API MPMS Chapter 22.

2 Testing Protocol for Differential Pressure Flow Measurement Devices Class # 7180 Casey Hodges Staff Engineer & Flow Measurement Instructor CEESI 54043 County Rd. 37 Nunn, CO 80648 Introduction The performance characteristics of a new metering device can be determined in many ways. From the testing mechanism to the formatting, analysis, and presentation of the results, a consumer can have a very difficult time determining if two meters are comparable. For differential producing flow meters, there is only one meter type that standards have been developed for, the orifice plate. These standards are based upon decades of research and development. Even orifice plate standards are continually being updated based on current technologies and capabilities. For any other differential producing meter, there was no protocol by which the performance of the meter could be quantified. This paper describes the development of API MPMS Chapter 22.2 Testing Protocol Differential Pressure Flow Measurement Devices, demonstrates how the standard is used, and discusses issues that exist when using differential meters. History Differential producing flow-meters have been around for over 100 years. The orifice plate has been the accepted device for both allocation and custody transfer in the oil and gas industry since the industries inception. Due to the importance of these measurements, many studies have been performed to characterize the performance of the orifice meter. Many factors impact the performance of the orifice meter. The following is a list of some of the parameters that affect orifice measurement: edge sharpness tap hole location tap hole characteristics pipe surface roughness plate surface roughness eccentricity of the bore flatness of the plate flow profile area ratio discharge coefficient / Reynolds number correlation

The development of the current industry standard for orifice measurement (AGA Report 3 API MPMS Chapter 14.3) took into account hundreds of studies that have been performed over several decades. There have been over 1000 papers published on orifice plate measurement according to a recent internet search that is not all inclusive. To perform similar research on any new differential producing meters would require decades of time and millions of dollars. In order to expedite the process, a testing protocol was developed. Initially, this protocol was developed as API MPMS Chapter 5.7 and published in January 2003. The committee knew when the document was published that the document was not finalized. There were several issues with the document, and a rewrite was necessary. The rewrite was delayed until testing had been performed under the protocol. From the testing that had been performed, the major issues with API MPMS 5.7 were exposed. Firstly, the determination of the uncertainty associated with the testing and the results needed to be better defined. Also, the test matrix needed some refinement to include more points.

826

The committee started working on these changes and moved the protocol to a newly formed chapter, API MPMS Chapter 22. API MPMS Chapter 22 is a chapter strictly for testing protocols. Section 1 defines how the testing protocols are to be developed. The following sections of API MPMS Chapter 22 have been defined: Section 2 Differential Pressure Flow Measurement Devices Section 3 Flare Gas Meters (On-hold for completion of API MPMS 14.10) Section 4 Pressure, Differential Pressure, and Temperature Measurement Devices (Under Development) Section 5 Flow Computers (proposed at Spring 2007 API COPM Meeting)

The committee finished the changes and the current protocol was published in August, 2005. The current protocol has clarified the testing, analysis, and reporting of the results. Several laboratories have performed API MPMS 22.2 testing various manufacturers. There has also been an international interest in the standard, and ISO is currently looking at adopting the standard. Development The testing protocol was developed to meet the following objectives: 1. Ensure that the user of any differential pressure flow meter knows the performance characteristics of the meter over a range of Reynolds numbers as applicable or defined by the tests. In many situations, the end user of a meter has no idea how the meter works, or what the performance characteristics of the meter are. This protocol lists a series of tests that define the performance of the meter. If a new meter design is conceived, this protocol allows that meter to be compared to existing meters. A new meter now has a relatively inexpensive, yet consistent method by which it can be analyzed. Previously, manufacturers had to develop their own testing, and could present the results in whatever manner they preferred. There was no guidance for the manufacturer to determine how well the meter performed, and therefore almost any claim could be made.

2. Facilitate both the understanding and the introduction of new technologies.

3. Provide a standardized vehicle for validating manufacturers performance specifications.

4. Provide information about relative performance characteristics of the primary elements of the differential pressure metering device under standardized testing protocol. Specifications would be listed in different terms for different meters, a good comparison was not easily made, and the users often ended up confused on what meter to buy. API MPMS 22.2 clearly defines how the performance of the meter should be reported, therefore making direct comparisons easier

5. Quantify the uncertainty of these devices and define the operating and installation conditions for which the stated uncertainties apply. Part of the performance of the meter is dictated by how the meter is used. If a constant discharge coefficient is used for the meter, the meter may not be as accurate over the range as using a curve fit for the discharge coefficient. Also, when a user is trying to determine the overall accuracy of their system, this protocol allows them to properly analyze the contribution of the flow measurement device to the overall uncertainty.

