Title: Proving Liquid and Gas Flow Measuring Devices by E.L.

Upp

PROVING LIQUID AND GAS FLOW MEASURING DEVICES

by
E. L. Upp
Daniel Industries, Inc.
Prepared for Presentation at the
GULF COAST MEASUREMENT SHORT COURSE
September 19-21, 1967
Houston, Texas

INTRODUCTION
In the title, a term is used that is not as familiar to gas measurement people
as it is to liquid measurement people. This term is "proving". The basic concept
of getting a measurement of fluid accepted differs with the two arts. In the
case of liquid meters, the standard is to actually check the throughput of a
meter against an accepted standard -- this is called proving. In gas metering,
positive meters are sometimes proved this way with critical or low pressure flow
provers; whereas, in orifice meter gas measurement, the mechanics of the primary
and secondary devices are checked to make sure they meet the limits set out in
various standards. The flow is then assumed to be within the tolerances as
established by previous throughput tests upon which the standards are based --this is called testing.

PROVING OR TESTING TOLERANCES

Both methods establish a meter's performance to some tolerance. This allowable
tolerance usually varies somewhat with the value and quantity of the product
handled. Because of this, some metering installations have a practically
unlimited budget; whereas, some installations cannot justify an extra few
dollars in cost. This same "cost consideration" is reflected in the degree of
"accuracy needed" and operations and maintenance money available to be spent in
obtaining and maintaining the "accuracy". Here, then, are several of the
influences that affect our measurement testing and proving: present practice,
standards, accuracy desired and economics of the measurement job. There is wide
diversity of opinion as to which influence is the most important; and this is as
it should be, since no one measurement job is identical to another. With these
factors in mind, let us get more specific in terms of proving liquid and gas
metering devices.

STANDARDS OF PROVING AND TESTING

The testing of a gas installation is covered by two publications of the American
Gas Association, the A.G.A. Gas Measurement Committee Report Number 3, "Orifice
Metering of Natural Gas," and the A.G.A. "Gas Measurement Manual." These are
usually supplemented by individual company operating procedures.
The liquid metering proving is covered by several API publications, namely, API
1101 and API 2531, and again the individual company standards.

In both of these cases the A.S.M.E. was a co-sponsor of a great part of the work
that formed the foundation of these standards. They have some related standards,
such as "Fluid Meters" and "Flow Measurement" (Power Test Code 19.5).
These publications all grew out of a need to standardize installations and
procedures so that "uniform commercial metering" could result. The original
tests that were run to establish these standards had a requirement of
"commercial tolerances" that we based on the available equipment and the dollar
volume of the product handled. In recent years, both of these original premises
have been changed somewhat. In the first case the available equipment has
increased and improved. In the second case the quantity of fluids handled by
individual meters has increased (for example, 42" orifice fittings are now
available), and the value of the product handled has increased. Both of these
have caused engineers as well as accountants to be less receptive to "commercial
measurement tolerances."

AUTOMATION'S INFLUENCE ON MEASUREMENT

The second influence that has affected accuracy requirements has been the drive
towards automation that has brought forth new devices to do the job of
developing the quantity of fluid flowing at the time it is flowing and transmit
this data to a central control location. The initial phase of this automation
has been to put additional equipment into the present equipment and to keep more
complete, up-to-date records. System balances are kept current and variations
are noted as they happen. This has resulted in some cases in two different
quantities, and measurement people have asked, "Why is this so?". The usual
answer is that this difference is within the tolerance of the equipment in use,
but this usually brings a second question, "O.K., but which one is right?".

PROVING THE MEASURING SYSTEM AS A WHOLE

These problems are the ones that have led some people in the liquid and gas
measurement areas to reexamine their "basic measurement accuracy." It has given
birth to such statements as "the only true way to test a measurement
installation is to get a cubic foot of gas or a gallon of liquid at flowing
conditions, shove it through the meter and adjust the meter to read the correct
flow." This is somewhat of a simplification of the problem, but it is the basis
for the increase in the interest of the development of the mechanical
displacement prover.
The basic prover idea is not new. Considerable work has been done over the years
in proving with a bell prover or a bottle at laboratories around the country.
The new development is the availability of the continuous flow technique for
inservice testing of the metering devices. The petroleum liquid measurement
people standardized on throughput testing several years ago. However, the
development of the mechanical displacement provers for general usage has
increased tremendously because of the development of the devices to a very
repeatable and accurate standard. Most of the development work has come from
several of the large oil companies, and this work is now available to the rest
of the industry in the form of the various provers on the market.

