Product Loss During

Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection

By: Christian Lachance, P. Eng.
Senior Engineer - Liquid Measurement
Engineering and Labo atory Services r
Measurement Canada

Date: April 10, 2007









Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 2 of 18
April 10, 2007

Introduction

Retail motor fuel dispensers have traditionally been calibrated and inspected with open-neck 20 L
test measures. The introduction of new testing methods and equipment has resulted in reports of
discrepancies between these new methods and the traditional testing method. The new
methods include closed-loop proving equipment and testing on low-volatility substitute liquids.
Previous investigations of the accuracy of the traditional test measure indicated that fuel
evaporation during testing may be a significant contributing factor in the uncertainty surrounding
this test method when used with gasoline.

This investigation was launched to determine the effect of fuel evaporation under a wide range of
proving conditions that are typically encountered during field testing. The investigation also
provides an analysis of different proving equipment items and method bias.


Test Method

A small bidirectional 20 L pipe prover was used to deliver a known amount of gasoline through a
dispenser hose and nozzle into a traditional 20 L test measure. The test was repeated with a
vapour retention prover and a calibration cart prover as a comparative study and investigation
into alternative methods of proving. The difference between the liquid volume measured with the
test equipment and the liquid volume delivered by the pipe prover was then used to estimate
liquid product loss/evaporation during testing.

The diagram below illustrates the test setup.
Figure 1: Evaporative Loss Study Test Setup.

Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 3 of 18
April 10, 2007
Five test runs were conducted at both low flow rate and high flow rate for each item of equipment
under test. Flow rates of approximately 15 Lpm and 30 Lpm were typical of the low and high
rates obtained. The average flowing temperature at the prover, prover pressure, product
temperature in the test equipment, and the test equipment readings were recorded.

Testing was conducted on six different occasions over a period of seven months in order to
assess the effects of varying ambient conditions and fuel properties. Samples of the fuel were
taken before and after each series of tests and sent to a laboratory for Reid vapour pressure
(RVP) measurement.

In order to understand and analyse the results, it is necessary to become familiar with the various
sources of error when using the test measure and the pipe prover system. The following is a
listing of the significant sources of error for the two systems.

Test Measure Pipe Prover
- Calibration uncertainty

- Liquid temperature change between meter
and test measure

- Liquid pressure change between meter
and test measure

- Test measure thermal expansion

- Loss product during transfer

- Reading error

- Wetting variance due to different product
characteristics

- Drift caused by damage to the body of the
test measure

- Calibration uncertainty

- Liquid temperature change between meter
and pipe prover

- Liquid pressure change between meter
and pipe prover

- Pressure and temperature effects on the
prover

- Seal failure

- Variations in connecting volume

- Repeatability of the piston travel distance


Since the aim of this study was to assess the effects of evaporation, some of the above factors
were eliminated or minimized through corrections.

All test equipment was calibrated directly against the pipe prover hose and nozzle assembly
using water. This step was conducted to minimize calibration bias between the pipe prover and
test equipment to less than 5 mL.

Corrections were applied for liquid pressure and thermal expansion effects. Corrections were
also applied for the effects of pressure and temperature on the proving equipment. The accuracy
of these corrections is estimated to be approximately 5 mL.

A few factors are random in nature, so they do not contribute significantly since the average of
multiple runs was taken. These factors are reading errors by the test equipment operator
(including resolution errors) and repeatability of the pipe prover.


Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 4 of 18
April 10, 2007
The pipe prover seal integrity was verified by a leak test. Variations in connecting volume are
addressed through proper procedure and minimizing the connecting volume.

The test equipment used in the study is very stable, and stability can be ensured by visual
inspection.

The other factors that can contribute to the difference are product loss during transfer and, to a
lesser extent, the wetting effect due to the use of a liquid other than the calibration liquid.


Equipment

Pipe Prover

The pipe prover is a bidirectional design of 20 L. There is no pre- or post-run travel length, since
the volume is defined between the end-of-travel positions. Forward and reverse flow direction is
accomplished through the operation of the 4-way valve. The integrity of the piston seal and 4-
way valve seal was verified by a leak test before each series of tests.