In order to fairly achieve these objectives, the committee was comprised of manufacturers, users, laboratories, and regulatory bodies. The protocol was developed primarily a resource that the end user of meter could use to make an informed decision regarding which meter best met the need of their application. In no way does the standard encourage the use of one type of technology over another type. If the end user needs a meter that can measure to +/- 5%, then the results of API MPMS 22.2 testing may push them towards a certain meter. If they need a +/- 0.5% meter, then the results of the testing may push them towards another meter.

827

Overview of API MPMS 22.2 The document begins by defining Differential Pressure and Head-type Flow Meters. If an obstruction is placed in a pipe, that obstruction will disrupt the flow. When that flow is disrupted energy is converted from potential energy (pressure) into kinetic energy (velocity). The result is a pressure drop from a point upstream of the obstruction to a point at or downstream of the obstruction. After the obstruction, some of the kinetic energy returns to potential energy while the rest of the energy is lost. The amount of energy that is lost depends on the design of the meter and the flowrate through the meter. The square root of the differential pressure that is measured is proportional to the flowrate through the meter. The general equation for a differential producing meter is:
q pps = 0.09970190 CY1d 2 1 4 hw f 1

where: qpps = mass flowrate (pounds per second) C = discharge coefficient (dimensionless) Y1 = expansion factor (dimensionless) d = diameter of smallest area (in) = diameter ratio (d/D dimensionless) hw = differential pressure measured across the meter (inches of water at 68 F) f1 = density of the fluid at the upstream plane of the meter (pounds mass per cubic foot) The two quantities in the above equation that can not be measured directly are the discharge coefficient and the expansion factor. These values are corrections for assumptions made in the equation development. The discharge coefficient is the correction for the assumption that there are no frictional losses as the fluid encounters the obstruction. The expansion factor corrects for the assumption that the fluid density does not change as the fluid encounters the obstruction. Both of these values are dependent on the meter design, and their values must be determined by experimentation. The second section of API MPMS 22.2 lists the definitions and terms that are associated with the standard. Some of the terms include: Primary Element or Differential Producer: The primary element is defined as the differential producer when placed in a flowing stream Swirl: Swirl is a condition in which the flow has a rotational (tangential) component in addition to the axial velocity component Meter Asymmetry: Meter asymmetry refers to the orientation of specific items in the meter. For example, it may refer to the position of the differential tap holes or the orientation of the supports within the meter what are not symmetrically placed throughout the diameter. Section 3 covers the installation and test facility requirements. This is a very important section as if clearly defines where the meter can be tested. In order for a test facility to conduct the testing, it must show that it is capable of repeating existing testing to within a given uncertainty. For this application, the standard requires that the facility be able to determine the discharge coefficient for an orifice plate meter that meets the specifications set forth in API MPMS Chapter 14.3, within the 95% confidence interval that is presented in API MPMS Chapter 14.3. The facility must confirm their ability to perform the testing within the year previous to the API MPMS Chapter 22.2 testing. This allows any facility to test the meters, including the manufacturers facility. Generally due to the complexity of the testing, manufacturers choose an independent facility to perform the testing, but there is nothing in the standard that states the manufacturer can not use their own facility. Another important aspect of this section is the requirement that dimensional tolerances must be specified to determine the uncertainty in flowrate. Determining how much varying a dimension of the meter affects performance requires testing of that parameter. There are many dimensional parameters that affect flow measurement, and characterizing all of them should lead to the development of a standard for that type of meter. In that case, API MPMS 22.2 testing is no longer necessary. The downside is that this testing would take many years and a large amount of money to complete. The alternative is that each meter is individually flow calibrated over the Reynolds number range that it is to be used. This allows for small variances in manufacturing, while the overall uncertainty with the meter can be determined by the testing performed under this document.

