any commercial sensors for gas based on acoustic attenuation.
2.2.3 Acoustic impedance
Acoustic impedance appears an attractive means of determining gas density, as the acoustic impedance
is given by:
------------(12)
where is the gas density and is the sound speed.
Therefore, if the sound speed and acoustic impedance are measured, the density of the gas may be
calculated. However, the measurement of gas acoustic impedance is extremely difficult in practice,
particularly in a process environment. Mylvaganam et al [15], used the effect of gas loading on the
transducer and the resulting change in its electrical impedance to develop a prototype gas density
sensor. However, as in the case of acoustic attenuation, the authors are not aware of any commercial
sensors for gas analysis based on this principle.
2.2.4 Ultrasonic flow meter summary
Ultrasonic flow meters for gas have been gaining acceptance in recent years, and have seen an
expanding share in diverse markets, from simple process monitoring applications to multi-path
systems for high accuracy custody transfer of Natural Gas. Part of this rapid growth has been due to
the ‘traditional’ advantages of Ultrasonic flow metering: wide turn-down, high accuracy, no pressure
drop, no moving parts, etc. Recent developments have provided additional benefits to Ultrasonic gas
flow metering. These include the unique ability of Ultrasonic flow meters to measure clamp-on,
without penetrating the pipe wall, and the use of Ultrasonic measurements other than flow rate, such as
sound speed, to determine process gas properties. These gas properties may be considered during
‘traditional’ product development to add to the more typical data sets in providing ‘evidential learning’
for the ‘meter explorer’.
3.0 GAS QUALITY
The role of Gas Quality, particularly Gas Chromatography, within the TEC is critical to such a system.
This section of the paper addresses the subjects of the tasks, technologies, and the role of Gas Quality
measurement within the TEC.
3.1 Tasks of gas quality measurement
Gas Quality Measurement (GQM) has a wide range of tasks in gas metering. The basic function is
fiscal metering, other measurements are related to various specific gas quality parameters. These
tasks require a standard or an extended analysis of the gas composition or even of the dynamics of the
gas quality parameters. These complex measurements have several links to the Total Energy
Concept. Most measurement tasks are related to quantitative and qualitative metering aspects,
however gas quality measurement can also provide additional information to assess the total
measurement system integrity.
PAGE: 10 of 61
3.1.1 Fiscal measurement: flow and calorific value
Gas trading is based on energy billing, since energy is the utility value for the consumer, therefore
fiscal metering is also the primary task of gas quality measurement.
The energy flow is the product of volume flow at standard conditions and calorific value, as illustrated
in the equation in Picture 05.
The key result of gas quality measurement is the calorific value, typically related to standard volume,
denoted with Hs,0 in the equation. The calorific value is determined directly with calorimeters or
indirectly by molar component analysis, typically with Gas Chromatographs and calculation, e.g.
according to ISO 6976[16].
For further calculation of the total energy, volume at flowing conditions V must be converted to
volume at standard conditions V0 by state conversion with pressure p and temperature T. The index 0
denotes the standard state, p0 = 1013.25 mbar and T0 = 273.15 K. Since Natural Gas is not an ideal
gas, this conversion calculation needs to regard the non-ideal gas property, described by the
compressibility factor K. This is calculated with the AGA-8 or SGERG equation dependent on the
pressure and temperature and also on the quality of the gas. These equations require input data such as
the molar gas composition for the detailed calculation or key gas parameters, e.g. superior calorific
value, normal density and CO2 mole fraction for the gross calculation. Hence gas quality
measurement is also essential for the volume flow determination.
Picture 05 shows some examples of gas measurement instrumentation. The leading gas analysis
technology for billing is the process Gas Chromatograph. It supplies a detailed analysis based on
substance quantities, relatively slow and discontinuously, but with very high accuracy and precision.
Many gas parameters can then be calculated from the subsequent molar analysis[16].
Picture 05: Energy is the fundamental quantity in gas industry. It is determined by measurement of
the volume under operational conditions V, calorific value at standard conditions Hs,0, operational
pressure p and temperature T. Since Natural Gas is not an ideal gas, the compressibility factor K
must be regarded. The Picture also shows examples of typical measurement instrumentation.
PAGE: 11 of 61
3.1.2 Extended analysis, Speed-of-sound
Besides the key gas parameters for fiscal billing, there are further gas properties that are relevant for
proper and safe gas production, transportation, trading and consumption. These gas parameters are
partly specified in the various gas quality standards[17] [18], and hence are often subject to gas trade and
transportation contracts. The determination of these useful quantities often demand’s an extended gas
analysis or calculation.
Most gas quality parameters are related to individual substances and substance groups, e.g. oxygen
O2, sulfur, particularly H2S, and water H2O that are mainly related to corrosion. Others such as
hydrogen H2, carbon dioxide CO2 and hydrocarbon dewpoint temperature are more related to the
utilisation properties of the gas. Further properties such as water dewpoint and formation of hydrates
are significant for mechanical disturbances.
Another important gas parameter that can be derived from gas analysis by extended calculation is the
Speed-of-sound. It can be determined from the gas composition according to AGA-10[19] and might
be used for validation of the TEC system integrity by comparison with the SOS/VOS measurement
resulting from the Ultrasonic flow meters.
The extended gas parameters are often determined using specialist measurement instruments or by
sampling and laboratory analysis. Current, high performance field Gas Chromatographs, however,
now makes it possible to measure the parameters of an extended gas analysis within the process.
3.1.3 Dynamics of gas quality, real-time measurement for process control & regulation
The gas quality in the transportation networks varies with time, due to blending or conditioning
stations or by unintended blending situations in the transportation network; the gas quality might show
significant dynamics. It is expected that these dynamics will grow in future, because a higher variety
of gas qualities will be fed into the networks from international gas trade, mainly by LNG, or from
novel gas sources such as shale gas, biogas and synthetic Natural Gas. In addition to the primary
measures for fiscal metering, there are further gas parameters that are important for ensuring that gas
can be transported and consumed safely and efficiently. Real-time measurement is often required to
face gas-quality dynamics in the control of sensitive processes in industrial gas applications or in gas
blending stations.
One critical gas property is the Wobbe index that correlates with the heat power of a burner nozzle.
Another issue is knock resistance that is important if Natural Gas is used as a motor fuel. Its measure
is the methane number (similar to the octane number for petrol). With a prompt methane number
signal, engine control can be optimised, thereby improving efficiency and service life. Another gas
utilisation that is strongly sensitive to gas quality dynamics are power plants, based on gas Turbines.
They profit from fast and accurate gas quality measurement for adjustment of the Turbine’s
operational parameters in the trade-off between high efficiency, low pollution and long service life.
These tasks often require a higher measurement dynamic than provided by Gas Chromatographs.
Alternative measurement technologies are based on sensor systems with various measurement
principles such as infrared absorption, thermal quantities, etc. These technologies determine the
aforementioned gas parameters via a correlative evaluation. Sensor systems typically deliver a less
detailed and less accurate analysis than Gas Chromatographs, but they provide the desired gas
parameters faster and continuously. In addition there are some technologies that have the potential
for lower capital and operational costs.
3.2 Technologies deployed within gas quality measurement
This section of the paper shall briefly address a sample of gas quality measurement technologies
presently available within the market.
PAGE: 12 of 61
3.2.1 Gas Chromatography (GC)
Process Gas Chromatographs for the Natural Gas industry have the following (typical) principal setup.
A carrier gas, typically Helium, is sequentially and continuously flowing through an injector, a thin
tube, the so called column, and a detector, typically a heat conductivity or flame ionisation detector.
A small amount of the sample is injected as a pulse into the carrier gas stream and transported through
the column and the detector. The ‘internal’ of the column is packed or coated with an active material
that interacts physically with the components of the gas sample. The different components interact
with different intensity with the active material of the column and hence reach the detector at different
delay times after injection; this time delay is called retention time. The peak intensity corresponds to
the concentration of the corresponding sample component; this correlation is represented by the so-
called response factor. The detector’s signal is a function of time, while the concentration is called
chromatogram. It can be evaluated quantitatively by comparing the peak intensities of the sample
chromatogram with the chromatogram of a calibration gas with known composition.
Picture 06: Principle set-up of a Gas Chromatograph
Modern process GCs are based on microsystems technology with micro-electro-mechanical-systems

(MEMS) technology. The key functional blocks of a GC include for its injector, column, heating, and
detector that are highly miniaturised and integrated, resulting in a number of advantages. Due to their
small dimensions, injector and detector fit well to capillary columns. The separation performance of
Gas Chromatographic columns increases with decreasing column diameter; hence these capillary
columns achieve better analytical performance than classical columns. Furthermore, thermal
conductivity detectors on MEMS technology achieve very high linearity and sensitivity. Finally, the
consumption of consumables like carrier, calibration and sample gas is significantly lower and allows
annual maintenance intervals - an important aspect for the total cost of ownership.
PAGE: 13 of 61
Picture 07: Modular setup of the Gas Chromatograph EnCal 3000 including 2 (two) micro-GC
channels
MEMS Injector
MEMS Thermal
Conductivity Detector
‘Narrow bore’
Capillary column
Picture 08: Micro-GC channel with key functional components in micro-electro-mechanical-

systems technology: Injector, column, detector
3.2.2 Sensor systems
As an established example for sensor systems, this chapter presents a correlative gas quality
measurement technology based on a sensor system for optical and thermal gas properties. An
example from one manufacturer of the technology enables accurate online gas quality analysis over a
wide range of generic Natural Gases. The measurement device ‘gas-lab Q1’, based on this technique,
has no need for additional an carrier gas; the device calibrates itself automatically with methane. The
system was developed and tested for a wide variety of generic Natural Gases. The full measurement
range can be covered with a single calibration data set. The new technology is more accurate and
lower in total costs than present calorimeters and Wobbe meters. The current online measurement
technologies typically need extensive ambient conditioning. In comparison to process Gas
Chromatography, the new device is much faster and has lower operational costs, since it does not need
a carrier gas and multi-component calibration gas. Present field applications range from billing
measurement to control and regulation applications for fast industrial processes.
The presented method is based on the typical composition structure of generic Natural Gas. It
consists mainly in hydrocarbons (abbreviated as “CH”), carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrogen (N2); these
PAGE: 14 of 61
components typically make more than 99.9% of the total gas composition. Thus we approximate the
molar composition of Natural Gas:
xCH  xN 2  xCO 2  1 ,
with xCH, xN2 and xCO2 being the molar fractions of the total hydrocarbons (CH), nitrogen N2 and
carbon dioxide CO2, respectively. The hydrocarbons mainly consists of alkanes (CnH2n+2), of which
the concentrations steadily decrease with increasing alkane order in generic Natural Gas. The
selection of the measurement values of the new technology corresponds to this typical composition
pattern of Natural Gas. The measured values are as follows in Table 02:
Correlating Gas
Measurement Value
Components
Infrared Absorbance of the
ACH CH
Hydrocarbons
Infrared Absorbance of
ACO2 CO2
Carbon dioxide
λ Heat Conductivity CH, N2, CO2
These physical data correlate directly with the molecular gas composition and thus make it possible to
determine the key properties of Natural Gases. Picture 09 illustrates the measurement method.
Hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide absorb infrared light by excitation of the CH- and CO2-molecules.
The spectral intensity of this absorption is specific for the component type and proportional to the
component concentration. Infrared absorption is measured by sending white light through the gas and
detecting the transmitted intensity in different spectral regions. In order to detect non-IR-absorbing
gas components such as nitrogen, another sensor is used to measure the heat conductivity that is (non-
specific) sensitive to all gas components.
Picture 09: Measurement method: The absorption of infrared light correlates with the
concentration and composition of the hydrocarbons and the concentration of carbon dioxide. The
heat conductivity correlates (non-specifically) with all gas components, also with nitrogen, that is
invisible in the infrared spectrum.
The missing information of the hydrocarbons concentration xCH is complementary to the nitrogen
concentration xN2 and as such may be determined by measurement of the heat conductivity λ.
Therefore, a model for the thermal conductivity λmodel is used as a function of the molar calorific value
of the hydrocarbons HCHm and of the mole fraction of the hydrocarbons xCH, nitrogen N2 and carbon
PAGE: 15 of 61
dioxide xCO2:
 model  F ( xCH , xN 2 , xCO2 ,HCHm )
The missing information xCH, respectively xN2, is gained by an iterative evaluation algorithm. The
unknown quantities are being varied iteratively until the measured thermal conductivity λ fits with the
model thermal conductivity λmodel. Finally, the evaluation algorithm based on the measurement values
and the mentioned correlation results in the relevant gas parameters:
 calorific value Hs0