Flowing product temperature and pressure is taken at the inlet and outlet. A proving run is
conducted by first circulating product until temperature is stabilized. Stability is assumed when
the inlet and outlet are within 0.3 C and when the outlet temperature is stable.

The volume of the prover is corrected for the temperature effect of the steel. Product temperature
and pressure at the prover are measured so as to allow for liquid compressibility and thermal
expansion corrections. The temperature of the liquid inside the prover is taken as the average
flowing product temperature at the outlet during a run. The product pressure inside the prover is
taken from the product pressure at the inlet before the run is initiated.

The prover was fitted with a standard dispenser hose and nozzle assembly. The nozzle was not
fitted with a splashguard.

Test Measure

A traditional 4 inch diameter neck stainless steel test measure was used for the testing. In order
to increase the resolution of this equipment, it was fitted with a removable plunger/displacer for
the neck.

For all tests, the test measure product temperature was measured with an immersion probe after
the run. This temperature measurement was used for the test measure steel expansion
correction and the liquid thermal expansion correction.

No precautions were taken to minimize splashing or vapour loss during the test.

Vapour Retention Prover

The vapour retention prover (VRP) design consists of a 20 L, 2 inch neck prover with the drain
piped to a reservoir. The neck is capped and has a vapour line running to the reservoir. A
bellows is added to the reservoir. When the prover is drained, air is taken from the reservoir and
bellows. When the prover is filled, displaced vapours fill the bellows. This equipment is
essentially sealed and provides an environment where the air is saturated with fuel vapour. The
saturated environment is considered to significantly reduce product evaporation.

Product temperature is measured from a permanently mounted thermometer with the probe
directly immersed in the liquid.

Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 5 of 18
April 10, 2007

Calibration Cart

This is essentially the same design as above but with a vent valve instead of bellows, so fresh air
in introduced via the vent valve when the reservoir is emptied.


Calculations

The volume of liquid delivered by the pipe prover is obtained from the following:

prover prover base prover
cts V V =


Where:
V
prover
= volume of liquid delivered by pipe prover at prover temperature (Tprover) and
prover pressure,
V
base prover
= volume of pipe prover at reference temperature (15 C),
cts
prover
= correction for prover steel expansion due to prover temperature.

The volume of liquid measured by the test measure, taking into account:
- the temperature effect of the steel of the test equipment,
- the liquid thermal expansion from the prover to the test equipment, and
- the liquid expansion due to the pressure drop from the pipe prover to the test equipment.

was obtained from the following:

( )
over
over
TM
TM TM
TM
cpl
ctl
ctl
cts ading Vbase
V
Pr
Pr
Re
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
=


Where:

V
TM
= test equipment volume measurement of the liquid delivered by the pipe prover
corrected to prover temperature and pressure,
Vbase
TM
= to deliver volume (water) of test equipment at reference temperature corrected
for bias with pipe prover,
ctl
TM
/ ctl
Prover
= correction for liquid expansion due to temperature difference from the pipe
prover to the test equipment,
cts
TM
= correction for test equipment steel expansion due to thermal effects,
cpl
Prover
= correction for liquid expansion due to pressure drop from the pipe prover to the
test equipment.


The difference between the test equipment liquid volume measurement, with all corrections
applied, and the calculated liquid volume delivered by the pipe prover is obtained with:

Difference compared with pipe prover after all corrections = V
Prover
- V
TM


This value represents the combined effect of vapour loss and test equipment wetting error.

The difference between the test equipment liquid volume measurement, before any corrections,
and the calculated liquid volume delivered by the pipe prover is obtained with:
Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 6 of 18
April 10, 2007

Difference compared with pipe prover before corrections = V
Prover
- (Vbase
TM
+ Reading)

This value represents the test equipment error when no corrections are applied to the test
equipment reading.

