UPM 18010

The Importance of Calibrating at Service Conditions – Temperature, Pressure,

Viscosity and Reynolds Number Effects
Chris Mills, NEL

Abstract applied to any flow meter between its calibration conditions

NEL have recently built and commissioned fully accredited and its operating conditions must be “agreed in advance
high viscosity liquid facility and elevated pressure and with DECC” and must be “traceable and auditable”.
temperature (EPAT) liquid flow facility. These facilities have
been used to investigate the performance of liquid flow Although there has been some research into the
meters at elevated pressures, temperatures and viscosities. performance of flow meters at elevated viscosities,
The facilities enable end users to complete standard temperature and pressure, only a small amount of
commercial calibrations close to service conditions. This independent and traceable data exists on certain meter
paper provides traceable data and guidance on the types and diameters. It is not possible to extrapolate the
performance of Coriolis flow meters when operated at flow meter performance with little or no measurement data
elevated pressures, temperatures and viscosities. and subsequently claim a performance for the device at a
different condition. To address this issue, this paper details
Introduction the performance of commercial Coriolis meters at a range of
Due to diminishing conventional oil reserves and the challenging conditions.
need to secure future energy supplies to a rising world
population, the exploitation of elevated temperature, Coriolis flowmeters
viscosity and pressure oils is on the increase. The industry is Coriolis flow meters provide a direct measurement of
now going to extreme depths in various regions of the world mass flowrate and product density with stated uncertainties
in pursuit of new oil & gas reserves. These demanding as low as 0.05% for mass and 0.05 kg/m 3 for density
environments present numerous technical challenges to the respectively for light hydrocarbons. The exact specification
industry. As the development of these challenging reserves differs by manufacturer and model type. Advantages such as
grows, so too will the requirement for accurate flow high accuracy, claimed insensitivity to installation and direct
measurement of elevated temperature and pressure fluids. measurement of mass flow have led to wide scale adoption
across many sectors, including the food, pharmaceutical and
One such challenge is that the temperature, viscosity and process industries.
pressure of produced oil from a reservoir can differ
considerably from standard calibration laboratory The principle measurement method used in Coriolis
conditions. The standard practice for calibrating flow meters meters is the use of tubes that are vibrated at their natural
for the oil & gas industry has been to match the fluid frequency. When no flow is present, the tubes show no sign
viscosity and, if possible, the fluid temperature and of twist and remain in phase. However, once flow is applied
pressure. However, matching all parameters is seldom Coriolis forces produce twisting in the tubes. By measuring
possible due to the limitations set by the calibration these twists, or more correctly the time shift in phase of
facilities. As such, the parameter that is most often matched oscillation of each measuring tube, a mass flowrate can be
is the fluid viscosity. calculated.

A limitation of the above approach is that temperature No two Coriolis meters are identical and hence there are
and pressure variations are known to influence properties, small variations in natural frequency of the oscillating tubes.
other than fluid viscosity, that may also be critical to the This coupled with the wide range of process conditions any
overall measurement uncertainty. Meter 2s expected to work in means that potential errors
could be present. However, a simple zeroing process in
In Issue 9.2 of its Guidance Notes for Petroleum operation is claimed to eliminate these issues leaving the
Measurement under the Petroleum (Production) meter able to achieve its stated uncertainty in all operating
Regulations 2014, The UK Oil & Gas Authority (OGA) have conditions. Consider equation 1:
stipulated that temperature and pressure compensation