CALIBRATION OF THE PROVER

As with any proof device, the prover must be calibrated. This procedure is
spelled out in detail in API 2531 (USAS-Z 11.171). However, it might be well to
review the method of accomplishing the proof. Water is usually used as the
calibra-ting fluid, since more data is available on its physical characteristics
and it is a relatively stable fluid. The procedure is to circulate water through
the prover until stability has been accomplished and then to reverse the
four-way valve to move the displacer (Figure 1). When the displacer arrives at
the first pickup, the output of the prover is diverted into a calibrated volume
tank. The flow is continued into this tank (or multiple tanks) until the
displacer actuates the second pickup, at which time the water is diverted out of
the calibrated tank. This procedure is continued until two successive runs
repeat within +.02%. It might be well to pause at this point and emphasize that
this is repeatability and not necessarily accuracy. These terms are quite often
confused. To point out the difference in the two, an example is helpful. If you
are asked what two times two is and each time you reply it is equal to six, you
are repeatable, but you are a long way from being accurate. Conversely, if you
answer that two times two is five, and then three, and then six, and then two,
you are not too repeatable; but your average is more accurate than in the first
case where you were repeatable. There is a great deal of misuse of these terms
in fluid measurement, and it is extremely difficult to state true accuracy
because of the lack of an absolute standard. Because of this, most "accuracy"
statements are referred to a base of some accepted standard which, in itself,
must have a tolerance; but this tolerance of the base is quite often overlooked.
As an example of this, in gas measurement any difference between two orifice
meters is sometimes termed inaccuracy; whereas, in actuality both meters could
be incorrect to no greater tolerance than the basic standard -- A.G.A. Report
Number 3. Neither measurement may be a true or absolutely correct measurement.
Of course, as field operators we must operate and use the available equipment,
so we cannot establish the volumes in terms of a plus or minus percent figure.
However, as operating people we should remember that there can be differences
between two measurements of the same fluid stream, and both measurements will be
correct within the tolerances of the standards. The use of the prover is an
attempt to arrive at a more repeatable standard and one that is more directly
available to the meters that are to be proven so that the tolerances may be
reduced.

PROVER CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION

It is easier to understand the prover as a calibrated bucket. In hydraulic labs
around the country, they have for years used calibrated tanks or a weigh scale
for calibration work. The procedure is to establish a rate of flow by volume or
weight of liquid that is first passed through the meter under test and then
collected for weighing or volume determination. The length of time that the flow
is continued into the standard is accurately determined. The weighing is done on
a carefully calibrated scale, or the volume is determined on a calibrated
seraphim type volume tank that has been calibrated by some standard organization
(usually the Bureau of Standards). As in the case of proving provers, there are
procedures that must be carefully followed or errors can enter into the tests.
Several sources of errors can affect the results obtained. First, flow should be
carefully regulated so that variations do not occur during a test. Second, the
fluid parameters of density, viscosity and composition must be carefully
determined. This is particularly true if the test fluid is to be different from
the fluid the meter will eventually measure. Third, the conditions of the volume

measuring device, such as temperature and pressure, must be determined and its
volume corrected for any differences between its calibrated conditions and the
conditions of the tests. In hydraulic test labs these conditions are closely
controlled so that the magnitude of the corrections is minimized. This is
necessary for greatest repeatability and accuracy in laboratory work. These same
criteria apply to the use of a mechanical displacement prover in the field.

TYPES OF MECHANICAL DISPLACEMENT PROVERS

The provers generally fall into two types, identified as the bi-directional and
unidirectional. As with any two test systems, both types have their advocates
and their dissenters. Figure 1 is a schematic of the unidirectional type, and
Figures 2 and 3 are schematics of the bi-directional type.
In both cases fluid is passed through the prover until equilibrium is reached
with the flowing stream. Most installations find it advisable to insulate the
unit to assure a minimum of difference between the fluid conditions at the
prover and the meter under test. This follows the idea of keeping the correction
factors to a minimum. The unit has some means (usually mechanical or electrical)
of picking up the position of the displacer as it enters the calibrated volume
part of the vessel and as it leaves this part of the vessel. The switching
indicates when to start the comparison reading of the meter under test and when
to stop. For best results, this is done automatically to reduce the human
element to a minimum. Since this is the total volume displaced both at the meter
and the prover and the conditions of flow are almost identical, the correction
factors for the fluid involved are not large, usually in the range of tenths of
a percent. However, for a given test at a given location this correction is
usually constant for the duration of the test.

PROVER OPERATIONS
There are several areas of possible difficulties with provers that can limit
their usefulness. There is a certain amount of art to their successful use, but
with experience and good equipment they can become the best proving device now
available.
To be successfully used, a prover must have sufficient volume to enable the
pulse generating device and the pulse counting system of the meter under test to
advance where readings are repeatable to better than the desired test tolerance.
For example, if a .1% test is desired, then the reading should be better than
one count out of 1000, and if .01% is desired the reading should be better than
one count out of 10,000. This is necessary, since there are other factors, such
as switch repeatability, which will contribute to the test tolerances. Every
displacer detector switch, whether it is mechanical or electrical, will have a
certain degree of resolution, and the amount will affect the repeatability of
the prover system. The detectors should have a resolution at least equal to the
resolution of the pulse generating and counting system.
The displacer must be well designed since it must seal, but have minimum
friction since it must move smoothly in the prover barrel. This has been one of
the major areas of inconsistency in the provers we have had experience with to
date. Another source of inconsistency is leakage past the diverting valve or
valves. To minimize this error most provers use a block-and-bleed valve to check

for leakage. Air trapped in a prover will contribute to inconsistent results:

therefore, the operation of a prover includes periodic checking to eliminate any
air. The one plus in the prover operation is that it is more or less
self-checking, since each error will show up as a non-repeatable test point. The
only problem that can arise is determining the particular culprit, since all
problems cause the lack of repeatability. This is where experience in operating
a prover proves invaluable.