 normal density 0
Further calculations based on fundamental laws and complex modelling of typical generic Natural
Gases deliver additional values such as:
 Wobbe index
 Methane number
 Modell analysis (CH4, C2H6, C3H8, nC4H10.. nC8H18, N2, CO2)
 Net calorific value, specific density, etc.
Picture 10 shows the core set-up of the sensor system gas-lab Q1. The gas is running through the
sensor bench, continuously. Sensors detect pressure, temperature, total heat conductivity and infrared
absorption of the hydrocarbons and of carbon dioxide.
Picture 10: Sensor system for the analysis of Natural Gas, based on infrared absorption and heat
conductivity measurement.
4.0 METHODS
In this section of the paper we review some of the ‘new methods (techniques and/or models)’ deployed
within today’s metering that may be directly related to the TEC.
4.1 Turbine meter
The Turbine meter has performed well for many years that may be noted within a proliferation of
publications within the metering industry. Also, for quite some years, the Ultrasonic meter has been
developing with its diagnostics by way of Healthcare and Condition Based Monitoring ‘packages’
(usually software based) that are deployed successfully within many installations. Today, the Turbine
meter can be supplied with such diagnostic capability relative to its measurement principle as
developed under the trademark ‘TurbinScope®’.
PAGE: 16 of 61
4.1.1 TurbinScope®
The TurbinScope® diagnostics is a measurement device that analyses the ‘soundness’ of a Turbine
meter itself, and the flow conditions within the installation.
The principle of operation is based on sampling the Turbine meter’s pulse time for every pulse of a
high frequency pick up on the Turbine wheel - with an extremely high resolution.
Picture 11: Measurement principle used by TurbinScope®
A low level diagnostics of the soundness, e.g., such as missing pulses, extra pulses, damaged/bent or
missing blades, can be detected quite readily. Further, with sufficient analysis, overload on the meter,
by too high a gas velocity, or too high acceleration / deceleration of the gas velocity may be observed.
Picture 12 (a) and (b): Footprint of pulse time, wherein damaged/bent blade can be detected
PAGE: 17 of 61
Picture 13: Flow and change of flow over time
If it possible to generate a spin down situation within the installation, e.g., by closing a valve, and it is
sufficiently fast enough to get a real spin down for the last few turns, the mechanical resistance of the
bearing can be determined and with it the expected deviation in reading for the different flow
conditions. Any imbalance within the wheel can also be measured.
Picture 14: Spin down and expectation of deviation for air, and 8 barg Natural Gas
PAGE: 18 of 61
Picture 15: Imbalance in the deceleration diagram during spin down
In consideration of the high resolution of the pulse time signal, and a specially developed (proprietary)
filtering of that signal, one can then analyse, with a Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) technique, the
filtered signal. The filtered signal yields frequencies of disturbance within the signal that can be made
visible. Frequencies that are visible can be caused by bearing damage, by instability of the rotational
axis, or by the flow.
By performing a FFT analysis for a particular flow range one can display the results within a 3D
graph, from where one can further determine the origin of the frequencies. The straight lines parallel
to the relative flow axis are proportional with the rotation frequencies and with the bearing
frequencies. The frequencies lines parallel to the relative frequencies axis are probably induced by the
rotational axis. Curved lines will yield constant frequencies that are largely related to installation
frequencies applied to the flow.
Picture 16 (a) and (b): FFT analysis of pulse time for one flow and 3D representation for additional
flows
PAGE: 19 of 61
Picture 17: Overview of what can be recognised within a 3D FFT analysis
4.2 From traditional uncertainty to long-term operational uncertainty
In the opening section of this paper, Section 2.0.1, we introduced the idea of a traditional uncertainty
model being further developed to address the ‘long-term operational uncertainties’ plus an ‘operational
philosophy component’. Follows is an introduction to such an approach that is based, in the first
instance, on public domain literature for the Ultrasonic flow meter. However, it has not been possible
to build a complete model in considering these ‘new’ sub-components due to a lack of
data/information within the public domain (at this time).
4.2.1 Measurement uncertainty - generic theory (overview to be extended)
Within this work, it shall be noted that the individual contributors to the components of uncertainty
were derived and where appropriate combined, in accordance with the GUM[21] and guidelines given
within ISO 5168[22]. The uncertainties are expressed with a coverage factor, k = 2; thus providing a
confidence level of approximately ±95%. Firstly, let us consider the structure of this model with
reference to the following.
USM PRIMARY
UNCERTAINTY
(Uprimary)
USM BASE USM INSTALLATION USM OPERATIONAL

UNCERTAINTY (Ucal) UNCERTAINTY UNCERTAINTY
(POST CALIBRATION) (Uinst) (Uopn)
Each of these main three contributors or groups represents a number of effects which in turn contribute
to the sub-components of uncertainty for each group and thus the primary uncertainty of the meter.
The effects attributable to each group will, in part, be dependent upon the type of calibration
performed on the meter. A definitive list of these effects and where they are addressed by static or
dynamic calibration is outwith the scope of this paper (an Elster-Instromet internal report of some one-
hundred-and-ten pages in length). The following review is intended to provide the reader with an
appreciation of the breadth of this work, without revealing the entire model as this is considered
‘proprietary’ at this time.
PAGE: 20 of 61
Let us consider the Ultrasonic flow meter. If we continue to build the ‘traditional’ sub-components of
uncertainty and further add components of ‘operation’ that include, for example, the uncertainties
attributed to the geometry effects and to the effects of long-term drift on the performance of the meter
whilst in service, we can start to build our new model. We also need to add sub-components for any
pre-determined standard piping configuration. Translating into an Excel worksheet (to generate a
useable model), and continuing to expand the components of uncertainty, we can provide the
following ‘brief overview’ of our developing uncertainty model. Of course, this model is in itself to
be developed for a ‘stand alone’ meter, but in a series check TEC system there is the additional
data/information available from this second meter being of a differing operating principle. This shall
deliver a further scenario due to the TEC system itself.
Combining the three groups on a root-sum-square basis gives the following primary uncertainty
equation for the meter:
Uprimary = [ (Ucal)²+ (Uinst)² + (Uopn)² ] 0.5 (eq 9)
Where:
Uprimary = Primary uncertainty of the meter
Ucal = Uncertainty associated with the base function and calibration of the
meter (static or dynamic) including applicable USM effects as defined
within Appendix A
Uinst = Uncertainty attributed to the installation and operating philosophy of

the meter in a service environment
Uopn = Component of uncertainty resulting from in-service operations

impacting on the long-term functionality of the meter.
4.2.2 USM installation & operating philosophy uncertainty (Uinst)
The magnitude of the contributors to the USM installation component of uncertainty (Uinst) will vary
dependent upon the type of installation and the users operating philosophy for the meter.
The aim of this sub-section is to qualify, as far as practical, the USM effects from ‘the model’ which
will impact on Uinst and hence Uprimary for all installation options:
Uinst = [ (UMF)² + (Urepi)² + (UWG)²

+ (Ufai)² ] 0.5 (eq 20)
Where:
UMF = Uncertainties attributed to changes in meter correction factor (MF)

due to pressure and temperature differences between calibration and
operating conditions
Urepi = Uncertainties attributed to the repeatability of the meter resulting

from the operating philosophy adopted post calibration (static or
dynamic)
UWG = Uncertainty attributed to the presence of suspended liquids in the gas

(wet gas)
Ufai = Uncertainty attributed to the impact of the pipework configuration on

the performance of the meter
PAGE: 21 of 61
The sub-components of uncertainty associated with the meter correction factor (UMF) are
given by:
UMF = [ (U)² + (UDl)² + (UE)² + (Uth)²

+ (U∆T)² + (U∆P)² ] 0.5 (eq 21)
Where:
U = Uncertainty attributed to the temperature coefficient of expansion of the

meter spool piece
UDl = Uncertainties attributable to variations in the meter spool bore at operating

conditions
UE = Uncertainties attributable to the Modulus of Elasticity
Uth = Uncertainties attributable to the measurement of meter spool bore wall

thickness
U∆T = Uncertainties attributable to the measurement of ∆ temperature
U∆P = Uncertainties attributable to the measurement of ∆ pressure
The sub-components of uncertainty associated with the installation repeatability of the meter resulting
from the operating philosophy adopted post calibration (Urepi) are given by:
Urepi = [ (Upsi)² + (Utsi)² + (Ukre)² + (Uini)²

+ (Ucni)² ] 0.5 (eq 22)
Where:
Upsi = Uncertainty attributed to the effect of pressure shock on the transducers
Utsi = Uncertainty attributed to the effect of temperature shock on the transducers
Ukre = Uncertainty attributed to the effects on Kre of operating on different gas

properties (viscosity & density) to those programmed into the meter SPU.
Uini = Uncertainty attributed to the effect of incoherent noise on the performance

of the meter e.g. impact of EMC on signal to noise ratio
Ucni = Uncertainty attributed to the effect of coherent noise on the performance of

the meter e.g. impact of acoustic cross-talk on signal to noise ratio
The sub-components of uncertainty attributed to the upstream and downstream pipework configuration
(Ufai) are given by:
Ufai = [ (Ufpei)² + (Utei)² ] 0.5 (eq 23)
Where:
Ufpei = Uncertainty attributed to flow profile effects on the performance of the

meter
PAGE: 22 of 61
Utei = Uncertainty attributed to turbulence effects on the performance of the meter
Thus the expanded USM installation and operating philosophy uncertainty (Uinst) becomes:
Uinst = [ (U)² + (UDl)² + (UE)² + (Uth)²

+ (U∆T)² + (U∆P)² + (Upsi)² + (Utsi)²
+ (Ukre)² + (Uini)² + (Ucni)² + (UWG)²
+ (Ufpei)² + (Utei)² ] 0.5 (eq 24)
The magnitude of the contributors to the in-service operating component of uncertainty (Uopn) will
vary dependent upon the operating environment of the meter.
The aim of this sub-section is to qualify, as far as practical, the USM effects from the full model and
other sources which will impact on Uopn and hence Uprimary for all installation options.
Uopn = [ (Ugeomo)² + (Udrft)² ] 0.5 (eq 25)
Where:
Ugeomo = Uncertainty attributed to geometry effects on the performance of the meter

whilst in service
Udrft = Uncertainty attributed to the effects of long-term drift on the performance of

the meter whilst in service
The sub-components of uncertainty attributed to geometry effects on the meter (Ugeomo) during in-
service life are given by:
Ugeomo = [ (Udepo)² + (Udept)² + (Ueroso)² ] 0.5 (eq 26)
Where:
Udepo = Uncertainty attributed to deposits in the certified meter bore after a period
of in-service life.
Udept = Uncertainty attributed to deposits on the transducer faces after a period of

in-service life
Ueroso = Uncertainty attributed to wear or erosion of the certified meter bore and/or
transducer faces after a period of in-service life
Thus the expanded USM operating uncertainty (Uopn) becomes:
Uopn = [ (Udepo)² + (Ueroso)² + (Udrft)² ] 0.5 (eq 27)
With reference to equation 9, the USM primary uncertainty (Uprimary) is represented by:
Uprimary = [ (Ucal)²+ (Uinst)² + (Uopn)² ] 0.5
Thus, with further reference to full the model, the expanded equation for the USM primary uncertainty
when the meter is only subject to a static (dry) calibration becomes:
Uprimary = [ (UDo)² + (UDl)² + (Urpa)² + (Urpl)² + (Utttd)² + (Uttdt)²

+ (Uttkt)² + (Utttmd)² + (Uimnd)² + (Uimax)² + (Uimtr)² + (Ubd)²
PAGE: 23 of 61
+ (Lund)² + (Urepcd)² + (Uresv)² + (Uresf)² + (U)²
+ (UDl)² + (UE)² + (Uth)² + (U∆T)² + (U∆P)² + (Upsi)²
+ (Utsi)² + (Ukre)² + (Uini)² + (Ucni)² + (UWG)² + (Ufpei)²
+ (Utei)² +(Udepo)² + (Udept)² + (Ueroso)² + (Udrft)²] 0.5
(eq 28A)
Again with further reference to the full model, the expanded equation for the USM primary
uncertainty when the meter is subject to a dynamic calibration becomes:
Uprimary = [ (UDow)² + (UDl)² + (Utttdw)² + (Uttdtw)² + (Uttktw)² + (Utttmdw)²

+ (Uimndw)² + (Uimaxw)² + (Uimtrw)² + (Ubw)² + (Lunw)²
+ (Urepcw)² + (Uresv)² + (Uresf)² + (U)² + (UDl)² + (UE)²
+ (Uth)² + (U∆T)² + (U∆P)² + (Upsi)² + (Utsi)² + (Ukre)² + (Uini)²
+ (Ucni)² + (UWG)² + (Ufpei)² + (Utei)² + (Udepo)² + (Udept)² + (Ueroso)²
+ (Udrft)²] 0.5 (eq 28B)
The expanded USM primary uncertainty equations (28A & 28B) incorporate all the key terms
associated with the determination of the corrected gross volume flow rate uncertainty (UQvg’), thus:
UQvg’ = Uprimary
With further reference to the full model, the fully expanded measured mass flow rate uncertainty when
the meter is only subject to a static (dry) calibration becomes:
UQm’ = [ (UDo)² + (UDl)² + (Urpa)² + (Urpl)² + (Utttd)² + (Uttdt)²