Copyright 2018, Letton Hall Group. This paper was developed for the UPM Forum, 21 – 22 February 2018, Houston, Texas, U.S.A., and is subject to correction by the author(s). The contents of the paper may not necessarily
reflect the views of the UPM Forum sponsors or administrator. Reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Letton Hall Group is prohibited.
Non-commercial reproduction or distribution may be permitted, provided conspicuous acknowledgment of the UPM Forum and the author(s) is made. For more information, see www.upmforum.com.
 Qm = FCF(Δtm +Δtlive_zero – Δtstored_zero) (1)
The mass flowrate, Qm, can be calculated using equation
1 where FCF is the flow calibration factor, Δt m is the measured
time difference caused by the mass flow of the fluid only,
Δtlive_zero is the measured time difference due to the live zero
value and Δtstored_zero is the stored zero value from the meters
previous use.
By zeroing a meter after installation, the stored zero value
then equals the live zero value therefore eliminating any zero
effect from the meter. The mass flowrate can then be
calculated using equation 2 and any measured time
difference is only due to the mass flowrate only.
Qm = FCF*Δtm (2)
By zeroing a meter at process conditions, the user is
effectively calibrating out any effect of tube rigidity at those
process conditions. This means that any variations in meter
construction, thermal expansion or contraction of the meter
body can be minimised.
Typically, the zero value is given as a mass flowrate i.e. the
mass flow that the meter would record at zero flow
conditions. There is a limit to the value that would constitute
an acceptable zero. This differs by meter size and
manufacturer.
Coriolis manufacturers have previously claimed to have
negligible sensitivity to fluid viscosity. Some manufacturers
now accept that Coriolis devices have a sensitivity to flow
profile / low Reynolds numbers with viscous fluids [1]. In highly
viscous fluids, it is possible to attain low Reynolds numbers
with a moderate flow velocity relative to the fluid properties.
Thus the effects observed cannot solely be attributed to low
fluid velocity.
In terms of pressure and temperature effects, Coriolis
meters are not immune to physical changes due to variations
in operating conditions. It is known that the Young's modulus
of the flow tubes will alter with increasing / decreasing
temperature and pressure. This change to the tube stiffness
results in an increase / decrease in the ‘twisting’ or’ ‘phase
shift’ of the Coriolis device.
Most Coriolis manufacturers have corrections
incorporated in the flow computer of the device for
temperature and pressure variations. The robustness of these
corrections still requires further research and analysis.
Furthermore, Coriolis meters have a resistance
thermometer (RTD) within the device that measures the
temperature of the flow tubes. There is no such sensor for
Upstream Production Measurement Forum 2018
pressure. To correct for pressure effects the user must input
the operating pressure into the flow computer or provide a
pressure measurement for an online correction.
The performance of Coriolis flow meters is detailed in the ISO
standard 10790 [2]. However, the performance of Coriolis
meters in high viscosity fluids and the potential adverse effect
of flow profile / low Reynolds numbers are not addressed.
Joint Industry Project
In 2012, NEL proposed a Joint Industry Project (JIP)
researching temperature, pressure and viscosity effects on
Coriolis flowmeters. The requirement for such a JIP was due
to NEL’s vast knowledge and experiences with Coriolis
flowmeters from the main manufacturers.
Although it was previously thought that Coriolis meters
were insensitive to temperature, pressure and viscosity, NEL
haVE a great deal of calibration data displaying otherwise.
Industry still appeared to be unaware of these significant
effects.
As such, NEL formulated a large investigation
programme as part of a JIP, to examine six Coriolis meters
(two diameter sizes from the three main Coriolis
manufacturers). The JIP included temperature calibrations
from 20 to 60 °C in oil, viscosity calibrations up to 300 cP in
oil and pressure tests in gas up to 60 bar.g.
One of the most important outcomes of the JIP, was that
there was a substantial requirement for calibrating Coriolis
meters close to service conditions. Relying on the previous
methods of calibrating at ambient conditions in a laboratory
and then deploying the Coriolis meters at elevated
conditions was deemed to be inappropriate for high
accuracy, low uncertainty measurement. It was found that
temperature, pressure and viscosity effects are significant
and can result in the meter deviating by far greater than the
0.25% fiscal measurement specification.
To meet this requirement, NEL proposed the design of a
unique elevated pressure liquid flow facility in 2013. The
proposal received backing from Department for Business,
Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and NEL’s parent
