6th ISFFM May 16-18, 2006

TESTING THE WAFER V-CONE FLOWMETERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH

API 22 “TESTING PROTOCOL” SECTION 2 – “DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE FLOW MEASUREMENT DEVICES” IN THE CEESI
COLORADO TEST FACILITY

Dr R.J.W.Peters – Flow Measurement Technology Manager

McCrometer, Inc.
3255 West Stetson Avenue Hemet, CA 92545   USA
Tel: (951) 652-6811 Fax: (951) 652-3078 Email: DrBobP@mccrometer.com

Casey Hodges – Staff Engineer

CEESI
54043 WCR 37 Nunn, CO 80526 USA
Tel: (970) 897-2711 Fax: (970) 897-2710 Email: chodges@ceesi.com

Steve Caldwell – Vice President

CEESI
Email: scaldwell@ceesi.com

Abstract: The paper describes the testing of the Wafer V-Cone Meters in accordance with the new API 22.2
“Testing Protocol for Differential Pressure Flow Measurement Devices” in the Colorado Test Facility. The use
of this new API standard and some of the points which had to be addressed in order to implement it are
recorded. The results of testing 2” and 4” Wafer V-Cone meters in gas will be presented. The new non-
standard testing requirements in the API 22.2 will be discussed. The conclusions reached were: the results
verify the conditioning effect of the V-Cone as it meters the fluid; API 22.2 tests the claims of the
manufacturer of the meter in a more demanding manner than API 5.7. The results of the Wafer V-Cone
Testing Uncertainty are discussed.
Keywords: API 22.2 Test Protocol, Wafer V-Cone Meter.

1
6th ISFFM May 16-18, 2006

2
6th ISFFM
1. Introduction
The paper describes the testing of the four Wafer V-
Cone Meters in accordance with the new API 22.2
“Testing Protocol - Differential Pressure Flow
Measurement Devices” [1] at the Colorado
Engineering Experiment Station Inc. (CEESI) Test
Facility. The paper reports on the use of this new
API standard, and the points which had to be
addressed in order to implement it. The results of
the gas testing to determine the minimum lengths of
straight pipe required to alleviate the effects of a
half-moon plate both upstream and downstream of
2”( 0.45 beta) and 4” (0.45, 0.50 and 0.65 beta)
Wafer V-Cone meters tested are presented. The
upstream installation effect testing requirements in
the standard provides evidence of the conditioning
effect of the V-Cone as it meters the fluid.
2. API 22.2 “Testing Protocol - Differential
Pressure Flow Measurement Devices”
This standard is a revision of API 5.7 [2] and was
published in August 2005 “to supply industry with a
comparable description of the capabilities of these
devices for the measurement of single-phase fluid
flow when they are used under similar conditions”.
A laboratory traceable to NIST or an equivalent
national or international standard is required.
McCrometer chose to undertake the tests of the
Wafer V-Cone, in accordance with API 22.2, at
3
May 16-18, 2006
CEESI, as the initial tests of these meters to API
5.7 had been performed there. The results of the
API 5.7 tests were presented at Flomeko 2004 [4].
This paper gives the results and conclusions from
this series of tests.
3. The Wafer V-Cone
The Wafer V-Cone meter is a V-Cone type of
differential pressure meter. It uses the generic
differential pressure meter equation, with the
appropriate, discharge coefficient values,
expansibility [3] and beta ratio equations specific for
the Wafer V-Cone. Normal differential pressure
transducers, secondary and tertiary instrumentation
are used with the meter. The novel feature of the
Wafer V-Cone is that the beta ratio can be changed
using a removable cone assembly. Figure 1 shows
a schematic of the Wafer V-Cone meter.
The Wafer V-Cone meter design is available in line
sizes ranging from 1" to 6" (all in schedule 80). API
Chapter 22.2 requires testing on two nominal line
sizes that will produce a minimum 2:1 line size ratio.
For these tests 2" and 4" Wafer V-Cone meters
were chosen.
The 2" wafer body had a 0.45 beta cone assembly.
The 4" wafer body was tested using cone sizes that
gave 0.45, 0.5, and 0.65 beta ratios. The inside
diameter of each wafer body was the same as the
piping system into which the Wafer V-Cone meter
was installed (i.e. 2” and 4” schedule 80 pipe).
6th ISFFM May 16-18, 2006

4
6th ISFFM May 16-18, 2006

Fig. 1 A Wafer V-Cone Meter

water laboratory and these results are included in
the Appendix.
4. Description of Test Facility

4.1 Liquid Flow Testing

For these series of tests there was no liquid testing
performed as this had been covered previously
(CEESI Report “03RN – 6506”). However base
water tests were performed in the McCrometer
.