+ (Lund)² + (Urepcd)² + (Uresv)² + (Uresf)² + (U)² + (UDl)²
+ (UE)² + (Uth)² + (U∆T)² + (U∆P)² + (Upsi)² + (Utsi)²
+ (Ukre)² + (Uini)² + (Ucni)² + (UWG)² + (Ufpei)² + (Utei)²
+ (Udepo)² + (Udept)² + (Ueroso)² + (Udrft)² +(Ucal)²+ (Uinst)²
+ (Uopn)² + (Upt)² + (Uphsc)² + (Upref)² + (Upte)² + (Upstab)²
+ (Upinst)² + (Upgp)² + (Umol)² + (Ugccg)² + (Ugcrcg)² + (Ugcrsg)²
+ (Ugcrep)² + (Ugcc6)² + (UR)² + (Utt t)² + (Utt stab)² + (Utt inst)²
+ (Utt te)² + (Utt rep)² + (Utt hys)² + (Ut rtd)² + (Utt st)² + (Uz)²] ] 0.5
(eq 37A)
4.2.3 Quantification of USM long-term operating component of uncertainty
The magnitude of the contributors to the USM long-term operating component of uncertainty (Uopn)
will vary considerably dependent upon the end user’s long-term operating philosophy for the meter.
Thus, the assignment of numeric values to the input uncertainties is not straightforward. This
component of uncertainty is derived from the combination of sub-components (equation 25 refers).
One of these sub-components is in turn derived from second level components as illustrated within
section the model. Thus, the expanded USM long-term operating uncertainty incorporates a total of
three terms (equation 27 refers).
Ideally, it should be possible to attribute a value to each of the uncertainty terms identified within the
expanded USM long-term installation uncertainty equation but in reality this is not always possible or
practical. In most instances the values attributed to the input uncertainties can only be derived on a
case be case basis and in certain instances further detailed research is required to attribute values to
some of the uncertainty terms.
PAGE: 24 of 61
4.2.4 Uncertainty attributed to long-term operating effects on meter geometry (Ugeomo)
a) The input uncertainty attributed to the effects of long-term deposits within the bore of the
meter spool piece (Udepo) has still to be investigated and cannot be fully quantified since the impact of
contamination has to be evaluated on a case by case basis, usually as part of a dynamic recalibration
programme. Thus, the input uncertainty attributed to the metering system when operating the meter
where contaminants are present within the bore of the meter can only be referred to as X% of actual
flow rate reading, with a rectangular probability distribution (√3) and a fixed sensitivity coefficient.
Where X% signifies the % shift in meter performance attributed to the long-term build up of deposits
derived from an “as found” dynamic calibration:
 X 
Udepo =    SC  %
 3 
b) The input uncertainty attributed to the effects of long-term deposits on the faces of the
transducers (Udept) has still to be investigated and cannot be fully quantified since the impact of
contamination on SOS and transducer delay time (kt) has to be evaluated on a case by case basis,
usually as part of a dynamic recalibration programme. Thus, the input uncertainty attributed to the
metering system when operating the meter where contaminants are present on the transducer faces can
only be referred to as X% of actual flow rate reading, with a rectangular probability distribution (√3)
and a fixed sensitivity coefficient. Where X% signifies the % shift in meter performance attributed to
the long-term build up of deposits derived from an “as found” dynamic calibration:
 X 
Udept =    SC  %
 3 
c) The input uncertainty attributed to the effects of wear or erosion within the bore of the meter
spool piece and on the faces of the transducers (Ueroso) has still to be investigated and cannot be fully
quantified since the impact of wear/erosion has to be evaluated on a case by case basis, usually as part
of a dynamic calibration. Thus, the input uncertainty attributed to the metering system when operating
the meter where surface erosion occurs can only be referred to as X% of actual flow rate reading,
with a rectangular probability distribution (√3) and a fixed sensitivity coefficient. Where X% signifies
the % shift in meter performance attributed to the long-term wear/erosion derived from an “as found”
dynamic calibration.
 X 
Ueroso =    SC  %
 3 
Interestingly, it may be noted that a TEC system may assist in resolving some of the ‘presently
unquantified sub-components’ by referencing the custom built supervisory suite of such a system.
4.2.5 Uncertainty attributed to long-term drift on meter performance (Udrft)
The input uncertainty attributed to the effects of long-term drift (Udrft) on the performance of the meter
has still to be fully investigated since it is, in part, dependent upon the operating environment within
which the meter is placed. A review of historic performance curves generated from repeat calibration
data suggest that long-term drift is independent of meter size but does vary with meter type. For a
typical Ultrasonic meter this effect is ‘estimated’ from current data to be less than 0.25% and 0.15%
respectively of actual flow rate reading over a 12-month period, with a rectangular probability
distribution (√3) and a fixed sensitivity coefficient.
# # 
Udrft =    SC  % (Over 12-months)
 3 
PAGE: 25 of 61
Follows is an extract from the fuller model that is under development and that contains the three
contributors or groups as highlighted at the start of this sub-section 4.2.1. It does not contain all the
elements of the TEC as explored within this paper at this time.
*WARNING: There are a small number of values we’ve yet to determine, however these shall be
populated as the project progresses. The worksheet is populated with numbers to test the formulae
and the various iterations and, as such, does not constitute a valid analysis at this time.
Q.SONIC BASE COMPONENT OF UNCERTAINTY (U calw )

INPUT % INPUT PROBABILITY % STANDARD SENSITIVITY OVERALL
SYMBOL DIVISOR
UNCERTAINTY UNCERTAINTY DISTRIBUTION UNCERTAINTY COEFFICIENT CONTRIBUTION
1
U Dow 0.0000
Udi
2
0.0000
1
U tttd 0.0000
3
U ttdtw 5.0000 mm/s 0.0388 Rectangular 1.732051 0.02240 1.00000 0.0005016014
U ttmdw 0.0050 Rectangular 1.732051 0.00289 1.00000 0.0000083333
4
U imnd 0.0000
U imaxw + U imtrw 0.1500 Rectangular 1.732051 0.08660 1.00000 0.0075000000
U bd 0.2200 Normal 2 0.11000 1.00000 0.0121000000
U linw 0.0300 Rectangular 1.732051 0.01732 1.00000 0.0003000000
U repcw 0.0500 Rectangular 1.732051 0.02887 1.00000 0.0008333333
U resv
4
0.0000
U resf 0.0500 Rectangular 1.732051 0.02887 1.00000 0.0008333333
OVERALL 0.02208
1. Value deemed to be know without error or having negligible impact on sub-component of uncertainty Uc 0.14858%
2. Will be incorporated within the Meter Factor sub-component of uncertainty (U MF ) Ucalw (Uc * k) 0.29716%
3. This contributor to the sub-component of uncertainty varies with flow velocity, thus the value derived within this table is based on the "snap shot" flowrate
4. Insufficient data available to allow values to be ascribed to this contributor to the sub-component of uncertainty
Q.SONIC INSTALLATION & OPERATING PHILOSOPHY COMPONENT OF UNCERTAINTY (U inst )

SYMBOL DIVISOR
1
Uα 0.0000
U Di 0.0500 Normal 2 0.02500 0.00071 0.0000000003
1
UE 0.0000
U th 0.1000 Normal 2 0.05000 0.00142 0.0000000050
1
U ∆T 0.0000
1
U ∆P 0.0000
2
U psi 0.0000
U ini 0.0500 Rectangular 1.732051 0.02887 1.00000 0.0008333333
2
U cni 0.0000
U WG 0.1500 Rectangular 1.732051 0.08660 1.00000 0.0075000000
U fpei + U tei 0.0750 Rectangular 1.732051 0.04330 1.00000 0.0018750000
OVERALL 0.01021
2. Insufficient data available to allow values to be ascribed to this contributor to the sub-component of uncertainty Uinst (Uc * k) 0.20207%
Q.SONIC LONG TERM OPERATING COMPONENT OF UNCERTAINTY (U opn )

SYMBOL DIVISOR
U depo 0.0000 Rectangular 1.732051 0.00000 0.00071 0.0000000000
U eroso 0.0000 Rectangular 1.732051 0.00000 0.00071 0.0000000000
U drft 0.1500 Rectangular 1.732051 0.08660 1.00000 0.0075000000
OVERALL 0.0075
Uc 0.08660%
Uopn (Uc * k) 0.17321%
PAGE: 26 of 61
Q.SONIC LINE DENSITY COMPONENT OF UNCERTAINTY (U ρ)
SYMBOL DIVISOR
UP 0.3078 barg 0.3722 Normal 2 0.18612 1.07043 0.0396926792
UT 0.1888 Deg C 0.7552 Normal 2 0.37762 0.14674 0.0030703634
UM 0.0401 kg.kmol
-1
0.2295 Normal 2 0.11475 1.00000 0.0131664194
UZ 0.1000 Normal 2 0.05000 1.00000 0.0025000000
1
UR 0.0000
OVERALL 0.058429462
Uρ (Uc * k) 0.48344%
Uρ k (kg/m3) 0.33615
Q.SONIC SERIES ULTRASONIC FLOWMETER UNCERTAINTY BUDGET
MODEL: Q-Sonic-5 SIZE: 400mm
Input Data Snap Shot of Results

Frequency Range - Low Limit FLo 0 Hz Qv (gross) 1.6666667 m3/s
Frequency Range - High Limit FHi 6000 Hz Qv (corrected) 1.6686758 m3/s
Volume Flowrate - Low Limit QvLo 100 m3/h Area (M2) 0.1294619 m2
Volume Flowrate - High Limit QvHi 12000 m3/h Gas Velocity 12.8893 m/s
Meter Temperature Tline 25 Deg C Gas Velocity 12889.3 mm/s
Meter Pressure Pline 82.7 barg
Meter Density Rho1 69.533004 Kg/m3 Gross Volume Flowrate 6007.23300 m3/hr
Standard (Base) Density RhoRef 0.740081 Kg/m3 Gross Volume Flowrate 144173.5920 m3/d
Calorific Value CV 39.0028 MJ/m3
Meter Spool Diameter D 406 mm Mass Flowrate 116.0280434 kg/sec
K Factor KF 1800 pulses/m3 Mass Flowrate 417700.956 kg/h
USM Correction Factor CF 1 Mass Flowrate 417.700956 te/h
Dry or Wet Calibration (D/W) W Mass Flowrate 10024.82295 te/d
WME or Multi-point (W/M) M
Flow Conditioner Installed (Y/N) N Std Vol Flowrate 564.398973 ksm3/h
Snap Shot Frequency F 3000 Hz Std Vol Flowrate 13545.5753 ksm3/d
Std Volume Flowrate 486.480304 mmscf/d
Conversions & Corrections Energy Flowrate 22013.134614 GJ/hr
Meter Spool Temp Coefficient Alpha 0.0000165 /Deg C Wet Calibration - Base Component of Uncertainty (Ucalw)
Meter Spool Calibration Temp Tcal 15.000 Deg C Standard Uncertainty
Meter Spool Temperature Corr CTVspool 0.000165 Uncertainty in Meter Spool Bore (D) U Dow 0.000 %
Operational Uncertainty in Meter Spool Bore Udi 0.000 %
Modulus of Elastisity E 2000000 bar Uncertainty in SPU & Transit Time Delay U tttd 0.000 %
Wall Thickness t 18.300 mm Uncertainty in Transit Time Measurement (∆t) U ttdt 0.022 %
Meter Spool Calibration Press Pcal 40.000 barg Uncertainty in Transit Time Clock U ttmd 0.003 %
Meter Spool Pressure Corr Dcorr T&P 0.000237 Uncertainty in Spatial Sampling U imnd 0.000 %
Meter Factor MF 1.0012055 Uncertainty in ReD Correction U imaxw +U imtrw 0.087 %
Uncertainty in Dynamic (Wet) Calibration U bd 0.110 %
Uncertainty Due to Meter Non-linearity U linw 0.017 %
Dry Calibration - Base Component of Uncertainty (Ucald) Uncertainty Due to Short Term Repeatability U repcw 0.029 %
Standard Uncertainty Uncertainty in Axial Fluid Velocity Resolution U resv 4 0.000 %
Uncertainty in Meter Spool Bore (D) U Do 0.025 % Uncertainty in Output Resolution U resf 0.029 %
Operational Uncertainty in Meter Spool Bore Udl 0.000 %
Uncertainty in Reflective Path Angle U rpa 0.042 % Long Term Sub-Operation Component of Uncertainty (Uopn)
Uncertainty in Reflective Path Length U rpl 0.011 % Standard Uncertainty
Uncertainty in SPU & Transit Time Delay U tttd 0.000 % Uncertainty Due to Deposits in Meter Spool Bore U depo 0.000 %
Uncertainty in Transit Time Measurement (∆t) U ttdt 0.022 % Uncertainty Due to Erosion in Meter Spool Bore U eroso 0.000 %
Uncertainty in Transit Time Clock U ttmd 0.003 % Uncertainty Due to Long Term Drift U drft 0.087 %
Uncertainty in Spatial Sampling U imnd 0.000 %
Uncertainty in ReD Correction U imax + U imtr 0.173 % Gas Chromatograph (Elster-Instromet EnCal 3000)
Uncertainty in Static (Dry) Calibration U bd 0.075 % Standard Uncertainty
Uncertainty Due to Meter Non-linearity U lind 0.115 % Uncertainty in Molar Mass Calculation U mol 0.000 %
Uncertainty Due to Short Term Repeatability U repcd 0.029 % Uncertainty in Calibration Gas Components U gccg 0.008 %
Uncertainty in Axial Fluid Velocity Resolution U resv 0.000 % Uncertainty in Process Gas Sample U gcrcg 0.010 %
Uncertainty in Output Resolution U resf 0.029 % Uncertainty in GC Functionality U gcrsg 0.011 %
Uncertainty Due to GC Repeatability U gcrep 0.001 %
Uncertainty in C6+ Characterisation U gcc6 0.011 %
PAGE: 27 of 61
Installation & Operation Component of Uncertainty (Uinst)
Standard Uncertainty Line Density Sub-Component of Uncertainty (Uρ)
Uncertainty in Temperature Exp Coefficient Uα 0.000 % Standard Uncertainty
Operational Uncertainty in Meter Spool Bore U Di 0.025 % Uncertainty in Pressure Measurement UP 0.186 %
Uncertainty in Modulus of Elasticity (E) UE 1
0.000 % Uncertainty in Temperature Measurement UT 0.378 %
Uncertainty in Meter Spool Wall Thickness U th 0.050 % Uncertainty in Molar Mass UM 0.115 %
Uncertainty in ∆T Measurement U ∆T 0.000 % Uncertainty in Line Compressibility UZ 0.050 %
Uncertainty in ∆P Measurement U ∆P 0.000 % Uncertainty in Universal Gas Constant UR 0.000 %
Uncertainty Due to Transducer Pressure Shock U psi 0.000 % EXPANDED UNCERTAINTY UPk 0.4834 %
Uncertainty Due to Incoherent Noise U ini 0.029 % uP k 0.3362 kg/m3
Uncertainty Due to Coherent Noise U cni 0.000 %
Uncertainty Due to Suspended Liquids (Wet Gas) U WG 0.087 % Base Density Sub-Component of Uncertainty (Uρstd)
Uncertainty Due to Installation Effects U fpei + U tei 0.043 % Standard Uncertainty
Uncertainty in Standard (Base) Pressure U P15,0 0.000 %
Uncertainty in Molar Mass UM 0.115 %
Pressure Transmitter (Rosemount 3051CG) Uncertainty in Universal Gas Constant UR 0.000 %
Calibration Temperature 20.00 Deg C Uncertainty in Standard (Base) Temperature U T15,0 0.000 %
Tx Operating Temperature 10.00 Deg C Uncertainty in Standard (Base) Compressibility U Z15,0 0.050 %
Calibration Frequency 1 Months
Calibration Tolerence 0.25 % CV Sub-Component of Uncertainty (Ucv)
Power Supply Variations 2.00 volts Standard Uncertainty
Span 100 barg Uncertainty in Molar Mass UM 0.115 %
LRL 0 barg Uncertainty in CV Calculation U iso 0.013 %
2
URL 138 barg Uncertainty in Standard (Base) Compressibility U Z15,0 0.050 %
Standard Uncertainty
Acceptance Limit Uncertainty U pt 0.1443 barg Summary Of Expanded Uncertainties
Test Equipment Uncertainty U phsc 0.0215 barg Expanded Uncertainty
Reference Accuracy U pref 0.0375 barg Base Component of Uncertainty Post Dry Cal U cald 0.4802 %
Temperature Effect U pte 0.0285 barg Base Component of Uncertainty Post Wet Cal U calw 0.2972 %
Drift Effect U pstab 0.0017 barg Installation & Operation Component of Uncertainty U inst 0.2021 %
Installation Uncertainty U pinst 0.0050 barg Long Term Operational Component of Uncertainty U opn 0.1732 %
Ambient Pressure Effects U pgp 0.0122 barg
EXPANDED UNCERTAINTY UPk 0.3078 barg Type Of Calibration Static or Dynamic (Dry or Wet) WET
uP k 0.3722 %
USM Primary Uncertainty Uprimary 0.3989 %
Temperature TX & RTD (Rosemount 3144P) Line Density Uncertainty Uρ 0.4834 %