company TUV SUD. The facility was designed, constructed,
commissioned and received accredidation within 18
months. The accrediting body is the United Kingdom
Accreditation Service (UKAS).
Elevate Pressure & Temperature Facility
The EPAT flow facility, located at NEL in East Kilbride
Scotland, consists of a high (6”) capacity and a low (3”)
capacity flow line. NEL can accommodate nominal pipe sizes
from 0.5 to 10 inches and up to 10 m of horizontal straight
2
lengths. The facility can operate at line pressures from 4 to
100 bar (g) and temperatures from 20 – 80 °C. The test fluid
can be delivered at flowrates up to 360 m 3/hr.
The test fluid is drawn from a 3 m 3 storage tank into the
flow loop. The facility is operated in recirculation mode and
does not flow through the storage tank except at start up and
shut down. After filling the loop and purging the system of air,
the low pressure pipework is isolated from the high pressure
recirculation loop. An inline heat exchanger conditions the
test fluid temperature to within ±0.5 ºC of a pre-selected
value (itself set in the range 20 – 80 ºC). A pressurisation unit
maintains the test fluid pressure to within ±0.5 bar of a pre-
selected value (itself set in the range 4 – 100 bar). Line
temperature and pressure are measured throughout the
facility.
Figure 2 shows a schematic of the EPAT facility. The flow
facility has a 60 litre (12 inch) compact prover as the
dedicated ‘primary’ reference. The quantity of fluid (volume
or mass) which has passed through the device under test
(DUT) can be compared with the quantity which has passed
through the compact prover.
Table 1 details the specification of the EPAT Flow Facility.
TABLE 1: SPECIFICATION OF EPAT FACILITY
PARAMETER DESCRIPTION
Flow rate range 0.1 to 100 l/s
Viscosity range (oil) 1.5 to 10 cP
Temperature range 20o C to 80o C
Pressure range 4 bar (g) to 100 bar (g)
For a ‘secondary’ calibration, the quantity of oil passing
through the device under test is measured using a reference
‘master’ meter, installed in series. The reference masters
meters used at NEL are calibrated at the device under test
conditions (temperature, pressure and flowrate). Using this
technique, the overall uncertainty in the quantity of mass or
volume passed the DUT, expressed at the 95% confidence
level, is approximately ±0.08 %.
The EPAT facility has the fluid ‘Mineral Oil’ as the test
medium. The measured density for the test fluid (at 20 ºC) is
shown is 810 kg/m 3. The viscosity behaviour as a function of
temperature is plotted in Figure 3. As density and viscosity are
critical parameters and influence the measurement
uncertainty of the facility – the properties are therefore
measured offline on a periodic basis.
The offline density measurement for each oil type
involves the precision measurement with an Anton Paar DMA
5000 densitometer, which employs a vibrational technique. It
accurately measures the oscillation period of a U-tube filled
Upstream Production Measurement Forum 2018
with fluid, and a best-fit curve is produced relating the oil
density to temperature.
The dynamic viscosity of each test oil is also measured
periodically offline, using an Anton Paar viscometer. The
kinematic viscosity of the test fluid at a given line
temperature is calculated from its dynamic viscosity and its
density.
High Viscosity Oil Flow Facility
The facility consists of two separate flow circuits (A and
B), each with a high capacity and a low capacity flow line.
These can accommodate nominal pipe sizes from 0.5” to 10”,
and can operate at line pressures up to 10 bar. Test fluids can
be delivered at flowrates up to 720 m 3/hr.
Six test fluids are available in this facility – Kerosene, Gas
Oil, Velocite, Primol, Siptech and Aztec – covering liquid
viscosities from 2 to 1500 cSt. Figure 4 displays the kinematic
viscosity of NEL’s test fluids for the oil flow facility in 2018.
Figure 5 Schematic diagram of the NEL oil flow test
facilityshows a schematic diagram of the flow circuits. The oil
for each circuit is drawn from a 30 m 3 supply tank, from where
it is discharged to the test lines. A conditioning circuit, linked
to each tank, maintains the oil temperature to within ± 0.5 ºC
of a pre-selected value (itself set in the range 10 – 50 ºC).
Line temperature and pressure are monitored both
upstream and downstream of the test section. The flow lines
share a common primary standard weighbridge system
consisting of four separate weigh tanks of 150, 600, 1500 and
6000 kg capacity. The facility is fully traceable to National
Standards and is accredited by the United Kingdom
Accreditation Service (UKAS) to ISO 17025.
For “primary” calibrations, a gravimetric “standing-start-
and-finish” method is used to determine the quantity of fluid
(volume or mass) which has passed through the flow meter
under test and into the selected weigh tank. The gravimetric
weigh tanks constitute the primary reference standard of the
NEL oil flow facility. Using the above technique, the overall
uncertainty in the quantity of fluid passed, expressed at the