5
4.2 Gas Flow Testing
Fig. 2 Air Test System
Gas testing was performed using compressed air in
a gas blow-down system, as shown in Fig 2
Dry compressed air flows from the pressure vessel
through a flow control valve, which controlled the
mass flowrate of air through the test system. The air
then passed through the Wafer V-Cone being
tested. A second control valve downstream of the
Wafer V-Cone was used to maintain constant line
pressure at the meter. After the second control
valve, the air passed through the CEESI Master
Meter (a critical flow Venturi (CFV ))which was used
to accurately measure the mass flowrate of air
passing through the meter under test. The air was
then released to the atmosphere.
Pressure transducers, type T thermocouples, and a
data acquisition system were used to measure and
record system parameters. The mass flowrate of air
was initially taken to the highest pipe Reynolds
number required for the tests. After stabilizing the
mass flowrate, the line pressure at the Wafer V-
Cone was adjusted to the desired level. The data
acquisition system stored the average values at the
end of the 30 system scans for each parameter.
5. Testing and Results and are shown on the plots as a dashed line. The
Mid Cd values produced under the above
Standard testing was performed to establish conditions were considered to be the baseline test
characteristic curves for each of the Wafer V-Cone results.
flowmeters. Calibrations maintained favorable ratios of
Wafer V-Cone meters are sold with a 10:1 turndown differential pressure to static line pressure (dP/P).
on flow, consequently the meters were tested over
that range. The 4” meters were tested over a pipe
Reynolds number range of 50,000 to 500,000 and Line Beta Pipe Reynolds
the 2” meter from 30,000 to 300,000. Size Number Range
The meter sizes and pipe Reynolds number ranges 0.45 50,000 to 500,000
are tabulated in Table 1.The tests were performed 4” 0.5 50,000 to 500,000
at a line pressure of approximately 87 psia. 0.65 50,000 to 500,000 *
2” 0.45 30,000 to 320,000
5.1 Analysis Method Applied to Wafer V-Cone Test
Results Table 1 Proposed Pipe Reynolds Number Ranges
for each Wafer V-Cone
Typically, to calculate flow for the Wafer V-Cone a
single discharge coefficient (Cd) value is used * On the baseline test for the 0.65 Beta insert in
through the entire flow range of the meter. The the 4” line size, the lowest Reynolds number which
single Cd value is the result of an analysis of could be tested was 93 962 instead of the planned
calibration data covering the desired flowrate range. 50 000. This is important in the determination of
The average Wafer V-Cone Cd is arrived at by Mid Cd, and is discussed further in the conclusions.
determining the appropriate upper and lower Cd
bounding values and then calculating the Mid Cd
value using the following simple equation.
C d max  C d min
MidC d  (1)
2
Mid Cd values were determined for each of the
Wafer V-Cone tests. The Mid Cd values are listed
for each test in Table 2.
The analysis of these test results has been based
on the difference in Mid Cd between any one test
and the baseline data for that Wafer V-Cone (Table
2 Column B). The percent difference uncertainty
(Table 2 Column C) is based on the uncertainty
analysis results. These values are explained
further in Section 6, Uncertainty Analysis.

5.2 Baseline Tests

For the baseline tests the system had 40 +
diameters of straight piping and no flow conditioner
installed upstream of the meter.(This was in
accordance with McCrometer’s claim that a
conditioner is not required due to the cone
conditioning the fluid). The characteristic curves for
the four Wafer V-Cone flowmeters are shown in
Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7.