TX Calibration Temperature 18.00 Deg C Line Pressure Uncertainty UP 0.3722 %
Tx Operating Temperature 16.00 Deg C Line Temperature Uncertainty UT 0.7552 %
Calibration Frequency 1 Months Uncertainty of Composition (Gas Chromatograph) U gc / U M 0.2295 %
Power Supply Variations 2 volts Standard (Base) Density Uncertainty Uρstd 0.1000 %
Calibrated Lower Range Value 0 Deg C CV Uncertainty U cv 0.0256 %
Calibrated Upper Range Value 100 Deg C
Calibrated Span 100 Deg C Gross Volume Flowrate Uncertainty Budget UQvg' 0.3989 %
Standard Uncertainty Gross Volume Flowrate Uncertainty Budget UQvg' 575.1420 m3/d
Tx Calibration Tolerence U tt t 0.0577 Deg C
Tx Instabilty Uncertainty U tt stab 0.0577 Deg C Mass Flowrate Uncertainty Budget U Qm' 0.6268 %
Installation Uncertainty U tt inst 0.0050 Deg C Mass Flowrate Uncertainty Budget U Qm' 62.8339 te/d
Tx Temperature Effect U tt te 0.0020 Deg C
Tx Repeatability Uncertainty U tt rep 0.0289 Deg C Standard Volume Flowrate Uncertainty Budget UQvs' 0.6347 %
Tx Hysteresis Uncertainty U tt hys 0.0115 Deg C Standard Volume Flowrate Uncertainty Budget UQvs' 85.9752 ksm3/d
Test Equipment Uncertainty U tt st 0.0250 Deg C
Unc of RTD (BS EN 60751) E t rtd 0.0250 Deg C Energy Flowrate Uncertainty Budget UQe' 0.6352 %
EXPANDED UNCERTAINTY UTk 0.1888 Deg C Energy Flowrate Uncertainty Budget UQe' 3356.0078 GJ/d
uT k 0.7552 %
The project is developing and is based on ‘real life in operation’ metering stations (small sample),
calibration sites data, and our continued CFD work as a result of this paper. There are sub-
components yet to be quantified, however we believe the model can eventually be run in one of three
modes:
 to determine the ‘traditional’ pre and post calibration base uncertainties for a meter;
 to expand the above to include ‘typical’ (outwith the scope of this paper) installation sub-
components; and
 to expand further to derive an operational uncertainty including the series check scenario of
the TEC. The fundamental concept would be a Turbine - USM series configuration within a
new and expanded model (as one scenario) as follows.
USM PRIMARY
UNCERTAINTY_2
Considering the TEC
USM BASE USM USM

UNCERTAINTY INSTALLATION OPERATIONAL
(Ucal) UNCERTAINTY UNCERTAINTY
(POST CALIBRATION) (Uinst_2) (Uopn)
TEC uncertainty
USM in series with a
Turbine Meter
PAGE: 28 of 61
As a Total Energy Concept, we shall briefly review the ‘energy’ component of the existing
uncertainty model, derived for a typical metering station but not specifically for the TEC, before
discussing the methods of gas quality measurement to derive the TEC itself.
Corrected energy flow rate (Qe’) is derived from standard volume flow rate by the application of
calorific value (CV):
f r .K .MF  p,t
Qe’ = . .CV (eq 8)
FF 15,0
Where:
CV = Calorific Value at agreed reference condition
With reference to equation 8, the energy flow rate through the meter is calculated as:
fr .K .MF  p,t
Qe’ = . .CV
FF 15,0
or
Qvg  . p,t
Qe’ = .CV = Qvs .CV
15,0
The energy flow rate uncertainty (UQe’) is therefore directly related to those key terms associated with
the determination of the corrected gross volume flow rate uncertainty (UQvg’) together with those
additional terms associated with the derivation of the mass and standard volume flow rate uncertainties
(UQm’) and (UQvs’) plus those new terms associated with the real calorific value (CV) of the gas at the
appropriate reference conditions.
Combining the groups on a root-sum-square basis gives the following standard volume flow rate
uncertainty equation for the meter:
UQe’ = [ (Ucal)²+ (Uinst)² + (Uopn)²

+ (Uρ)² + (Uρstd)² + (Ucv)² ] 0.5 (eq 43)
Where:
Ucv = Uncertainty, at combustion conditions, of the real CV of the gas flowing

through the meter.
4.2.6 Calorific value (real) component of uncertainty (Ucv)
The contributors to the component of uncertainty attributed to the CV of the gas flowing through the
meter at standard or reference conditions will vary depending on the method employed to derive actual
CV values. There are two typical methods employed to derive meter CV:
1. Calculated CV derived from ISO 6976 plus a live gas composition derived from an
online Gas Chromatograph
2. Calculated CV derived from ISO 6976 plus a fixed gas composition.
For the purposes of this review it will be assumed that CV will be derived in accordance with Method
one, i.e. calculated using an ISO 6976 routine and live gas component data.
PAGE: 29 of 61
Real calorific value, on a volumetric basis, at reference (combustion) conditions of 15 oC and 1.01325
bar is calculated in accordance with ISO 6976:1995(E) using the equation:
N
~
 j 1
X j .H oj( 15  15 , 0 )
CV = (eq 44)
Z 15 , 0
Where:
Xj = Mole fraction of component j at combustion (typically 15 oC &

1.0135 bar)
~
H 0j(15 15,0 ) = Ideal CV on a volumetric basis of component j
Z15,0 = Calculated compressibility of the process gas passing through the

meter at standard conditions (15 oC & 1.0135 bar)
The aim of this sub-section is to qualify, as far as practical, the effects which will impact on Ucv and
hence UQe’. Thus the components of uncertainty attributed to
the derivation of calorific value (Ucv) are given by:
Ucv = [ (UM)² + (Uiso)² + (UZ15,0)² ] 0.5 (eq 45)
Where:
UM = Uncertainty attributed to the calculated Molar Fraction of gas components
Uiso = Uncertainty attributed to the calculation of real CV on a volumetric basis in

accordance with ISO 6976
UZ15,0 = Uncertainty attributed to the gas compressibility factor at standard

conditions
The sub-components of uncertainty associated with the derivation of Molar Fraction (UM) when gas
component data is derived from on-line analysis are given by equation 33) which can be found within
the model and thus will not be included twice within the energy uncertainty budget. Similarly the
sub-components of uncertainty associated with the derivation of the gas compressibility factor at
standard conditions (UZ15,0) when gas component data is derived from on-line analysis are given by
the model and thus will not be included twice within the energy uncertainty budget.
4.2.7 Expanded energy flow rate uncertainty equation
Substituting equations 45) into equation 43) provides a semi-expanded uncertainty budget for
measured standard volume flow rate:
UQe’ = [ (Ucal)²+ (Uinst)² + (Uopn)² + (Upt)² + (Uphsc)² + (Upref)²

+ (Upte)² + (Upstab)² + (Upinst)² + (Upgp)² + (Umol)²
+ (Ugccg)² + (Ugcrcg)² + (Ugcrsg)² + (Ugcrep)² + (Ugcc6)²
+ (UR)² + (Utt t)² + (Utt stab)² + (Utt inst)² + (Utt te)²
+ (Utt rep)² + (Utt hys)² + (Ut rtd)² + (Utt st)² + (Uz) + (UP15,0)²
+ (UR)² + (UT15,0)² + (UZ15,0)² + (Uiso)²] 0.5 (eq 46)
PAGE: 30 of 61
Thus, with further reference to the model; the fully expanded measured energy flow rate uncertainty
when the meter is only subject to a static (dry) calibration becomes:
UQe’ = [ (UDo)² + (UDl)² + (Urpa)² + (Urpl)² + (Utttd)² + (Uttdt)²

+ (Lund)² + (Urepcd)² + (Uresv)² + (Uresf)² + (U)² + (UDl)²
+ (UE)² + (Uth)² + (U∆T)² + (U∆P)² + (Upsi)² + (Utsi)²
+ (Ukre)² + (Uini)² + (Ucni)² + (UWG)² + (Ufpei)² + (Utei)²
+ (Udepo)² + (Udept)² + (Ueroso)² + (Udrft)² + (Ucal)²
+ (Uinst)² + (Uopn)² + (Upt)² + (Uphsc)² + (Upref)² + (Upte)²
+ (Upstab)² + (Upinst)² + (Upgp)² + (Umol)² + (Ugccg)²
+ (Ugcrcg)² + (Ugcrsg)² + (Ugcrep)² + (Ugcc6)² + (UR)²
+ (Utt t)² + (Utt stab)² + (Utt inst)² + (Utt te)² + (Utt rep)²
+ (Utt hys)² + (Ut rtd)² + (Utt st)² + (Uz)² + (UP15,0)² + (UR)²
+ (UT15,0)² + (UZ15,0)² + (Uiso)² ] 0.5 (eq 47A)
With further reference to the model; the fully expanded measured energy flow rate uncertainty when
the meter is subject to a dynamic calibration becomes:
UQe’ = [ (UDow)² + (UDl)² + (Utttdw)² + (Uttktw)² + (Uttdtw)² + (Utttmdw)²

+ (Uimndw)² + (Uimaxw)² + (Uimtrw)² + (Ubw)² + (Lunw)²
+ (Urepcw)² + (Uresv)² + (Uresf)² + (U)² + (UDl)² + (UE)²
+ (Uth)² + (U∆T)² + (U∆P)² + (Upsi)² + (Utsi)² + (Ukre)²
+ (Uini)² + (Ucni)² + (UWG)² + (Ufpei)² + (Utei)² + (Udepo)²
+ (Udept)² + (Ueroso)² + (Udrft)² + (Upt)² + (Uphsc)² + (Upref)²
+ (Upte)² + (Upstab)² + (Upinst)² + (Upgp)² + (Umol)² + (Ugccg)²
+ (Ugcrcg)² + (Ugcrsg)² + (Ugcc6)² + (Ugcrep)² + (UR)² + (Utt t)²
+ (Utt stab)² + (Utt inst)² + (Utt te)² + (Utt rep)² + (Utt hys)² + (Ut rtd)²
+ (Utt st)² + (Uz)² + (UP15,0)² + (UR)² + (UT15,0)² + (UZ15,0)²
+ (Uiso)² ] 0.5 (eq 47B)
Although the model is yet to be expanded to address the TEC, it may be shown that the ‘background’
work of this past 2-years is an ideal ‘platform’ from which to develop the Total Energy Concept
itself. This review is intended to provide a ‘snap shot’ of the work and is not written such that the
formulas may be deployed. The work is considered ‘proprietary’ at this time, however as we progress
with the project we shall provide a greater insight in subsequent papers on this subject.
4.3 Uncertainty of SOS calculated from GC gas analysis
This chapter discusses the various contributions to the uncertainty budget of the SOS calculated from
the GC-analysis. The various sources of uncertainty are:
1. Uncertainty of the algorithm