95% confidence limit is ± 0.03 % (k = 2).
For a “secondary” calibration, the quantity of oil passing
through the test Meter 2s measured using a pre-calibrated
reference meter, installed in series. The reference meters
used at NEL have a history of previous calibrations and typical
uncertainties in the quantity of fluid passed of the order of ±
0.08 % (k = 2). This applies to oils with a kinematic viscosity
between 2 – 30 cSt. For fluids up to 1500 cSt the uncertainties
in the quantity of fluid passed is of the order of ± 0.15 % (k =
3
2).
Experimental Results
The test programme was completed independently by
NEL and. The flowmeter manufacturers were not involved in
setting up their own devices and did not influence the test
programme. The meters will be anonymized and the
identification used for this paper will be Meter 1, Meter 2….
Meter 5.
It should be noted that the test results are for elevated
conditions using conventional liquid Coriolis flowmeters. This
remains a problematic area for flow measurement
technologies and improving the uncertainty in this area
requires further investigation.
Viscosity Experiments
Meter 1
Viscosity is a critical parameter in flow measurement. All
flowmeters are affected by fluid viscosity. Historically,
Coriolis meter manufacturers stated that the devices were
not susceptible to Reynolds number effects. The figures
below illustrate that there is indeed a notable Reynolds
number effect for Coriolis flowmeters.
Meter 1 was a 6 inch commercially available Coriolis
meter. It was originally tested with no correction applied. To
ensure optimum performance of the device, the meter was
zeroed for each temperature and thus viscosity.
The Mass flowrate error data for Meter 1 is plotted
against reference flowrate in Figure 6 Meter 1 shows errors
of approximately -0.4% for most of the flowrates, with a
notable deviation to nearly -1% at lower flowrates.
There is no clear trend for viscosity differences, but this is
limited by the presence of only two sets of data series. The
Coriolis under-reading at low Reynolds numbers has been
previously reported by NEL [3][4] and others [1].
The uncorrected data for Meter 1 was plotted against
Reynolds number in Figure 7. Most data points have an error
between -0.25 and -0.5%, but errors become more negative
very sharply as Re decreases below 200. The maximum error
of -0.96% occurs at Re of approximately 90. There is close
overlap of the two-data series despite the large difference in
viscosity.
A Reynolds-based correction was applied to Meter 1. As
before, the device was zeroed for each temperature and thus
viscosity change. The results are shown in Figure 8. The
maximum error decreased from -0.96% to -0.55% and for
most of the data, errors range from -0.25 to 0.25%.
Upstream Production Measurement Forum 2018
The corrected data for the Meter 1 mass flow errors has
been plotted against Reynolds number in Figure 9. The graph
looks largely similar to that plotted against flowrate. Most
points have an error between -0.25 and 0.25%, with a
maximum error of -0.55% for the 200 cSt condition at Re of
approximately 400.
The density errors for Meter 1 are plotted against
reference flowrate in Figure 10. Meter 1 shows increasingly
negative errors in density as flowrate increases. A maximum
error of - 0.177 % is observed at approximately 90 kg/s. There
is close overlap of the two-data series despite the large
difference in viscosity.
Meter 2
Meter 2 was a 4 inch commercially available Coriolis
meter. It was calibrated using two test fluids. One was a light
fluid similar in viscosity to Kerosene. The other was a
relatively vicsous oil (50 – 300cSt) with the trade name
“Primol”.
The results for the light fluid, “Kerosene” at all four
viscosities / temperatures are well withing the manufacturer
specification. However the figure below shows that at higher
viscosities all the experimental data are outside the
specification. Curve fits for the data could potentially be
applied for each viscosity. The data stresses the importance
of calibrating a Coriolis meter at the service conditions. Small
changes in temperature leading to large variations in viscosity
can have significant effects on the performance of Coriolis
meters. Calibrating the device at 50 cSt and then using it at
300 cSt could cause deviations greater than 0.5 %.
Figure 12 illustrates that there is indeed a notable
Reynolds number effect for Coriolis flowmeters. The
deviation appears to show a larger under-read as Reynolds
number decreases. It is believed that this effect is a
consequence of viscous shear forces dampening the Coriolis
force and producing a smaller phase shift. This smaller phase
shift results in the Coriolis device under-reading the mass
flow in a linear manner with Reynolds number.
The results for Meter 2 show that rather than calibrating
a Coriolis meter fro viscosity, it would be more prudent to
calibrate it with respect to Reynolds Number. This could
mean calibrating across the meter flowrate range with two