828

Section 4 of API MPMS 22.2 encompasses the actual testing that must be done, starting with what meters to test. For this testing, meters must be tested in at least two nominal line sizes with at least a 2:1 ratio. The standard suggests the smaller meter be no smaller that 4 inches nominal diameter, and the larger meter be 8 inches nominal diameter or larger. If the meters are geometrically similar (all meter dimensions for both sizes can be expressed as the same constant function of pipe diameter), then results can be extrapolated to other sizes with no additional uncertainty. This is not the case however for most meters that have been produced. If the meter is designed to produce an area ratio, the standard requires two area ratios to be tested in each line size. The ratios and line sizes to be tested are to be determined by the manufacturer, and what ranges they would like their meter to be tested to. The tests are to be performed over a Reynolds number range defined by the manufacturer. API MPMS 22.2 suggests at least a 3:1 range to be tested. Points are taken at ten Reynolds numbers evenly spaced out over the range. Five points are taken at each Reynolds number. The testing must take place on single phase Newtonian fluids where the properties of the fluid are known or can be measured. If the manufacturer would like to test a Reynolds number range that covers two fluids or two phases, the testing may be done as long as all facilities meet the facility requirements. If the meter is tested in liquids, the maximum recommended velocity is 30 feet per second. The liquid testing may be performed at only one line pressure. If the meter is to be tested on gas flow, there are several additional tests which must be performed. Firstly, the testing must be performed at two line pressures with a ratio of at least 5:1 on either of the line sizes tested. It is suggested to test at least 800 psia if the meter is built to handle that pressure. It is acceptable to extrapolate the data to Reynolds numbers greater than 3,000,000 if the testing is performed up to a Reynolds number of 3,000,000. This would however cause increased uncertainty in the calculation of the discharge coefficient. The expansion factor for the meter must also be provided. The expansion factor testing is not required by API MPMS 22.2, but the results of the testing must be available if requested. The ratio of the differential pressure to the inlet pressure (P/P) for the testing must remain in the limits used to develop the expansion factor for the device. The manufacturer defines the limits to which the meters will be tested. It is important to keep in mind that the differential pressure will likely be the limiting factor in determining the flow rate range. It becomes extremely difficult to measure differential pressures less than one inch of water, therefore the manufacturer should base the low limit on the meter on a realistic differential pressure measurement. Oftentimes, the uncertainty associated with low differential pressure measurement will be unacceptably large for the manufacturers claimed accuracy. On the high end of the meter, the velocity is limited by the P/P limit determined by the manufacturer. The first test to be performed is the baseline test. This establishes the meter performance while experiencing a fully developed flow profile. To accomplish a fully developed flow profile, the meter must be 30 pipe diameters downstream of a flow conditioner, which in turn must be 5 diameters downstream of the closest pipe fitting. The baseline test also requires at least 5 diameters of straight pipe downstream of the meter. The testing facility must perform a check of the flow profile. The baseline test may be used by the manufacturer to determine the discharge coefficient equation for the meter. This equation may be a fit of the discharge coefficient to Reynolds number, or it may assume the discharge coefficient is a constant over the Reynolds number range. Once the baseline testing is completed, the meter is tested with the following installation effects: 1. Downstream disturbance if the manufacturer specifies less than 5 diameter of straight pipe is required after the meter, the meter must be tested. A half-moon orifice or a half-open gate valve is placed at the distance specified by the manufacturer. These disturbances are known to greatly distort the flow profile. Upstream disturbance if the manufacturer specifies less than 30 diameter of straight pipe is required before the meter, the meter must be tested. The manufacturer defines the distance to the upstream disturbance along with the distance to a flow conditioner if applicable. The following three tests must be performed: a. Two adjoining close couple out-of-plane 90 elbows This configuration causes some swirl in the flow as well as distorting the flow profile. This represents many typical applications. b. Half-moon orifice plate A half-moon orifice plate (or a half-open gate valve) causes an extremely distorted flow profile, and represents a worst case scenario for differential meters. c. Swirl Generator To test the meters ability to handle swirl, a swirl angle of 24 must be produced at the inlet to the meter.

2.

829

3.

Combined upstream and downstream disturbances if the manufacturer specifies less than 5 diameter of straight pipe downstream, then meter must be tested with a combination of upstream and downstream disturbances. The testing can be performed on all sizes Special Installation testing if the manufacturer or the user would like any other testing, that must be performed in a manner similar to the baseline testing so an accurate comparison can be made. These meters can react

4.

The testing does not need to be performed at multiple pressures, but should cover the entire testing matrix. Section 5 deals with a special kind of differential device, laminar flow elements. differently depending on the flow regime, and special considerations must be made.

The final three sections of the document describe the components of the testing that must be documented in the final report. These sections also cover how the report should be formatted, and how the information should be presented. Section 8 covers how the uncertainties associated with the testing are calculated. There are two appendices included in the document. Appendix A outlines the test matrix for the testing, and Appendix B gives an uncertainty example. Example of Testing Performed to the Standard The following example provides an illustration as to how typical testing performed under API MPMS 22.2 is evaluated. As per the standard, a baseline test is performed. Figure one below represents possible baseline results. Results are characterized in a plot of discharge coefficient versus Reynolds number.
0.645 0.640 0.635 0.630 0.625 0.620 0.615 0.610 0.605 0.600 0.595 0.590 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 Reynolds Number Baseline

Discharge Coefficient

Figure 1. Baseline test results The bands around the data represent the uncertainty in the facilities ability to determine the discharge coefficient. These values are an important component of the uncertainty that is associated with the use of the meter being tested.