2. Uncertainty of the GC analysis
2.1. Uncertainty of the calibration gas
2.2. Uncertainty of the instrument
4.3.1 Uncertainty and sensitivity of AGA-10 calculation
The targeted uncertainty for Natural Gas velocity-of-sound calculated according to AGA-10 depends
on pressure, temperature and gas composition range 0. For typical Natural Gases and common
operation conditions (region 1: -8 - 62°C, 0 - 120bar), the calculation has an uncertainty of 0.1%.
PAGE: 31 of 61
This sets a principal limit for the uncertainty of the SOS calculation with AGA-10. Further
contributions of uncertainty come from the input parameters of the calculation and hence from their
measurement. The input parameters of the SOS calculation, pressure, temperature and composition,
are determined by measurement. This introduces further uncertainty to the total uncertainty budget of
the SOS calculation. The following explanation describes the sensitivity of the SOS calculation to the
calculation input parameters
4.3.2 Uncertainty of the GC analysis
The uncertainty budget of the GC analysis comprises the external contribution of the calibration gas
and of the internal contributions of the GC instrument itself, that are the systematic bias errors of the
response function and statistical measurement errors due to noise (repeatability).
4.3.2.1 Uncertainty of calibration gas
Gas Chromatographs are calibrated with certified gas mixtures resulting in calibration functions for
each calibrated gas component. The primary standards of calibration gas mixtures are produced by
gravimetric blending. Calibration gas mixtures of 2nd order are derived from these primary standards
by GC analysis. Typically, the working calibration gases of process GCs are derived from theses 2nd
order gases, again by GC analysis. The uncertainty of the calibration gas is directly transferred to the
calibration functions. Hence, the calibration gas uncertainty also contributes to the uncertainty budged
of the calculated SOS. The following tables show examples of the specifications of calibration gas
uncertainties.
Calibration Gas Supplier 1
Calibration Gas Supplier 2
Picture 18: Examples of a calibration gas certificates from two different suppliers with specified
uncertainties.
PAGE: 32 of 61
Component Relative Uncertainty (k=2)
Methane ≤ 0.1 %
Nitrogen ≤ 0.8 %
Carbon Dioxide ≤1%
Ethane ≤ 1%
Propane ≤ 1%
n-Butane ≤ 1%
i Butane ≤ 1%
Table 03: Uncertainty requirements for working calibration gases for fiscal measurement in
Germany according to PTB rule PTB-A 7.63
For the following discussion, we consider the uncertainty requirements for working calibration gas
mixtures (3rd order) within Germany, according to PTB rule PTB-A 7.63, as a benchmark.
4.3.2.2 Uncertainty of the instrument
The functional principle of a Gas Chromatograph was described above. The quantitative analysis is
done in the following way. The injected sample is being separated in the GC-column, so that the gas
components subsequently reach the detector, resulting in response peaks for each detectable
component. While the retention time is characteristic for the gas component, the response strength,
defined as peak height or peak area, corresponds to the concentration of the various gas components.
The relation between gas component concentration and response peak strength is called the
Calibration Function and it is determined with calibration gas mixtures of certified composition.
Current Gas Chomatographs have a quite linear response. Hence, the standard calibration procedure is
a single-level-calibration (SLC) with just one calibration gas, resulting in a linear calibration function
for each gas component i, characterised by the so-called response factor RFi. The linear single-level-
calibration is sufficient for most standard applications. However a closer look reveals that the real
detector response is not perfectly linear and hence application of a linear SLC results in a small bias
error. In order to reduce these bias errors, so-called multi-level-calibrations (MLC) with several
calibration gases are applied to determine higher order calibration functions (Picture 19). Most
commonly, polynomials of 1st, 2nd or 3rd order are appropriate calibration functions. If more complex
functions are required, to fit the set of calibration gases, this is considered as an indicator for a bad
instrument or a wrong or inappropriate set of calibration gases.
PAGE: 33 of 61
Picture 19: Calibration Functions of a Gas Chromatograph. Deviation of single-level-calibration
(SLC) and multi-level-calibration (MLC) from the actual calibration function causes bias errors.
The Calibration Function Fi(xi) of gas component i is a function of the gas component concentration xi.
EQ 1 shows the linear function determined with SLC.
R i  Fi x i   RF i x i
with Ri is the instrument response, xi is the mole fraction of gas component i and RFi is the so-called
response factor. The following equation shows a 3rd order polynomial for a calibration function for a
MLC with a predefined set of calibration gases:
Ri  Fi  xi   ai ,0  ai ,1 xi  a i , 2 xi  a i ,3 xi
2 3
with ai,n being the nth polynomial coefficient of the component calibration function i. The inverse
function that determines the concentration xi from the instrument response Ri is called Analysis
Function Gi(Ri). The following equation presents the linear form determined with a SLC
x i  G i R i   rf i R i
1
with rfi being the inverse response factor rfi 
RFi
Also, the Analysis Function can be expressed as a 3rd order polynomial as a result of a MLC:
x i  Gi Ri   bi ,0  bi ,1Ri  bi ,2Ri 2  bi ,3Ri 3
with bi,n being the nth polynomial coefficient of the component calibration function i.
Typically, process-Gas Chromatographs are calibrated in the field, on a daily basis, automatically with
a single-level-calibration (SLC) resulting in an update of the response factors RFi, respectively rfi. In
order to minimise bias errors, an optional multi-level-calibration with several calibration gas mixtures
can be applied in the factory to determine an MLC-function. The daily calibration in the field is
PAGE: 34 of 61
repeated with a SLC with only one gas, resulting in a stretch factor for the MLC-function. The bias
errors of Gas Chromatographs have been investigated by various institutes and with different test
protocols.
The following, in Picture 20, shows an investigation by the company Effectech (UK) within an SWRI
study on GC test protocols[20]. The test instruments of this study were based on classical GC-
technology and on state-of-the-art micro-GC-technology engaging micro-electro-mechanical-systems
(MEMS) for injector and detector, as well as capillary columns. The ‘demonstrated’ results were
generated in the following way. The Gas Chromatographs were calibrated with a single-level-
calibration with one calibration gas mixture. Then, a set of certified calibration gases covering a wide
range for each relevant gas component (N2, CH4, CO2, C2-C6) was measured with each test
instrument. Based on these results, multi-level-calibration functions for each gas component were
fitted as polynomials up to 3rd order. The differences between the linear SLC function and the best
fitting polynomial MLC functions represent the bias error functions for each gas component. In order
to investigate the overall effect of these bias error functions on the important gas parameter of calorific
value, a Monte-Carlo-calculation was applied. Therefore a large test set of random gas compositions
was calculated, regarding the typical composition patterns of typical Natural Gases. The Monte-Carlo
test set was evaluated with the SLC and the MLC functions resulting in simulated measurements of the
gas compositions. Finally, the calorific values of these simulated measurements were compared to the
original gas compositions. The bias errors of each gas component calibration function summarise to
an overall bias error of the calorific value. Picture 20 shows the results of this Monte-Carlo-
calculation for a large test set of gas mixtures. The results of two test devices are shown here, a
classical GC and a micro-GC. The graphs clearly show the lower bias errors of the micro-GC-device,
due to a higher linearity of the instrument response.
PAGE: 35 of 61
Test GC 1, classical GC technology
Test GC 2, micro-GC technology
Picture 20: Evaluation of the overall bias error of the calorific value resulting from the bias errors
of the analysis functions of the various gas components. The assumed single-level calibration
functions deviate from the best fit calibration functions and hence result in systematic errors for
each gas component. In order to assess the overall effect of these systematic bias errors of the
component measurements on the calorific value, a large random (Monte-Carlo) set of hypothetical
gas compositions were evaluated. The upper graph shows the result of a test device with higher
bias errors (classical GC technology); the lower graph shows the results of a very linear micro-GC.
PAGE: 36 of 61
Another study was performed by Eon-Ruhgas (Germany). The test device, an Elster EnCal 3000
(micro-GC technology), was used to analyse a set of high precision test gas mixtures with BAM
certificated gases (Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung, German Federal Institute for Materials
Research and Testing). Single-level calibration functions (linear) and multi-level-calibration functions
(2nd order polynomials) were determined from the resultant data by application of generalised least
squares fitting. Finally, the scattering of the certificate data with the two different calibration
functions was evaluated.
In Picture 21, we show the test gases and the results of the GC analysis with multi-level calibration
functions; absolute values, absolute and relative deviations.
In Picture 22, we show the deviations of the calorific value and density measurements of the GC with
multi-level calibration.
In Picture 23, we show the calibration functions and the absolute and relative deviations of each gas
component. The left graph shows the absolute calibration function. The middle graph shows the
absolute scattering of test gases with a multi-level-calibration. The right graph shows the relative
scattering. Both the middle and right graphs show the deviations of the single-level-calibration from
the multi-level-calibration and from the set of test gases (black line).
This study from Eon-Ruhrgas shows that the bias errors of a multi-level-calibrated gaschromatoraph
EnCal 3000 are in the range of the uncertainties of the calibration mixtures.
PAGE: 37 of 61
Picture 21: Performance evaluation of an Elster EnCal 3000 micro-GC with high precision
calibration gases (BAM certificate, German Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing)
by Eon-Ruhrgas Laboratory. Certificate values, absolute GC measurement, absolute and relative
deviations.
PAGE: 38 of 61
calibration gases (BAM certificate, German Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing) by
Eon-Ruhrgas Laboratory. The graphs show the relative deviation of the calorific value and density
relative to the calibration gas certificates. The results are well within 0.1% over a range of typical
gases.
PAGE: 39 of 61
PAGE: 40 of 61
PAGE: 41 of 61
calibration gases (BAM certificate, German Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing) by
Eon-Ruhrgas Laboratory. The left graph shows the absolute calibration function. The middle
graph shows the absolute scattering of test gases with a multi-level-calibration. The right graph
shows the relative scattering. Both, middle and right graph, also show the deviations of the single-
level-calibration from the multi-level-calibration and from the set of test gases.
4.3.3 Modeling of uncertainty of SOS calculation
The method deployed for the model gave consideration to the generation of a random set of gases, the
random errors on all analysis components corresponding to the uncertainty contributions from the
individual calibration gas(s), and the bias error of the analysis functions including noise / precision.
4.4 Methods of gas quality measurement to derive the Total Energy Concept
The previous chapter discussed the role of GQM for the measurement task of the Total Energy
Concept and gave hints to additional benefits for the measurement system integrity. The primary
contribution for the measurement aspect is calorific value and real gas correction for fiscal metering.
This chapter now presents the benefit for the assessment of the Total Energy Concept’s system
integrity.
4.4.1 Speed-of-sound
Speed-of-sound is a valuable quantity that links flow measurement with Ultrasonic meters and gas
quality measurement. The benefit for the assessment of the system integrity of the Total Energy
Concept results from the possibility to link meters for different measures based on different technical
principals and referenced to different traceability chains. The Ultrasonic flow meters provide a
measurement of the Speed-of-sound, based on a time-of-flight measurement. By calibration, this
measurement is traceable to the reference standards of time and length.
Alternatively, the Speed-of-sound can also be determined according to AGA-10 by calculation from
the molar gas analysis, e.g., provided by a Gas Chromatograph. The Gas Chromatograph again is
calibrated with standard gas mixtures. The working standards of calibration gases are directly or, by
comparison, indirectly traceable via gravimetric gas mixtures to the reference standards of mass.
Hence the cross reference of the Speed-of-sound measurements of these different independent
technologies with different traceability chains is a very strong indicator for the overall system
integrity. Another advantage is that GQM devices are calibrated by traceable standard gas mixtures,
materialised as gas bottles. These portable traceable standards are relatively easy to transport to the
gas measurement stations already installed in the field.
4.4.2 Extended gas analysis
In deploying an extended gas analysis many secondary gas parameters can be determined, such as, for
example, trace component limits (H2S, O2, H2, H2O…) and water or hydrocarbon dewpoints. Indeed
most of these parameters do not affect the energy measurement performance of a Total Energy
PAGE: 42 of 61
Concept directly. Nevertheless, an excess of the specified limits is still an indicator for an irregular
operation of the whole gas transportation process. Therefore monitoring of certain quantities of the
extended gas quality analysis does also, to some extent, maintain the integrity of the total energy
measurement concept.
4.4.3 Redundancy of gas quality measurement (GQM)
Extensive Total Energy Concept’s could also benefit from redundancy of several GQM technologies,
e.g. Gas Chromatograph plus sensor system. Indeed the accuracy of a Gas Chromatograph is much
higher than that of sensor systems, therefore fiscal metering will always be based on the measurements
of the Gas Chromatograph. However, in the event of a failure of the Gas Chromatograph a redundant
measurement, with alternative sensor systems, shall always be better than approximation by estimated
constant gas quality values.
4.4.4 Gas quality dynamics
An interesting aspect of the Total Energy Concept is the combination of real-time sensor systems
with established Gas Chromatography; such combinations will provide positive redundancy.
However, an additional benefit results if the sensor system is corrected by the high precision Gas
Chromatograph resulting in a combination of measurement speed and accuracy. The absolute value is
gained from the Gas Chromatograph with a measurement frequency of typical 3-5 minutes. The
sensor system provides the relative variations within these measurement intervals in real-time.
4.5 SUPERVISORY SYSTEM
Almost all reasonably sized fiscal metering system’s contain a computer based data acquisition and
control system. These systems are commonly referred to as the Supervisory Computer system or the
metering database. Such systems traditionally fulfill the requirements of both visualisation and
operation of the process, the consolidation of the production figures into a consolidated report, and to
interface with telemetry and pipeline monitoring systems.
One manufacturer, Elster, has deployed their ‘Instromet Supervisory Suite (ISS)’ system software in
many metering installations for the past 20-years. Elster developed this software in response to typical
issues being realised within fiscal metering projects that could not be addressed with commercially
available SCADA or DCS software systems. These software packages, deploying Elster’s proprietary
‘MeasCon Technology®’, are designed for the process control industry where the focus is on reliable
control and less on achieving the highest possible absolute accuracy. These ISS systems go beyond a
traditional SCADA system, or metering database for data gathering and control.
4.5.1 Background
In the past 20-years, many metering installations were installed within the transmission segment, i.e.
border metering installations. The metering concept in such metering installations is generally
dictated by a gas sales agreement that is drafted after extensive negotiations between the trading
partners (usually national gas transportation companies). To satisfy individual country requirements it
is necessary that a combination of different measurement equipment be deployed, for example:
 The use of a specific gravity cell to obtain relative density as opposed to calculating it from
composition. The calorific value is determined by one or more Gas Chromatographs. This
methodology is used in several major European border metering installations.
 Combination of an Ultrasonic and Turbine meter. The Ultrasonic meter was renowned for its
performance monitoring features but was not accepted for custody transfer in certain
countries. For that reason the Turbine meter is deployed as the ‘billing meter’.
 Companies moving from traditional Orifice based measurement systems to Ultrasonic
measurement systems have insisted on the use of line densitometers for determination of
operating density as opposed to calculating it by the PTZ technique. This approach was in use
by several operators in the Middle East. The base density and calorific value are determined
from composition by using a Gas Chromatograph.
PAGE: 43 of 61
The examples above are illustrative metering setups with deliberate redundancies. These were
introduced to satisfy local ‘regulatory body’ requirements. Today, such deliberate redundancies are
less common as they increase a system’s overall CAPEX.
Elster recognised early that such redundancies could be helpful to asses the performance of metering
installations and its individual components. By setting a deviation limit on two measurements that
determine the same physical property one can generate useful operational information, for example:
 In several European border metering stations the specific gravity was measured by using a
Solartron 3098 vibrating chamber densitometer. The resultant specific gravity was compared
against the value calculated from composition using ISO-6976 as obtained by a set of
redundant Gas Chromatographs. Elster has implemented a 2 out of 3 selection mechanism to
determine a potential failure or mis-configuration in the Gas Chromatographs and the
vibrating chamber densitometer.
 In several metering stations in the Middle East a densitometer was used to obtain operating
density. This value was to be used for the actual fiscal measurement. Since these metering
installations were also equipped with a Gas Chromatograph the operating density was further
calculated using AGA-8. This value was not used for fiscal metering purposes but was used
solely for comparison purposes. A deviation was calculated and an alarm was generated when
the limit was exceeded.
These metering installations within Europe and Middle East could be considered as the first step
towards a Total Energy Concept (TEC) system. Measurement redundancies were available and
differences were monitored. This was ‘unintentional’ by original design intent, but was deployed to
satisfy local legal metrology requirements.
4.5.2 Truth tables
The comparisons that were introduced in the previous section are quite useful, however they do not
suggest any remedial cause of action in case a deviation limit is exceeded. The systems will only
report that a discrepancy exists between two different measurements obtained for the same physical
property. Skilled and experienced maintenance technicians could, however, deduce the most likely
cause of the deviation by looking at various other checks and comparisons within the metering
installation.
This process was first automated by Elster in 2003 for an offshore installation in the North Sea. In the
ISS supervisory computer system, for this particular installation, several comparisons and deviation
checks were combined into a logical truth table. Instead of simply reporting deviations, the metering
supervisory computer reported the most likely cause of the malfunction within the metering system.
This process is illustrated with the following example.
Picture 24
This extract from an Elster ISS Supervisory System illustrates the metering configuration:
PAGE: 44 of 61
 An Ultrasonic metering system with a 2 x 100% configuration with Ultrasonic meters.
 Each metering line contains a single USM and a single pressure and temperature transmitter.
 The inlet header of the metering station is fitted with a pressure and temperature transmitter.
 The gas quality is obtained by a Gas Chromatograph (not shown in Picture).
 The relative density of the gas is measured by a vibrating chamber type Solartron 3098
densitometer.
In this metering installation, the following measurements redundancies can be identified and deviation
checks can be established:
 SOSGC vs. SOSUSM