For the purposes of the analysis, the values for the individual corrections were calculated as:
Test equipment steel correction = (Vbase
TM
+ Reading) x cts
TM

Liquid thermal expansion correction = (Vbase
TM
+ Reading) x ctl
TM
/ ctl
Prover

Liquid expansion due to pressure drop = (Vbase
TM
+ Reading) / cpl
Prover


Since the correction values are small relative to the measurement value, an alternate and
approximate method of calculating the test equipment volume is as follows:

V
TM
(Vbase
TM
+ Reading) + test equipment steel correction + liquid thermal expansion
correction + liquid expansion due to pressure drop


Vapour Pressure

The fuel vapour pressure at proving conditions was calculated from the model provided in API
Manual Petroleum Measurement Standards, chapter 19.4, Appendix B using a value of s = 3 for
the slope of the ASTM distillation curve at 10% evaporated, in degrees F per percentage point.

The following graph provides the results of this model for the range of gasoline encountered
during the study. The product vapour pressure was lowest in the summer at 50 RVP and highest
in the winter at 110 RVP.

Figure 2. True Vapour Pressure of Refined Petroleum Stocks.
True Vapour Pressure of Refined Petroleum Stocks
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Temperature (C)
V
a
p
o
u
r

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
P
a
)
RVP = 50
RVP = 80
RVP = 110



Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 7 of 18
April 10, 2007


Results

The Volume Difference before Corrections values represent the test equipment error when no
corrections are applied to the test equipment reading.

The Volume Difference after all Corrections values represent the combined effect of vapour loss
and test equipment wetting error.

The Equipment Steel Temp. Correction is the correction for test equipment steel expansion due
to thermal effects.

The Liquid Temperature Correction is the correction for liquid expansion due to the temperature
difference between the pipe prover and the test equipment.

The Liquid Pressure Correction is the correction for liquid expansion due to the pressure drop
from the pipe prover to the test equipment.

All values are the average of 5 runs of 20L test quantity.
Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 8 of 18
April 10, 2007

Table 1. Results for the August 23, 2005 test.
Test
Equipment
Flow Pipe
Prover
Temp.
(C)
Pipe
Prover
Pressure
(kPa)
Volume
Difference
before
Corrections
(mL)
Equipment
Steel Temp.
Correction
(mL)
Liquid
Temp.
Correction
(mL)
Liquid
Pressure
Correction
(mL)
Volume
Difference
after all
Corrections
(mL)
Liquid
Vapour
Pressure
(kPa)
Test
Measure
high 29.2 257.8 -62.1 13.1 13.5 -6.6 -41.2 42.6
Calibration
Cart
high 29.3 261.3 -26.1 15.2 -8.7 -6.7 -26.1 40.9
VRP high 30.7 256.5 -30.0 16.6 -6.7 -6.7 -26.5 42.6
Test
Measure
low 27.3 95.8 -63.0 11.4 10.1 -2.4 -43.1 40.2
Calibration
Cart
low 25.8 94.4 -44.4 11.0 3.9 -2.4 -31.4 35.6
VRP low 25.3 114.4 -29.6 10.7 -0.3 -2.8 -21.8 35.3

Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 9 of 18
April 10, 2007

Table 2. Results for the December 7, 2005 test.
Test
Equipment
Flow Pipe
Prover
Temp.
(C)
Pipe
Prover
Pressure
(kPa)
Volume
Difference
before
Corrections
(mL)
Equipment
Steel Temp.
Correction
(mL)
Liquid
Temp.
Correction
(mL)
Liquid
Pressure
Correction
(mL)
Volume
Difference
after all
Corrections
(mL)
Liquid
Vapour
Pressure
(kPa)
Test
Measure
high -5.0 259.2 -7.6 -19.6 12.3 -5.0 -20.7 26.8
Calibration
Cart
high -4.8 250.9 5.8 -20.7 4.1 -4.9 -16.2 27.9
VRP high -2.4 262.0 -9.8 -18.2 2.7 -5.2 -28.2 30.0
Test
Measure
low -6.0 99.3 -8.1 -20.7 16.9 -1.9 -14.6 25.6
Calibration
Cart
low -3.8 121.3 14.4 -19.4 -4.1 -2.4 -11.6 29.3
VRP low -3.0 126.8 4.8 -18.7 1.4 -2.5 -15.4 29.4

Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 10 of 18
April 10, 2007

Table 3. Results for the February 15, 2006 test.
Test
Equipment
Flow Pipe
Prover
Temp.
(C)
Pipe
Prover
Pressure
(kPa)
Volume
Difference
before
Corrections
(mL)
Equipment
Steel Temp.
Correction
(mL)
Liquid
Temp.
Correction
(mL)
Liquid
Pressure
Correction
(mL)
Volume
Difference
after all
Corrections
(mL)
Liquid
Vapour
Pressure
(kPa)
Test
Measure
high 3.6 300.6 -35.0 -11.3 10.7 -6.3 -42.5 36.5
Calibration
Cart
high 4.0 303.3 -5.3 -11.6 5.0 -6.4 -18.6 37.4
VRP high 6.2 296.4 -7.2 -9.1 0.8 -6.3 -22.1 40.7
Test
Measure
low 2.6 137.9 -21.5 -12.1 6.3 -2.9 -30.7 35.4
Calibration
Cart
low 4.0 131.0 -12.9 -11.4 1.1 -2.7 -26.3 37.6
VRP low 5.2 137.9 -4.7 -10.1 -1.9 -2.9 -19.9 39.3

Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 11 of 18
April 10, 2007

Table 4. Results for the January 11, 2006 test.
Test
Equipment
Flow Pipe
Prover
Temp.
(C)
Pipe
Prover
Pressure
(kPa)
Volume
Difference
before
Corrections
(mL)
Equipment
Steel Temp.
Correction
(mL)
Liquid
Temp.
Correction
(mL)
Liquid
Pressure
Correction
(mL)
Volume
Difference
after all
Corrections
(mL)
Liquid
Vapour
Pressure
(kPa)
Test
Measure
high 8.2 289.5 -40.1 -6.8 10.5 -6.3 -43.1 42.6
Calibration
Cart
high 8.4 292.3 -7.2 -7.2 7.5 -6.3 -13.4 43.0
VRP high 8.7 289.5 -10.4 -6.6 2.8 -6.3 -20.7 43.8
Test
Measure
low 5.7 124.1 -30.0 -9.0 3.6 -2.6 -38.6 39.3
Calibration
Cart
low 3.5 128.2 4.5 -11.8 -2.8 -2.7 -12.9 36.7
VRP low 3.9 136.5 4.7 -11.3 -4.7 -2.9 -14.3 37.3

Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 12 of 18
April 10, 2007

Table 5. Results for the January 25, 2006 test.
Test
Equipment
Flow Pipe
Prover
Temp.
(C)
Pipe
Prover
Pressure
(kPa)
Volume
Difference
before
Corrections
(mL)
Equipment
Steel Temp.
Correction
(mL)
Liquid
Temp.
Correction
(mL)
Liquid
Pressure
Correction
(mL)
Volume
Difference
after all
Corrections
(mL)
Liquid
Vapour
Pressure
(kPa)
Test
Measure
high 1.2 295.1 -38.4 -13.6 12.4 -6.0 -46.7 32.7
Calibration
Cart
high -0.1 308.9 -6.5 -16.0 8.2 -6.3 -21.1 31.3
VRP high 0.1 297.8 -5.1 -15.6 4.4 -6.0 -22.9 31.7
Test
Measure
low 0.9 142.0 -44.8 -14.0 13.5 -2.9 -49.3 32.2
Calibration
Cart
low -0.3 140.6 -7.0 -16.3 11.0 -2.8 -15.7 30.9
VRP low -0.8 159.9 -6.8 -16.5 4.4 -3.2 -22.6 30.7

Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 13 of 18
April 10, 2007

Table 6. Results for the May 25, 2005 test.
Test
Equipment
Flow Pipe
Prover
Temp.
(C)
Pipe
Prover
Pressure
(kPa)
Volume
Difference
before
Corrections
(mL)
Equipment
Steel Temp.
Correction
(mL)
Liquid
Temp.
Correction
(mL)
Liquid
Pressure
Correction
(mL)
Volume
Difference
after all
Corrections
(mL)
Liquid
Vapour
Pressure
(kPa)
Test
Measure
high 30.8 383.8 -62.9 16.2 3.3 -10.0 -52.3 42.2
Calibration
Cart
high 31.6 358.5 -46.6 15.7 5.3 -9.4 -34.3 43.3
VRP high 31.5 255.1 -25.8 17.1 -0.5 -6.7 -15.5 43.4
Test
Measure
low 23.1 146.5 -39.1 8.5 -1.7 -3.6 -35.6 32.8
Test
Measure
low 20.9 146.5 -22.0 6.7 -12.6 -3.5 -31.3 30.8
Calibration
Cart
low 24.7 159.9 -14.8 9.6 -7.3 -4.0 -16.4 34.9
Calibration
Cart
low 26.6 125.8 -31.5 11.1 -0.7 -3.2 -24.0 36.9
VRP low 26.3 164.6 -21.6 11.8 -2.8 -4.1 -16.6 36.6
VRP low 23.9 126.8 0.8 9.8 -14.6 -3.1 -7.2 34.3

Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 14 of 18
April 10, 2007
Discussion

Product Temperature Range

The results show a very wide range of liquid temperatures, -5to 30C, which was due to the use
of an above-ground fuel storage tank. The temperature range is therefore more representative
of extreme field conditions as opposed to typical field conditions.

Product Vapour Pressure

The range of product RVP varied from 50 to 110 RVP and the product vapour pressure during
testing was between 25 and 45 kPa. Since fuel is normally formulated with low RVP in summer
and high RVP in winter, it is expected that low product vapour pressure will be encountered when
the fuel storage temperature will be low relative to ambient temperature. We also expect to see
the reverse high vapour pressure when the product storage temperature is high relative to
ambient temperature.

Steel Thermal Expansion Correction

The most significant correction in this study was the correction for equipment steel expansion.
This effect is approximately 1 mL per C when 304 stainless steel is used. It ranged from -20 mL
to 17 mL, and was due to the extreme product temperature range experienced in this study. We
would expect smaller variations in typical field conditions.

Liquid Temperature Correction

The correction for liquid temperature change between the pipe prover and the test equipment is
approximately 2.5 mL per 0.1C difference for gasoline. The two factors believed to influence the
temperature differential are ambient/product temperature differences and evaporative cooling.

It is estimated that the evaporation of 40 mL of fuel is equivalent to a temperature drop of 0.25C
on 20 L of fuel. In practice, however, the temperature drop will be less because not all cooling
heat is transferred to the liquid. For the majority of tests, the fuel temperature was very close to
the ambient temperature. As a result, the effects of ambient/fuel temperature differences could
not be analyzed.

The test measure liquid temperature correction averaged about 10 mL. The calibration cart and
VRP showed correction values averaging just above 0. This supports the assumption that higher
evaporation rates in the test measure will result in greater evaporative cooling of the product.
However, there was no significant correlation between the amount of temperature correction and
product VP. It should be noted that the accuracy of the temperature measurement is
approximately 0.2 C, which is equivalent to a 5 mL correction.


Liquid Pressure Effect Correction

The pressure inside the pipe prover was approximately 250 kPa (35 psi) at high flow and 125 kPa
(18 psi) at low flow, resulting in a small expansion of the liquid as it was transferred to the
ambient pressure in the test equipment. The expansion for 20 L was approximately 6 mL at high
flow and 2 mL at low flow. Similar expansion would occur during dispenser testing, depending on
the metering pressure.





Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 15 of 18
April 10, 2007

Difference in Volume after all Corrections

This graph shows the results of the study in terms of volume measurement difference between
the pipe prover and the equipment used. Each point is the average of five runs.