830

The manufacturer of the meter may want to determine if the meter is affected by an installation effect upstream of the meter, so they perform they same test with a half-moon orifice plate upstream of the meter. Initially they may try to perform the test with a half-moon orifice plate four diameters upstream of the meter. Figure 2 shows the result of the installation effect test along with the baseline test results.
0.645 0.640 0.635 0.630 0.625 0.620 0.615 0.610 0.605 0.600 0.595 0.590 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 Reynolds Number Baseline Installation Effect

Discharge Coefficient

Figure 2. Installation Effect Results (Half-moon Orifice at 4 Diameters Upstream) In this situation, the installation caused the discharge coefficient to shift down approximately 2.5%. This implies that if the meter were to be used in the field with a disturbance four diameters upstream and a discharge coefficient based on the baseline testing, the meter would over-register flow by as much as 2.5%. If that was an acceptable bias, then the testing for that upstream installation would be done. However, if a higher degree of accuracy is needed, the testing may be repeated with the half-moon orifice plate further upstream. Figure 3 represents the data from a test where the half-moon orifice plate was moved to 8 diameters upstream of the meter.

831

0.645 0.640 0.635 0.630 0.625 0.620 0.615 0.610 0.605 0.600 0.595 0.590 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 Reynolds Number Baseline Installation Effect

Discharge Coefficient

Figure 3. Installation Effect Results (Half-moon Orifice at 8 Diameters Upstream) With the half-moon orifice located eight diameters upstream of the meter, the effect on the meter performance is much less. There still seems to be a slight bias that would cause the meter to over-register, but that bias is within the uncertainty of the facility performing the testing. Under this standard, the meter shows no additional uncertainty with an upstream disturbance at eight diameters. The testing must be repeated with a downstream installation effect, a combination of the upstream and the downstream, two elbows out of plane upstream, a swirl generator, and any special installations. Using API MPMS 22.2 API MPMS 22.2 provides the user of differential producing with a mechanism to compare the performance of different types of meters. Care should be taken when analyzing the results of the testing. Meters can be used in many ways. The standard tests the meters ability to mitigate installation effects. Users of meters must be wary of several issues that could arise when using differential meters. Firstly, if the manufacturer does not want to flow calibrate every meter, they must perform testing to determine the affect of all of the parameters that have a known effect. If this testing is not done, and properly analyzed to determine proper tolerances, each meter must be individually flow calibrated. Another issue that must be addressed is the flow calibration of each meter. It is a well known fact that the discharge coefficient of differential producing meters is a function of Reynolds number. If the meter is not calibrated over the Reynolds number range that it is being used, significant errors may be incurred. A final issue that the user must be aware of is how the discharge coefficient is determined. Figure 4 shows two methods for determining discharge coefficient from calibration data. Curve fitting the data can be very effective. It is important however to pick the proper curve fit. If a curve fit is used, an iteration process must be calculated to determine the flowrate. Alternatively, a constant Reynolds number can be used. In the example in Figure 4, the error associated with the curve fit of the data could be as much as 0.5%. If the constant discharge coefficient is used, an error of up 4% may be seen. The amount of error that may be seen depends on how much the

832

discharge coefficient varies over the range. If the variance over the range is very small, a constant discharge coefficient is effective. Another alternative is to use a theoretical determined discharge coefficient. The problem with this method is that unless the theoretical value has been developed and verified with data, it can be almost impossible to determine the uncertainty associated with the discharge coefficient.
0.645

0.640

0.635

0.630 Discharge Coefficient

0.625

0.620

0.615

0.610

0.605

0.600 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 Reynolds Number Baseline Curve Fit Constant Cd

Figure 4. Discharge Coefficient Determination

Conclusions API MPMS 22.2 was published in August of 2005 and replaced API MPMS 5.7. The standard details a testing protocol for flow meters that create a differential pressure that is proportional to flowrate. The standard was developed for several reasons. It provides manufacturers a method to verify the performance of the meter as well as providing users with a system by which differential producing meters may be compared. It requires baseline testing as well as installation effects testing to characterize the performance of the meter. The standard supplies the testing facility with a test matrix, and methods for determining installation effects and the uncertainty associated with the use of the meter. Users of the standard should understand how to make decisions based on API MPMS 22.2 testing. There are many factors that influence the accuracy of flow measurement, and even with the most studied technologies, users must take care to measure flow correctly.

833