The Speed-of-sound as measured by each of the Ultrasonic meters and the Speed-of-sound
calculated by AGA-10 from the composition measured by the Gas Chromatograph, the
pressure Pline and the temperature Tline.
 Pline vs Pheader
When the full-bore inlet ball valves are open the pressure on the inlet header and the pressures
as obtained from the pr-point on the Ultrasonic meters shall be almost identical. A deviation
is calculated and a limit is established.
 Tline vs Theader
When a metering line is in operation, i.e. flowing, one can assume that the header temperature
is almost equal to the temperature measured downstream of the USMs. A deviation is
calculated and a limit is established.
 Rd3098 vs rdGC
The relative density of the gas is continuously measured by the vibrating chamber type
densitometer. The relative density is also calculated in accordance with ISO6976 from the gas
composition. These values are compared and a deviation is calculated.
Each of these individual comparisons in themselves can be interesting for a system operator, but do
not allow an exact identification as to the cause of the discrepancy. All deviation comparisons are
listed in a binary table. A deviation limit that is exceeded is represented by a binary ‘True’ marked
with “X”. A limit that is not exceeded is represented by a binary ‘False’ marked with “-“.
The following truth table can be created that shows all possible combinations of these deviations. For
each combination, one can assess what the most likely cause of the problem is for a given
circumstance.
PAGE: 45 of 61
VOSGC - PTline – TTline – RdGC –Rd3098 Most likely cause of the measurement
VOSUSM PTheader TTheader Deviation anomaly
deviation deviation deviation
- - - - -
- - - X Density analyser
- - X - Header TT
- - X X
- X - - Header PT
- X - X
- X X -
- X X X
X - - - USM
X - - X GC
X - X - Line TT
X - X X
X X - - Line PT
X X - X
X X X - Table 04
X X X X
This example illustrates the principle of the truth table and how it can be deployed to identify the
source of the observed deviations within the metering installation. With such a system, it is possible
to provide information for the operator that would otherwise not be evident.
4.5.3 Improving the concept of deviation monitoring
As highlighted in the previous chapter, the truth table concept is based on calculating deviations and
comparing them against a configurable limit. The setting of this limit is important. As is illustrated
earlier in this paper, the limit shall be configured such that only significant deviations are ‘alarmed’.
Every measurement has an inherent uncertainty that is composed of a base uncertainty, an installation
uncertainty, and an operational uncertainty. Setting the deviation limit too small would cause it to
trigger too often as a factor of the inherent base uncertainty. Setting it too wide would potentially not
detect an operational uncertainty that we would otherwise like to detect. Determining these exact
limits is not easy because it is based on statistics. For this reason, Elster has implemented, in
cooperation with a European offshore operator, the mechanism of historical mean deviation. This
methodology is known within published literature as ‘Exponentially Weighted Moving Average or
EWMA’ (Roberts 1959, Steiner 1999). It is a control chart methodology that is suitable for detecting
small changes in a process. The work has further been developed by Grigg and Spiegelhalter (2007)
in consideration of a ‘A Simple Risk-Adjusted Exponentially Weighted Moving Average or RA-
EWMA’ having a reported ‘simpler and fewer number of stages that has an intuitive appeal to a wide
variety of stakeholders’.
The EWMA approach is a step wise process as illustrated by the following equations.
(1)  historical , 0  0
(2) Diff t  Value A  Value B
 Diff t 
(3)  t  200   
 Value A  Value B 
(4)  historical ,t   histroical ,t 1  1      t  X offset   
PAGE: 46 of 61
(5)  historical ,t  Vlim it  Raise Alarm
Where:
Diff t = difference between 2 transmitter values
t = relative difference in [%]
 historical ,t = historical mean value in [%]
X offset = relative offset value (operator configurable)
 = response factor (operator configurable)
Vlim it = alarm limit (operator configurable)
The interesting concept worthy of note is that the absolute difference between the two measurands is
not as important as the change in the historical behaviour of the system. In deploying this
methodology one can set specific limits such that only ‘true’ random base uncertainties are ignored
and do not trigger a deviation alarm. The limit is set small enough so that ‘type B’ or systematic
installation or operational uncertainties will trigger the deviation.
As an example, one can look at the case of incorrect maintenance by a maintenance technician. This is
a ‘type B’ or systematic uncertainty in the uncertainty model. In using historical mean deviations such
as a suddenly occurring change of deviation does trigger an alarm. In this way the uncertainty can be
detected and remedied. As a result of such an event the uncertainty has become certain and it is no
longer needed to be included in the uncertainty model. Hence, the total measurement uncertainty is
reduced.
4.5.4 Summary
The previous paragraphs described how a specific supervisory computer system can determine several
comparisons within a metering station. The majority of these comparisons can only be assessed by an
overall supervisory system and not by the individual components. The individual components simply
lack the context and information on the metering system as a whole.
This work originally started as a ‘measurement redundancies’ requirement to fulfil legal metrology
requirement, but the added value of these measurement redundancies were recognised and,
subsequently, deployed.
Even in these modern times, where there is an extreme focus on CAPEX, where the trend is to reduce
the measurement redundancies as much as possible, such a system would continue to provide added
value in the sense that it can help to reduce the operational uncertainty, reduce maintenance, and hence
reduce OPEX.
By assessing the most likely causes of relevant uncertainty, and introducing the appropriate
measurement uncertainty to detect the variable, and then to apply a correct evaluation methodology
one can speak about a Total Energy Concept (TEC).
5.0 RESULTS
In this section, we shall explore ‘real life’ installations deploying some of the principles discussed
within this paper.
PAGE: 47 of 61
5.1 An Ultrasonic flow meter installation deploying a SOS comparison check
A Speed-of-sound (SOS) comparison / check has been deployed within our industry for several years
in monitoring the performance of Ultrasonic meters. In such a SOS check, the Speed-of-sound as
measured by the Ultrasonic meter is compared against the Speed-of-sound calculated from actual gas
composition, pressure, and temperature according to AGA-10.
Such a SOS check was installed at a major gas transportation company in Europe back in 2002 at four
of the largest gas export stations in both uni-directional and bi-directional measurement systems, using
Ultrasonic flow meters. The SOS check has been deployed for 9-years to enable the operator to have
a greater confidence within the reported bulk flow measurement values.
When both measured and calculated SOS are in agreement there is an increased confidence in the
‘correctness / (validity)’ of the USM measurement including pressure, temperature, and a
chromatograph reading. When there is no acceptable agreement, this comparison will not highlight
what the cause of the deviation is and what the best remedial action would be for a given
circumstance. Hence, the system could be extended to form the basis of a TEC allowing historical
comparisons between the individual approaches.
A real-life system (example) that has deployed this ‘historical’ SOS check is presented as follows.
However, the reader should note the use of both a Turbine meter and an Ultrasonic meter in a series
configuration. Such a configuration yields data valuable to the TEC system as explored within this
paper.
A typical field setup of a large metering station is shown in as follows.
Picture 25
SCRUBBERS
USM TM GC-set
Flow Direction
To control the validity of measurement values in such a large gas station, with a huge financial risk, all
the measurements are configured for dual redundancy. For the primary bulk flow rate a Turbine
meter (TM) is deployed as the main measurement device due to its large reproducibility. An
Ultrasonic flow meter (USM) is used as an on-line check of the main flow values and as a backup
meter in case the TM fails. The use of both these different measurement principles is beneficial in
determining common-mode failures or deterioration (e.g. by dirt) by inferential on-line comparisons.
PAGE: 48 of 61
Two meters with the same measurement principle may not provide this valuable information. As an
additional cross-check, the measured SOS of the USM is used as a check on the consistency of the P,
T, and gas composition via a calculated and actual SOS. It should be noted that all measurement
values have a different time-base and, as such, it shall be noted that the major challenge here is to
ensure to account for the different time bases. For example, the measurement and the time lapse of
the on-line GC analysis and sampling period. A typical result of such a SOS-check, performed every
15-minutes, in sync with the analysis cycle of the GC, is shown in the following graph.
Picture 26
Following shows the sensitivity analysis deployed in this system.
Picture 27
After correcting for the individual time bases, it transpired that this check was / is a valuable
instrument to control the consistency of the different custody transfer measurements. Over longer
periods of time, and with the GC calibration values filtered out (automated daily), we were able to
show valid results of a measurement line over a period of a few months (note: due to data collection in
flow computer the SOS-OLC (on-line chromatograph) is only displayed as a positive number).
PAGE: 49 of 61
Picture 28
The differences between the calculated and measured SOS has an associated supervisory alarm level
to maintain the station well between 0.2% and 0.4% . The alarm is used to direct the operational
teams to take the necessary steps to control the measurement setup.
5.2 Turbine meter and Ultrasonic meter in series
Considerable experience exists within many installations where a Turbine meter and an Ultrasonic
meter are placed in series. When considering the TEC, one could use the average of the results
obtained from both meters to reduce the overall uncertainty of the measurement, however this is not
the focus of this paper. Comparing the readings of both the Ultrasonic and the Turbine meter
provides valuable information on the performance of a metering installation. For example, meter
fouling of both meters due to hydrocarbon buildup; changes of surface roughness; blade failure; and
bearing damage. Bearing damage is an area where deploying both a Turbine meter and an Ultrasonic
meter in series perfectly suites the TEC system concept. Since the measurement principles are
fundamentally different, the chance (probability) that meter fouling goes undetected is greatly reduced.
A further example of this series combination is that the Ultrasonic meter’s fouling is undetectable by
traditional Ultrasonic meter diagnostics, but there is an increased sensitivity in deploying the two
devices in series. The deviation between the Turbine and the Ultrasonic meter is an earlier indicator
than condition based monitoring (diagnostics healthcare). Here, once again, should there be a
deviation, it is not always possible with condition based monitoring alone to determine the root cause
of the deviation and extend this to determine the best remedial action. This is quite possible with a
suitably designed self-analysing TEC system where the advantages are deployed within a powerful
and dedicated supervisory suite.
PAGE: 50 of 61
5.2.1 The use of a Turbine - Ultrasonic tandem package in metrological inter-comparison
campaigns.
Within this section of the paper we consider real, and operational, calibration facilities that assist us
explore the TEC.
Within the international inter-comparisons space it is of crucial importance to design a robust, stable
and reproducible transfer meter (set) or ‘transfer package’ for accurate comparisons of (inter) national
calibration facilities. In the past decade, transfer packages consisting of USM and TM meters has
become more and more popular. In the first (conducted) CIPM ‘Key Comparison on HP NG[23]’, a
transfer set was designed with both one USM and one TM in a series configuration. The purpose of
the ‘fraternal twin’ setup was to enable a quantification of possible installation effects from different
measurement results after swapping the order (position) of the meters.
Picture 29: Example of a representative transfer meter package used in key comparisons
In the Picture shown above, we consider an actual calibration facility installation. Two concepts are
considered. The first one is to make a ‘metrological’ robust concept to cancel out installation effects,
as much as possible, by using two flow straighteners mounted upstream of both USM and TM. In
this way, the base reference value of the particular test facility can be determined, i.e., reference value
of volume or mass. The extra pressure drop, due to straighteners, is accepted for these ‘short term
use’ packages. In the second concept, the upstream meter is not provided with a straightener. Not
surprisingly, should the USM be used in this position it may not yield the best results as a factor of its
upstream piping. Deployed downstream of the TM it may act as a ‘flow profile watchdog’ due to its
flow diagnostic features and higher sensitivity for installation effects than the TM. It would also have
quite a degree of isolation from upstream flow profile disturbances given that it is intrinsically less
sensitive as a ‘reference value watchdog’ in this configuration. Picture 30 follows.
In the following graph, the so called ‘Youden’ plot of some actual results is provided. Plotted in this
way the correlation between two meters can be studied. On the horizontal and vertical axis we have
plotted the differences relative to the reference value (converted to 0.00%, parameter ‘df’) of the
Ultrasonic and Turbine meters. In the ideal situation, the point cloud (or cluster) is small, symmetric
and concentrated on the cross point at 0.00%. If the points tend to spread along the 45°diagonal, it
signifies that the differences found by the Turbine, correlated with those of the Ultrasonic meter, is
caused by unknown systematic effects due to the calibration facility (in this example). A spread
perpendicular to the 45°diagonal is a measure for the reproducibility of the transfer meters (statistical
noise).
PAGE: 51 of 61
Picture 30
5.3 Monitoring reference values in calibration and test facilities with tandem setup
Several modern calibration loops are provided with USM as monitoring master meters at this present
time. For example, EuroLoop (NMi), Pigsartm (Eon/PTB), TCC (TransCanada Calibrations Ltd.).
In most cases, the Q.Sonic® meter is installed with an Elster-Instromet Turbine meter (in a suitably
applicable run). We shall focus, in the following sub-sections, on some of the schematic diagrams
and discuss the master meter configurations.
5.3.1 Test-facility of TCC
This test-facility is located with a bypass downstream of a gas compressor station delivering gas flows
up to 3.9 *106 m3(n)/h at a pressure ranging between 6.2 MPa and 7.0 MPa. The bypass line is
equipped with an 800 mm diameter control valve. Opening the station isolation valves and closing
the control valve forces gas through the station. A second, 200 mm by-pass control valve serves as a
vernier control.
The facility houses five runs of parallel reference meters with diameters of 400 mm encompassing up
to 10000 m3/h each, paralleled with a single run of 300 mm of 4000 m3/h capacity and two runs of 200
mm with up to 1.600 m3/h each. Each reference run is configured with a matched size upstream
Ultrasonic meter and a downstream Turbine meter
PAGE: 52 of 61
Picture 31: Schematic overview of the general configuration of TCC
The installation has been in operation since 2001, and a complete recalibration cycle of all standards is
carried out two times per year. From the process diagram above, it can be seen that the USM’s are
built upstream of the TM masters. The 4-path USM was anticipated to be a monitoring meter and is
not intended as a twin master meter. At the master meter runs, flow straighteners are installed to
improve the insensitivity to upstream piping effects. During the 3-yearly recalibration campaign the
indication of the master meters was evaluated. The USM showed a repeatability of 0.03% (2 times
stdev single measurement points) whereas the TM showed 0.01%. It is not yet clear whether these
differences are caused by the USM themselves, their (upstream) position, or the small variations in the
actual flow rate which will be dampened out by the TM’s ‘flywheel’. Differences in reproducibility
between USM and TM are also observed in the EuroLoop facility, although the USM behavior seems
more comparable with the TM possibly because of the downstream position of the USM (see next
section).
5.3.2 The EuroLoop calibration facility
This facility is a closed loop calibration centre driven by a master blower. It holds 5 identical large
reference runs, each consisting of one Turbine reference meter and one Ultrasonic monitoring meter -
Q max 5 x 6500 m3/h. Total flow rate adds up theoretically to 32500 m3/h, but depends on the actual
pressure drop due to the meter under test. Low flow rates are handled with three small reference runs
with a capacity of 5 to 3000 m3/h.
The facility is set out with a crossover, for primary calibration, enabling the operator to place the small
and large reference runs in series for calibration maintenance, and cross-checking, etc. (see blue
arrows).
PAGE: 53 of 61
2"
2"
10"
65 m 3/h
10" 6"
usm
400 m 3/h
10" 10"
M etering runs 10"