Figure 3. Difference in Measured Volume After All Corrections.
Difference in Measured Volume After All Corrections
-60.0
-50.0
-40.0
-30.0
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Product Vapour Pressure (kPa)
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
m
L
)
VRP high flow Test Measure high flow Calibration Cart high flow
VRP low flow Test Measure low flow Calibration Cart low flow


Vapour Pressure Effect, TM

The graph shows a close correlation between the measured volume difference for the test
measure and the product vapour pressure during testing. As expected, the difference increases
with product vapour pressure. This is consistent with the assumption that vapour loss is the
main contributor with a regular test measure, as higher product vapour pressure will induce
greater evaporation rates.


Vapour Pressure Effect, VRP and Calibration Cart

Both the calibration cart and the VRP showed a relatively consistent difference of about 20 mL in
volume measurement. As seen in the next graph, the average bias for the VRP based on the last
two runs is approximately 15 mL. This would seem to indicate that this prover is sensitive to any
air entrained when the reservoir is drained and perhaps some conditioning of the air in the prover.

Other than the liquid pressure expansion from the pipe prover to the test equipment (6 mL at high
flow), the cause of this bias is not known but is expected to be due to a combination of:

- a small amount of evaporation and perhaps some atomization during transfer,
- wetting effects,
- bias errors in the study.

Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 16 of 18
April 10, 2007
Wetting effect is caused by the variance in the amount of residue left in the to deliver test
equipment when a product other than water is used.

Figure 4. Difference in Measured Volume vs Product VP (VRP values based on last two
runs only).
Difference in Measured Volume vs Product VP
(VRP values based on last two runs only)
-60.0
-50.0
-40.0
-30.0
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Liquid Vapour Pressure (kPa)
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
m
L
)
VRP high flow TM high flow Calibration Cart high flow
VRP low fLow TM low flow Calibration Cart low flow






















Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 17 of 18
April 10, 2007


Volume Difference before Corrections
The following graph shows the results of the measured volume difference before corrections.
This is somewhat representative of the expected bias between closed-loop proving and proving
using the test equipment under evaluation.

Figure 5. Difference in Measured Volume Before Corrections.
Difference in Measured Volume Before Corrections
-70.0
-60.0
-50.0
-40.0
-30.0
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Product Vapour Pressure (kPa)
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
m
L
)
VRP high flow TM high flow Calibration Cart high flow
VRP low flow TM low flow Calibration Cart low flow





As expected, the spread of results is wider, about 15 mL to -65 mL, compared with the range of -
10 mL to -50 mL for the corrected results. A smaller range of results would be expected in typical
field conditions, since the product temperature range and resultant steel expansion effects would
be lesser. This is demonstrated in the following graph, with only the steel thermal correction
added.













Measurement Canada
Product Loss During Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser Inspection page 18 of 18
April 10, 2007
Figure 6. Difference in Measured Volume vs. Product VP (Test Equipment Only Corrected
for Steel Thermla Expansion).
Difference in Measured Volume vs. Product VP
(Test Equipment Only Corrected for Steel Thermal
Expansion)
-70.0
-60.0
-50.0
-40.0
-30.0
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0
Product Vapour Pressure (kPa)
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

(
m
L
)
VRP high flow TM high flow Calibration Cart high flow
VRP low flow TM low flow Calibration Cart low flow


Conclusion

This study provides an estimate of product loss combined with wetting effects during testing with
test measures. When care is not taken to minimize splashing during testing, the results indicate
that the combined vapour loss and wetting effect error correlates closely with product vapour
pressure. In this study, the error was found to increase from 10 mL to about 50 mL for a
corresponding increase in product vapour pressure from 25 kPa to 45 kPa. When other sources
of error are included, the differences between the volume measured by the test measure and the
volume delivered by the pipe prover ranged from 15 mL to -65 mL. But with the product
temperatures of -5to 30C observed in these tests, correcting for expansion of the test measure
steel reduced these differences to the 0 to -60 mL range.

The desired accuracy ratio of test equipment to device under test is 1:3. Unless vapour loss and
wetting effect are addressed during the use of a test measure, this accuracy target will not be
met.

The performance of the VRP and calibration cart indicates that vapour loss can be significantly
reduced with these designs. When test equipment steel corrections were applied, the measured
volumes were in agreement with the delivered volumes, assuming a tolerance equal to the
retail dispenser tolerance.