fluid viscosities to cover the operating Reynolds number
range. Although the calibration could be more costly and
time-consuming, it could mean that the meter perfroms
within the specification for a range of fluid viscosities.
4
Temperature Experiments
Meter 3
Temperature of wells can vary signifantly and although
Coriolis meters have onboard temperature measurements, it
is still important to calibrate close to service conditions. The
temperature measurement for most Coriolis meters is
located on the outside of the tubes on the inside of the meter
body. The can result in a significant temperature lag. It also
means that the temperature correction employed by the
meter is only as good as the temperature probe.
Figure 15 for Meter 3 shows the performance of the
device with the temperature correction disabled. It is
extremely significant and shows that temerpature is an
important parameter to consider when calibrating a Coriolis
meter.
Pressure Experiments
Meter 4
Pressure is a critical consideration for flowmeter
selection. Operating at elevated pressures requires a device
that is not overly affected by pressure. Historically it was
believed that Coriolis meters were not affected by increasing
pressure. However, the data below for two different Coriolis
meters shows that this is not true.
Meter 4 was a 6 inch Coriolis meter and was calibrated
from 2 bar.g to 40 bar.g in mineral oil at 20 °C. No pressure
compensation was activated for this device. The results
display a large dependence on fluid pressure. The
specification for most Coriolis meters is 0.1 %. At 40 bar.g, the
Coriolis meter was over 15 times the specification.
Plotting the results against reference pressure in Figure 17
shows that the pressure effect is linear. The mass flow under-
reads as the reference liquid pressure increases. This is due
to the tube stiffening and the Coriolis phase shift becoming
smaller as pressure increases.
The density output from the device is displayed in Figure
18 and clearly shows a strong linear dependence. As with
mass flow, this could be caused by the stiffer tubes changing
resonance frequency and as such underreading the density. If
the Coriolis meter was used at elevated pressure of say 40
bar.g to measure volume flow then it could be expected for
the device to be mis-measuring by over 1 %.
Meter 5
Meter 5 was a 2 inch Coriolis flowmeter that was
calibrated up to 60 bar.g with no pressure compensation
applied. At 60 bar.g the deviations were 6 times greater
than the meter specification. The deviations as shown in
Figure 20 are linear with respect to pressure.
Upstream Production Measurement Forum 2018
Figure 21 displays the errors achieved if the
manufacturer’s non-traceable pressure compensation is
applied. The meter would over-read mass flow and be out
of specification. The most prudent approach would be to
derive a traceable pressure compensation factor at an
accredited flow laboratory such as NEL’s EPAT facility. This
means that a pressure compensation factor could be
derived by calibrating the device at a couple of pressures.
For example, at operating conditions and say 5 bar above
and below. By utilising an online pressure measurement,
the device could be operated at a range of pressures within
specification.
Conclusions
In the high viscosity experiments, the Coriolis meters
displayed a significant under-read at low Reynolds numbers.
before the device’s correction was applied. This further
highlights the importance of calibrating a Coriolis meter close
to the service viscosity. The meter calibration will not be valid
if the fluid viscosity in service is notably different from the
calibration viscosity.
For temperature, the effects aren’t as significant as
viscosity and pressure effects. However, it should be noted
that temperature and viscosity are closely related and for
viscous products, a slight change in temperature can produce
a significant shift in fluid viscosity.
For pressure, it is clear that elevated pressure results in
stiffer flow tubes that under-read the mass flow. This is due
to the stiffer tubes having a smaller Coriolis “twist” and hence
a lower mass output. Pressure effects are substantial and
require either of the following:
1. Adjustment to the mass factor at the required
operating condition.
2. Calibrated at a range of pressures to derive a
pressure compensation factor to be applied via
software at a fixed pressure condition.
3. Calibrated at a range of pressures to derive a
pressure compensation factor to be applied via
software at any pressure with a pressure
transmitter.
Another important consideration is that the performance
of devices of the same size and technology are not necessarily
similar to one another as there are many other variables. This
includes tube design, patents, R&D and even tube material.
Overall, the results from this paper show that Coriolis
meters cannot simply be relocated to elevate viscosity,
temperature or pressure service without suitable
consideration, characterisation or modification.
5
 Facility
Dynamic Viscosity Range
Nomenclature 100