2500 m 3/h
10" G as O il Piston Prover N M i TraSys 10"
10"
C ross over line
6500 m 3/h
usm
10" 16"
30"
16"
16" 10"
M etering runs
24" 30"
6500 m 3/h
Flow finetuning
30"
2"
8"
30"
Heat Exchanger
10"
Blower and
variable speed
drive
The variable speed drive, blower, and the flow fine tuning valves are fitted for flow control.
Operating pressure can be controlled from 3 up to 62 Bara. Operating temperature can be set from 5
up to 35 °C. Gas quality is constant, monitored by a GQM deploying MEMS technology, while the
same gas is stored inside the loop or in the external gasholders. The monitoring meters (Ultrasonic
meters) are used to constantly monitor the behaviour of the reference Turbine meters but do not
contribute in the determination of the reference value at the location of the meter under test.
Consistency shall be met during the calibration time frame. At the time when the EuroLoop was
designed it was believed that the reproducibility and repeatability of USM’s would not compete with
modern precision Turbine metering and so two Turbine meters in series were preferred from the
metrologists’ perspective (2006). However for the sake of the lowest possible pressure drop across
the loop, eventually Ultrasonic meters were installed.
5.3.2.1 Correlation of USM related to TM master meter in EuroLoop
During the recent commissioning tests of the master and monitoring meters of EuroLoop, the master
TM and USM were compared with travelling reference meters (TRM’s) traceable to several test
facilities in the Netherlands (Bergum, Westerbork) and Germany (Dorsten) at several pressure stages
(51, 21 and 9 Bara).
TM1 In the adjacent graph, the deviation is

1.40 shown for meter deviation and
Picture 33
1.20
TRM1‐50b‐5C Reynolds number. It shows both TM
1.00
TRM4‐9b‐5C and USM and assumes that the TRM’s
TRM4‐21b‐10c
are reading perfectly. Note that the
Meter Deviation %
0.80 TRM 11‐21b‐10c
TRM8‐51b‐10c measurement points of the gas meters
0.60
were taken in the same 60s time
0.40
window. Or in other words, both meter
0.20 deviations should correlate perfectly.
0.00
1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08
‐0.20 Reynolds number
PAGE: 54 of 61
The meter deviations are defined according to the following formula:
In an ideal situation, all points should form a ‘Reynolds-smoothed’ trend. As a factor of non
corrected or unknown pressure and temperature effects, possible installation effects, and drifts of
TRM’s, there will be a spread around
US1 the ideal curve. When only one master
1.20 Picture 34 meter is used in the reference run, it
TRM1‐50b‐5C
1.00
TRM4‐9b‐5C would be almost impossible to separate
0.80 TRM4‐21b‐10c the reproducibility behavior of the
Meter deviation %
0.60
TRM 11‐21b‐10c
master meter itself from the
TRM8‐51b‐10c
0.40 reproducibility of the compared
0.20
facilities. When combined with the test
0.00
results of the USM one may draw
interesting conclusions by deploying
‐0.20
1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07 1.00E+08
correlation graphs.
‐0.40 Reynolds number
The adjacent graph derived from

Youden’s method shed’s more light on
the subject. The symbols refer to
pressure’s at 51 (green), 21 (red) and 9
Bar(a) (yellow). For 9 Bar (a) only
one test data set was available, therefore
the yellow dots appear around the
origin. From statistics, the equivalence
of all the TRM’s (including that used in
the calibration facilities), for all
operating conditions, is calculated at
0.14% (main ellipse axis) and the
reproducibility of the master meters at
0.07%. (small axis), both expressed at
Picture 35 2 times standard deviation.
A conclusion drawn in 1998 on the

basis of pure Turbine metering[24] is
confirmed, that the variations of
reference values generated by national
calibration institutes can be observed by
using both modern Turbine and Ultrasonic meters with sufficient consideration to the individual
meter’s installation philosophy and overall ‘twin’ setup.
5.4 Discussion on ‘best location of USM in tandem setup’
In the previous sections, the obvious advantages in using a redundant (US) meter in series with the
Turbine meter were explored. Two meters in series offer two possible configuration orders. In the
past few years, several manufacturers, end users, and metrologists raised the question: ‘What is the
best position of the USM related to the other type gas meter in the reference run?’ An answer to this
question is dependant on the application of the twin setup. In the following section some pro’s and
con‘s characterisations are provided.
PAGE: 55 of 61
Option 01, Ultrasonic meter upstream of Turbine meter
Advantages:
-Meters can be calibrated as completely separated systems and can be used as such. Meters have an
‘individual uncertainty’ and are equivalent in custody transfer performance.
Disadvantages:
-Extra upstream length needed for USM (CAPEX) to reduce installation effects.
-If straightener is used to decrease installation sensitivity of USM, extra pressure drop may be evident.
Option 02, Turbine meter upstream of Ultrasonic meter
Advantages:
-Smaller master meter run, due to shorter inlet spool of TM, given a normal inlet spool for the USM;
-USM is isolated completely from possible meter run upstream perturbations and encounters a
‘defined flow disturber’ in the TM.
Disadvantages:
-Calibration should be done with the complete and assembled meter run (black box approach);
-‘Shake-off’ noise of TM may theoretically affect the USM reading in some cases – due to ‘interfering
frequencies’ (not proven at this time, but theoretical possible)
Remarks:
* Within test facility setups, a motivation for using option 02 could be:
-Short master meter runs, reduction of dead volumes (connected pipe volumes).
-Master meters and piping are regarded as a ‘black box unit’ where master meters are mounted in the
final position. Possible installation bias is ‘calibrated-in’ via travelling standards (and corrected for).
-Small pressure drop (assumed that flow straighteners are not used)
* In gas metering stations a motivation for using option one could be:
-Built-in gas meters typically cannot be recalibrated on site, so a ‘black box approach’ is not feasible
here. Meter runs and / or individual gas meters are recalibrated separately on a test facility and
(re)installation effects should be avoided at all times.
In conclusion, the order of the ‘twin-set’ depends on the individual application and its operating
philosophy.
5.5 Reduction of common fault failure through applied redundancy in gas flow metering
In order to provide a level of protection against redundant software, or in general systems failing
identically, a multiple number of diverse systems should be used. Diversity in the TEC system
attempt’s to prevent redundant systems from failing identically, or from failing simultaneously[25] (applied
for TEC)
. Basically, using more imperfect instruments simultaneously offers the potential for
construction of nearly perfect measurement systems.
PAGE: 56 of 61
The degree of protection afforded by design diversity is (usually) not quantifiable and so we shall
restrict our approach to a qualitative approach (sees following table).
By definition, a common-mode failure (CMF) occurs when two or more systems fail in exactly the
same way for the same input.
In the following table the CMF probability is stated for some single fault inputs (qualitative).
Fault input Effect on TFM Effect on USM CMF probability