APPLICATION OF PROVERS
For field application of a prover, there are several criteria. If there is
sufficient need and economic justification, then it is possible to install a
prover at each major measurement installation. This has become a standard in
large liquid meter installations. An alternate to this is to use a portable
prover to test meters in a general area. Figure 4 is an example of this type of
prover. Where there is less economic justification, a centralized prover can be
installed, where master meters can be periodically tested and these master
meters used to test field meters. The last possibility would be to use a master
meter that has been tested by someone at a test location. Each of these methods
would have a slightly larger tolerance than the previous method, since it is one
step further removed from the standard.

THE DANIEL FLOW CALIBRATION FACILITY

At our own lab we have installed two mechanical displacement provers, a 30" and
an 8", which we use primarily for water calibration of orifice and turbine
meters. They can be used for flow testing and calibrating any other device that
is desired, such as valves, elbows, venturis, nozzles, piping configurations,
etc. We have already done evaluation work on ball valve through-put and torque
tests, pressure drop versus flow rate on check valves and straightening vanes,
calibration of elbow meters, calibration of experimental low loss meters and
considerable development work on the turbine meter. The facility is believed to
be the most complete anywhere for mechanical displacement prover work. Figure 5
is a schematic of the prover and weigh system facility.

30" PROVER
The 30" mechanical displacement prover is of the bi-directional type. It
consists of the 36" launcher barrel, the 30" internally coated prover section,
the displacer ball, the four--way diverting valve and the necessary connecting
piping. The displacer is a ball, which is hydraulically inflated to a diameter
several percent larger than the diameter of the prover barrel so that it becomes
an elongated sphere when operating in the prover. A proof test consists of a
round trip from one end to the other and back. The round trip between the
switches displaces 102.9262 barrels or 4322.9004 gallons. This calibrated volume
was determined by a standard water draw test, using the Bureau of Standards'
long neck seraphim bottles or cans until a repeatability of at least .02% was
established. This amounts to a small glass of water out of 4000 gallons. The
long approach piping before the detector switch is necessary to assure that flow
stability has been obtained prior to the displacement of the water in the
calibrated section. The 16" four-way diverting valve diverts the water to the

end of the prover containing the ball, and the flow of water moves the ball
through the barrel. The water downstream of the ball is discharged through the
24" piping to the backside of the four-way diverting valve and returns through
the 24" line to the suction of the circulating pumps. The four-way valve must
not only reverse the flow, but also have a positive seal, so there is no leakage
between the inlet and outlet of the prover.
Temperature and pressure probes are located in critical points in the piping and
the provers to enable correction for fluid and steel dimension changes as test
temperature and pressure change.
The test run facilities include piping from 2" up through 12", with special
flanges to allow for rapid meter changes and variations in A.S.A. flange
ratings. There are two meters in each run; the downstream meter is the meter
under test, and the upstream meter is the master meter that is used as a
secondary standard.
The four large centrifugal pumps deliver 3000-plus gallons per minute, which
gives us a 12,000-plus gallons per minute flow rate. (This corresponds to a pipe
Reynolds Number of 3,500,000 in the 12" pipe.)

8" PROVER
The 8" prover is bored, honed and coated with a baked-on epoxy resin, bonded dry
lubricant -- molydisulfide. It is also a bi-directional type, but it uses a
piston as the displacer rather than an inflated ball. A round trip on this
prover displaces 215.2363 gallons, or a little more than five barrels. The
switch system on this prover recognizes a steel ring in the center of the
piston; and, hence, the same point on the piston is picked up each time. Again,
the long approach pipe is to allow for flow stability before entering the
calibrated portion of the prover. The use of the two types of displacers and the
several types of switches gives us basic information and experience for future
development of provers.
The two provers are controlled from a panel located in an adjacent office. The
panel consists of equipment manufactured or assembled by Daniel for these
systems. From the panel the operator can complete a flow calibration and a check
run, if desired, in a matter of less than an hour. These same prover systems
will enable us to do additional research on present devices, as well as develop
and evaluate new devices.

CONCLUSION
To say that the prover will revolutionize all measurement proving and testing as
it has petroleum liquid measurement is a bit premature, particularly in terms of
gas measurement. However, with the work that has been done in the past few years
and the work that is continuing, it is safe to say that there is a valuable new
tool that is available and, when its usefulness is fully developed, will give us
a closer approach to what we are seeking -- uniform commercial measurement.