Qm = Mass Flow Crown Oil

FCF = Flow Calibration Factor

Δtm = Time Difference in terms of mass

Dynamic Viscosity (cP)

Δtlive_zero = Time Difference in terms of live zero
Δtstored_zero = Time Difference in terms of stored zero 10
6.45

References 3.30

1. Tschabold, P. Kumar, V. and Anklin, M. “Influence and 1.95

1.39
Compensation of Process Parameters on Coriolis Meters
1
with a View to Custody Transfer of Hydrocarbon 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Products”. Paper 6.3, 9th South East Asia Hydrocarbon Fluid Temperature (°C)

Flow Measurement Workshop, 2 – 4 March 2010.

2. Coriolis ISO reference BS EN 10790:2015, Measurement Figure 3 NEL Crown Oil Dynamic Viscosity
of fluid flow in closed conduits -- Guidance to the
selection, installation and use of Coriolis meters (mass
flow, density and volume flow measurements). London,
BSI
3. Mills, C. An Investigation into the effects of high viscosity
fluids on conventional liquid flow meters: Venturi, NEL
Report No: 2010/197, 2010.
4. Mills, C. “Measurement of Flow in Viscous Fluids”. Oil
Sands and Heavy Oil Technologies Conference 2011, 19 –
21 July 2011.

Figures

Figure 4 Kin. Viscosity of NEL test fluids

Figure 1 Example of Coriolis Flow Tube Configurations

Figure 5 Schematic diagram of the NEL oil flow test facility

Figure 2 Schematic of the EPAT Facility

Upstream Production Measurement Forum 2018 6

 1.50 1.50

1.25 1.25

1.00 1.00

0.75 0.75

0.50 0.50

% Err (Ref.Mass)
% Err (Ref.Mass)

0.25 0.25

0.00 0.00

-0.25 -0.25

-0.50 -0.50

-0.75 -0.75

-1.00 -1.00

-1.25 -1.25

-1.50 -1.50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 100 1000 10000
Ref. Mass Flow [kg/s] Reynolds Number

600 cSt 1000 cSt 200 cSt 600 cSt 1000 cSt 1500 cSt

Figure 6 Coriolis 1 – Mass Error v Mass Flow wrt viscosity Figure 9 Coriolis 1 – Cor Mass Error v Re No wrt viscosity
1.00

1.50
0.75

1.25

0.50
1.00

0.75
0.25

% Err (Ref.Dens)
0.50
% Err (Ref.Mass)

0.00
0.25

0.00
-0.25

-0.25

-0.50
-0.50

-0.75
-0.75

-1.00

-1.00
-1.25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Ref. Mass Flow [kg/s]
-1.50
10 100 1000 10000
Reynolds Number
600 cSt (20degC) 1000 cSt (17degC)

600 cSt 1000 cSt

Figure 10 Coriolis 1 – Density Error v Mass Flow wrt viscosity

Figure 7 Coriolis 1 – Mass Error v Re No wrt viscosity
0.50

1.50
0.25

1.25

0.00
1.00

0.75
% Err (Ref.Mass)

-0.25

0.50
% Err (Ref.Mass)

-0.50
0.25

0.00
-0.75

-0.25

-1.00
-0.50

-0.75
-1.25

-1.00

-1.50
-1.25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

-1.50
Ref. Mass Flow, kg/s
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Ref. Mass Flow, kg/s
Kerosene 10°C (3 cSt) Kerosene 20°C (2 cSt) Kerosene 30°C (2 cSt) Kerosene 40°C (2 cSt)