Severe contamination Medium Medium Medium
Flow pulsation Medium to high Small Small
Swirl Medium Medium (US TM )1)*) Small
Small (TM US)1) Small
Asymmetric flow Small Medium (US TM ) 1) Small
profile High (TMUS) 1) Small
Mechanical damage of High Very small (US TM ) Very small
blade Medium (TM US) Small
Pneumatic interference Zero Medium Small
due to other gasmeter
Change pipeline Small Medium Small
roughness
1) Depending on number of paths/ type of path configuration and ‘diagnostic features’ of USM
*) (USTM) means: Ultrasonic meter mounted upstream of the Turbine meter.
This Table 05 is restricted to the flow meters only (N=2 systems).
5.6 Extending recalibration terms based upon analyses on redundant systems
From a study carried out by NMi [26] a model was drafted to predict the latest date at which the
uncertainty of a single gas (standard) meter would exceed specifications, given the meter error drift
over the operational time of that meter (trend analyses). A helpful but rather complicated method to
find the optimum recalibration date was related to a cost / quality ratio. However, in an N=2
redundancy setup it is easier to monitor for an optimum moment using a maximum permissible
difference between both meters.
6.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, and FUTURE WORK
This paper set out to explore a ‘Total Energy Concept (TEC)’ for Natural Gas metering in
considering technology advances within the market, both theoretical and ‘real life’ installations with
‘promising results’, and concludes with the following summary. The summary is provided by way of
a set of ‘brief summary points’ as the content of the various chapters is regarded as being ‘quite
considerable’ in exploring the total concept.
6.1 Summary and Conclusions
A TEC system shall be founded upon a dedicated, while intelligent, supervisory system (suite) based
on both ‘traditional analysis and the newer ‘TEC analysis’. Such a system shall be dedicated to the
TEC for its functionality and reporting. It shall be founded upon a ‘twin metering’ configuration
deploying two quite different metering techniques such as the Turbine meter and the Ultrasonic meter
in series. Consideration may be given to deploying two Ultrasonic meters with quite different path
geometries, however the effectiveness of the TEC shall be compromised as a factor of a ‘mutually
exclusive events’ analysis. It is not recommended to utilise two meters deploying the same metering
technique if one is to achieve the long-term goal of the TEC, as defined within the introduction of this
paper.
PAGE: 57 of 61
Consideration shall be given within the system to the individual ‘time based’ measurements being
corrected to yield an ‘instance in time’ (or snapshot) on a common time scale. This is particularly
important when considering the various Gas Chromatograph technologies when deployed for Speed-
of-sound comparisons with an Ultrasonic meter. The comparison of SOS is limited by the different
sampling timings of the different measurements devices (Ultrasonic meter, GC), which is obviously
caused by the variations in gas quality. Therefore it may be considered a ‘strong’ recommendation to
introduce an additional online gas analyser that is not a GC but some ‘other sensor’ (as explored
within this paper). This additional analyser/sensor shall not be used for the SOS comparison itself, as
this shall be achieved with the more accurate GC, but as an online analyser to determine the amplitude
of gas quality variations within the sampling period of the GC.
The ‘running order’ of a Turbine and Ultrasonic meter in a series ‘twin’ configuration shall be dictated
by the ‘application philosophy’ as discussed within this paper. It shall be noted that a calibration
facility and a dedicated metering station may be considered as two different metering deployments;
one can consider the running order to be changed in line with the measurement philosophy.
The use of both Ultrasonic and Turbine meter(s) as master meters yields a configuration that offers a
reliable cross-monitoring system within calibration facilities. Due to the relatively short measurement
timeslots within these facilities (from one minute to only a few minutes), the Turbine meter behaves in
a more ‘steady’ fashion, a factor of its operating principle, and is, therefore, often used as the main
(decisive) master meter. The additional USM is deployed as a ‘health monitor’ within the redundant
master meter setup. As such, for a calibration facility operating as the philosophy within this paper, a
TM to USM tandem is preferred. For Gas metering stations (long-term measurements) the USM to
TM tandem yields a ‘Custody Transfer’ equivalent and has a great potential for reducing Common
Mode Failure (probability). By deploying a suitable statistical evaluation (trend analyses) technique
to this ‘twin system’, the recalibration time period of both meters may be further optimised.
The traditional uncertainty model was expanded to include long-term operational uncertainty and
presented in the 2009 AGA paper after Bragg et al. This model was completed based on one meter in
a single metering run and, as such, forms the basis of a model that may be deployed within a ‘real life’
metering station. At the time of the ‘publication’ of this paper, the model has not been fully deployed
in a ‘real life’ installation to track the long-term operational condition against that of actual and
modelled data.
The introduction of the TurbinScope® diagnostic for Turbine meters yields an ideal input for a TEC.
The analysis package has only been deployed in an ‘off line and manual’ discrete form, but shall be
rolled-out as an online package as part of a TEC design package.
MEMS deployed within a Gas Chromatograph have been shown to yield a good performance, faster,
than traditional GC’s and shall be deployed within a TEC to reduce the ‘time delays’ explored within
this paper. Correcting time based SOS data form an Ultrasonic meter with that of a GC and a
subsequent AGA-10 calculation is essential within a metering station - even one not deploying a TEC.
By products of an Ultrasonic meter deploying the transit-time measurement principle were explored
and, where appropriate, may be utilised to derive additional diagnostics. In a suitable application, the
by products may prove to be essential when exploring the integrity of the meter in terms of operational
performance. Comparing individual path diagnostics within a multi-path meter has been performed
for some years with a high degree of ‘reported’ success within the Natural Gas metering market space.
6.2 Future work
This paper was written to ‘explore’ a concept based on ‘partial systems’. Partial because the in-field
systems, with the historic data, were not originally deployed as TEC’s but as traditional metering
stations. As such, the analysis of a ‘real life’ TEC system requires that further work shall be
performed before one may conclude how a TEC is configured/designed for optimum performance.
The authors propose that the following work be performed, and reported in ‘stages’, in moving the
past work from the point of exploration and on to a proposed TEC system designed to exploit the
unique data set that is inherent within the solution.
PAGE: 58 of 61
The authors propose to develop an advanced quantitative evaluation model to determine the
performance of a TEC with differing ‘redundancy types’ (gas meter types, cross checking methods,
health monitoring, decision/voting systems, etc.). To further present the common mode failure
(CMF) data so that one may express the appropriate confidence levels.
In a future paper, it is proposed that the advantage of the potential for a ‘twin master meter’ setup be
consider in terms of determining the recalibration terms in more detail.
To consider the influence on an USM coupled with an upstream TM thus that one is able to express
the ‘mechanical noise (shake-off noise)’ upon a subsequent flow rate measurement.
Extend the uncertainty models presented within this paper to include for a ‘twin set’ TM and
USM/USM and TM combination. To determine the missing ‘X’ values within the present model; at
least by range if not an absolute number.
Deploy a dedicated supervisory suite to run both a traditional diagnostics/health care package for an
USM with that of the new TurbinScope® diagnostic for a TM to form a standard package for a TEC
system. Such a system shall be based, in the case of one manufacturer, upon the new MeasCon
Technology® for operational health care of TM and USM meters (as explored within this paper).
To further develop the work of the ISSplus Supervisory Suite in deploying the ‘Exponentially Weighted
Moving Average or EWMA’ technique for a TEC as explored within this paper. The work shall be
considered complimentary to that of the individual meters and instruments analysis. The interesting
concept worthy of note is that the absolute difference between the two measurands is not as important
as the change in the historical behaviour of the system. Although the TEC shall be configured such
that the individual measurands’ performance may be validated, the use of the EWMA technique is an
inherent validation parameter that provides additional confidence within the system.
7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank their colleagues for their support and, also, the end users of a number
of metering systems that allowed access to their data in support of this paper. For the support of the
uncertainty consultant on the project and the subsequent model provided to date.
PAGE: 59 of 61
8.0 REFERENCES
[1] R. B. Lindsay (ed.), The Story of Acoustics, J. Acoust. Soc. of Am. 39 (4) pp. 629-644
(1966)
[2] Lynnworth, L.C.: “Clamp-On Flowmeters for Fluids”, Sensors, Vol 18 No. 8, August, 2001
[3] Lynnworth, L.C., Liu, Y., and Umina, J. A.:”Extensional Bundle Waveguide Techniques for
Measuring Flow of Hot Fluids”, IEEE Trans UFFC, Vol. 52, No. 4, pages 538-544 (April
2005)
[4] Babkin, N. V.: “Buffer for Ultrasonic Transducer,” USSR Patent number 172543, (1964)
[5] Heijnsdijk ,A. M. and van der Klooster, J. M.: “Ultrasonic Waveguide,” United States Patent
number 6,400,648, (2002)
[6] Kleppe, J. A.: “Acoustic gas flow measurement in large ducts and. stacks,” Sensors, vol. 12,
no. 5, pp. 18–21, 85–87, 1995
[7] Valdes, J. L. and Cadet, G.: “Ultrasonic Time-of-Flight Method for On-Line Quantitation of in
Situ Generated Arsine”, J. Analytical Chemistry, 63 (4) 366-369 (1991)
[8] Sakai, Masanobu, and Torii, Shuji: “Apparatus and Method for Measuring Gas Concentration”,
Japanese Patent JP2004325297
[9] Mault, J.R.: “Respiratory Gas Sensors in Flow Path”, WIPO Patent Application
WO/2002/017991
[10] Reid, R.C., Prausnitz J.M., and Sherwood, T.K.: "The Properties of Gases and Liquids, 3rd
Edition", McGraw Hill, 1977
[11] Wagner, W. and Kurse, A.:”Properties of Water and Steam: Industrial Standard IAPWS-IF97
for the Thermodynamic Properties and Supplementary Equations”, Springer, 1998
[12] Smalling, J.W., Braswell, L.D., and Lynnworth, L.C.: “Apparatus and Method for Measuring
Fluid Flow Parameters”, United States patent number 4,596,133
[13] Hammond, R.H.: “Ultrasonic Measurement System with Molecular Weight Determination”,
United States Patent number 6,216,091
[14] Petculescu, A., et al: “A Prototype Acoustic Gas Sensor based on Attenuation”, J. Acoust. Soc.
A m. 120(4) October, 2006
[15] Mylvaganam, S., Halstensen, M., Engen, H. and Esbensen, K.: “Gas Density Metering in
Ultrasonic Gas Flowmeters using Impedance Measurement and Chemometrics”, 1999 IEE
Symposium, pp 435 – 439
[16] ISO 6976: Calculation of calorific values, density, relative density and Wobbe index from
composition.
[17] DVGW Code of Practice G 262: Use of gases produced from renewable sources in public gas
distribution networks, DVGW Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches e.V., Bonn,
November 2004
[18] http://www.easee-gas.org/
[19] AGA-10, Speed of Sound in Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Gases, 2003
PAGE: 60 of 61
[20] Development and Evaluation of a Gas Chromatograph Test Protocol, SwRI® Project No.
18.13576, Public Addendum to Appendix F
[21] ISO 5168-1:2005, Measurement of fluid flow – Procedures for the evaluation of uncertainty
[22] ISO/TAG 4: 1995; Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (or GUM)
[23] PTB, VSL, LNE ‘Final report on the CIPM Key Comparison for Natural Gas at High
Pressure, Conducted in Nov/Dec 2004 CCM.FF-5.a, www.BIPM.fr
[24] Beek van der , M.P., Landheer, I.J., ''The acceptance of Variations in Reference Values of
Gas Flow Measurements,'', Flomeko 1998, Lund, Sweden
[25] J. Voas, A. Ghosh, F. Charron (RST), L. Kassab (Naval Reseach Laboratory),’Reducing

Uncertainty About Common-Mode Failures’, Nov 1996
[26] Van der Grinten J., Peters C., ‘Trend analyses, general model and application to High Pressure
Gas Flow Standards, IMEKO World congress 1994, Milan, Italy
PAGE: 61 of 61

Aga-Reference-Paper OK PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Aga-Reference-Paper OK PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2011 Operations Conference & Exhibition

Nashville, TN, May 25 to 27.

Exploring a ‘Total Energy Concept’ (TEC)

MARTIN BRAGG [Lead Author], Vice-President Technology (Electronic), Elster Group

2.0 INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND

Standard State p0, T0

GAS METER STANDARD GAS PROPERTY STANDARD

Turbine Meter AGA 7 Compressibility SGERG88

2.1 THE TURBINE FLOW METER

Note: the following text is extracted from the manufacturer’s literature.

2.1.1 Reduced pressure drop

2.1.2 TurbinScope® diagnostic tool

2.1.3 Automatic lubrication

2.2.1 Speed-of-sound (Sound speed or Velocity-of-Sound)

is the gas sound speed

is the universal gas constant

is the absolute temperature

is the specific heat ratio of gas component ‘I’

is the molecular weight of gas component ‘I’

... are the concentrations of the gas components respectively

2.2.3 Acoustic impedance

where is the gas density and is the sound speed.

2.2.4 Ultrasonic flow meter summary

3.0 GAS QUALITY

3.1 Tasks of gas quality measurement

3.2 Technologies deployed within gas quality measurement

Picture 06: Principle set-up of a Gas Chromatograph

Modern process GCs are based on microsystems technology with micro-electro-mechanical-systems

Picture 08: Micro-GC channel with key functional components in micro-electro-mechanical-

3.2.2 Sensor systems

 model  F ( xCH , xN 2 , xCO2 ,HCHm )

 calorific value Hs0

4.1 Turbine meter

Picture 11: Measurement principle used by TurbinScope®

4.2 From traditional uncertainty to long-term operational uncertainty

4.2.1 Measurement uncertainty - generic theory (overview to be extended)

USM BASE USM INSTALLATION USM OPERATIONAL

Uprimary = [ (Ucal)²+ (Uinst)² + (Uopn)² ] 0.5 (eq 9)

Uprimary = Primary uncertainty of the meter

Uinst = Uncertainty attributed to the installation and operating philosophy of

Uopn = Component of uncertainty resulting from in-service operations

4.2.2 USM installation & operating philosophy uncertainty (Uinst)

Uinst = [ (UMF)² + (Urepi)² + (UWG)²

UMF = Uncertainties attributed to changes in meter correction factor (MF)

Urepi = Uncertainties attributed to the repeatability of the meter resulting

UWG = Uncertainty attributed to the presence of suspended liquids in the gas

Ufai = Uncertainty attributed to the impact of the pipework configuration on

UMF = [ (U)² + (UDl)² + (UE)² + (Uth)²

U = Uncertainty attributed to the temperature coefficient of expansion of the

UDl = Uncertainties attributable to variations in the meter spool bore at operating

UE = Uncertainties attributable to the Modulus of Elasticity

Uth = Uncertainties attributable to the measurement of meter spool bore wall

U∆T = Uncertainties attributable to the measurement of ∆ temperature

U∆P = Uncertainties attributable to the measurement of ∆ pressure

Urepi = [ (Upsi)² + (Utsi)² + (Ukre)² + (Uini)²

Upsi = Uncertainty attributed to the effect of pressure shock on the transducers

Utsi = Uncertainty attributed to the effect of temperature shock on the transducers

Ukre = Uncertainty attributed to the effects on Kre of operating on different gas

Uini = Uncertainty attributed to the effect of incoherent noise on the performance

Ucni = Uncertainty attributed to the effect of coherent noise on the performance of

Ufai = [ (Ufpei)² + (Utei)² ] 0.5 (eq 23)

Ufpei = Uncertainty attributed to flow profile effects on the performance of the

Uinst = [ (U)² + (UDl)² + (UE)² + (Uth)²