200 cSt 600 cSt 1000 cSt 1500 cSt

Figure 11 Coriolis 2 – Mass Error v Mass Flow wrt viscosity

Figure 8 Coriolis 1 – Cor Mass Error v Mass Flow wrt viscosity

Upstream Production Measurement Forum 2018 7

 0.50 3.00

0.25
2.00

0.00

1.00
% Err (Ref.Mass)

-0.25

% Err (Ref.Mass)
-0.50 0.00

-0.75
-1.00

-1.00

-2.00
-1.25

-1.50 -3.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Ref. Mass Flow, kg/s Ref. Temperature, °C

Primol 10°C (300 cSt) Primol 20°C (175 cSt) Primol 30°C (80 cSt) Primol 40°C (50 cSt) 20degC 1 40degC 1 60degC 1 20degC 2 40degC 2 60degC 2

Figure 12 Coriolis 2 – Mass Error v Re No wrt viscosity Figure 15 Coriolis 3 – Mass Error v Ref. Temp wrt Temp
1.00
0.50

0.75

0.25
0.50

0.25
0.00

0.00

% Err (Ref.Mass)
% Err (Ref.Mass)

-0.25
-0.25

-0.50
-0.50

-0.75

-0.75
-1.00

-1.25
-1.00

-1.50

-1.25
-1.75

-2.00
-1.50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Ref. Mass Flow, T/hr
Reynolds Number

Kerosene 10°C (3 cSt) Kerosene 20°C (2 cSt) Kerosene 30°C (2 cSt) Kerosene 40°C (2 cSt) 2 bar.g 10 bar.g 20 bar.g 40 bar.g
Primol 10°C (300 cSt) Primol 20°C (175 cSt) Primol 30°C (80 cSt) Primol 40°C (50 cSt)

Figure 13 Coriolis 2 – Mass Error v Re No wrt viscosity Figure 16 Coriolis 4 – Mass Error v Mass Flow wrt Press
1.00
0.25

0.75
0.20
0.50

0.15
0.25

0.10 0.00
% Err (Ref.Mass)
% Err (Ref.Mass)

0.05 -0.25

-0.50
0.00

-0.75
-0.05
-1.00

-0.10
-1.25

-0.15 -1.50

-0.20 -1.75

-2.00
-0.25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ref. Pressure, Bar.g
Ref. Mass Flow, kg/s

2 bar.g 10 bar.g 20 bar.g 40 bar.g

60degC 40degC 20degC

Figure 14 Coriolis 3 – Mass Error v Mass Flow wrt Temp Figure 17 Coriolis 4 – Mass Error v Pressure wrt Press

Upstream Production Measurement Forum 2018 8

 1.00 1.00

0.75
0.75
0.50

0.25 0.50

0.00
0.25
% Err (Ref.Dens)

% Err (Ref.Mass)
-0.25

-0.50 0.00

-0.75
-0.25
-1.00

-1.25 -0.50

-1.50
-0.75
-1.75

-2.00 -1.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Ref. Pressure, Bar.g Ref. Mass Flow, kg/min

2 bar.g 10 bar.g 20 bar.g 40 bar.g NEL 4 bar.g NEL 10 bar.g NEL 40 bar.g NEL 60 bar.g

Figure 18 Coriolis 4 – Density Error v Pressure wrt Press Figure 21 Coriolis 5 – Mass Error v Mass Flow wrt Press
1.00

0.75

0.50

0.25
% Err (Ref.Mass)

0.00

-0.25

-0.50

-0.75

-1.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Ref. Mass Flow, kg/min

NEL 4 bar.g NEL 10 bar.g NEL 40 bar.g NEL 60 bar.g

Figure 19 Coriolis 5 – Mass Error v Mass Flow wrt Press

0.20

0.00

-0.20
% Err (Ref.Mass)

-0.40

-0.60

-0.80

-1.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Ref. Pressure, Bar.g

NEL 4 bar.g NEL 10 bar.g NEL 40 bar.g NEL 60 bar.g

Figure 20 Coriolis 5 – Mass Error v Pressure wrt Press

Upstream Production Measurement Forum 2018 9