The curves have a consistent shape, increasing Cd

values as the pipe Reynolds number increases. The
Mid Cd values were found for each of the data sets
5.3 Installation Effects Tests
Non-standard installation testing was performed to
evaluate the Wafer V-Cone’s performance in non-
ideal flow conditions. The following installation tests
were performed on each insert:
Half-moon orifice plate upstream of the meter
Half-moon orifice plate downstream of the meter
Combination upstream and downstream installation
effects
The installation effects testing was performed with
long straight runs of upstream piping and no flow
conditioning installed upstream of the disturbance.
There was no flow conditioner between the
disturbance and the meter under test.
5.3.1 Half-Moon Orifice Plate Upstream
Fig. 3 Half moon orifice plate
A half moon orifice plate tends to produce a
dramatically distorted and asymmetric velocity
profile. If this profile is distorted enough, it may
significantly impact the performance of the meter.
To establish the meter’s performance under such
conditions these tests were designed to determine
the upstream distance required for the meter to
mitigate the effects of the disturbance and
reproduce the Cd value obtained in the Baseline
Test. The results from half moon orifice plate
placed upstream of the Wafer V-Cone are shown in
Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11. For one of the tests on
the 4” 0.65 beta insert, the half moon orifice plate
was rotated so the hole in the plate was along the
top of the pipe, the same side as the pressure taps.
The Mid Cd values were determined from the
upstream installation effect test results. The Mid Cd
values are given in Table 2 and include the
differences between the half moon orifice and the
baseline test Mid Cd values and the uncertainties
associated with those differences.
The meters were initially tested with the half moon
orifice located 3D upstream of the meter. These
results showed a bias from the baseline Mid Cd
values. The half moon orifice was then moved to a
location 5D upstream of the Wafer V-Cone. At this
location, all the tests show no statistical difference
from the baseline data over the same Reynolds
number range.
5.3.2 Half Moon Orifice Plate Downstream
A half moon orifice plate was placed downstream of
the meters and the results of these tests are shown
in Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11. The difference between
the half moon orifice plate downstream and the
baseline data Mid Cd values is shown in Table 2.
When the half moon orifice plate is placed 1D
downstream of the meter, the differences between
the Mid Cds and those of the baseline tests were
borderline with respect to the acceptable
uncertainty criteria. Consequently several tests
were run with the half moon orifice plate 2D
downstream. The results of these tests show no
significant statistical difference from the baseline
Mid Cd values and consequently the Wafer V-Cone
can accurately measure when there is such a
disturbance 2D downstream from the meter.
5.3.3 Combination Upstream and Downstream
Installation Effects
The meters were also tested with half moon orifice
plates in both upstream and downstream locations.
These results are shown in Figures 8, 9, 10, 11.
The differences between the combination tests and
the baseline data Mid Cd values are shown in Table
2. These tests show that adding a downstream
disturbance to an existing upstream disturbance
has a minimal effect on the Mid Cd values
6. Uncertainty Analysis
An uncertainty analysis was conducted on each of
the tests to determine the representative
uncertainty of the Wafer V-Cone meters. This
analysis was performed in a similar manner to the
analysis in ANSI/API 2530. The uncertainty results
are shown in Figures 12, 13, 14, and 15.
Figures 13 and 14 seem to show a discontinuity in
the uncertainty. This is due to the use of more than
one differential pressure transducer to cover the
complete range of the meter being tested. In these
tests a low range transducer was employed to
determine the values at the bottom end of the
meters being tested. By nature, at the lower end of
the transducer’s range there is increased
uncertainty. Consequently when a lower range unit
is used, the uncertainty shifts, and there appears to
be a discontinuity in the uncertainty graph.
The analysis included estimates of the standard
uncertainties of: the measurement of mass flowrate;
all secondary instrumentation; and the random
effects observed during testing. The uncertainty of
the measurement of mass flowrate includes a
detailed analysis of the primary and secondary
standards used at CEESI. The actual uncertainties
for the secondary instrumentation were derived
from the manufacturer’s specifications and CEESI’s
statistical process control program, utilizing historic
calibration data for the instrumentation. Random
effects were shown in the parent report (CEESI
03RN-6506) to have minimal impact on the overall
uncertainty of a data point.
The uncertainty associated with the measurement
of mass flowrate using a Critical Flow Venturi (CFV)
is approximately +/-0.35%.
The performance of the Wafer V-Cone was
introduced into the uncertainty analysis as the Cd
Standard Uncertainty term. The Cd Standard
Uncertainty term was found by calculating the
standard deviation of the individual data acquisition
scans from the Wafer V-Cone characteristic curve.
The standard deviation was then multiplied by 2 to
produce the 95% confidence level. The 95%
confidence levels for each of the Wafer V-Cones
are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 contains three columns that are used in
determining if an installation has an effect on the
meter that is significant. If the Mid Cd value
changes due to an installation by more than the
uncertainty associated with the calculation of the Cd
value, the installation had a statistically significant
effect on the meter. Column A represents the
uncertainty described in the above paragraph. This
uncertainty is solely based on the baseline data.
Column B represents the percent difference of the
Mid Cd value between each installation effect test
and the baseline test for that meter.
Column C represents the uncertainty associated
with the laboratories ability to determine the
discharge coefficient for that meter. This is the
combination of Column A and the other
components that are described in the third
paragraph of this section. If Column B is larger
than Column C, the installation had a significant
effect on the meter performance. If Column C is
larger than Column B, the installation had no
statistically significant effect on the meter
performance.
7. Acoustic Noise Testing (API Ch. 22.2 Section
4.8)
This section is one of the revisions to the standard
and now reads “If excessive noise is encountered
during these tests, it shall be documented in the
report”
There was no noticeable noise from the V-Cone
meters during these tests.
8. Conclusions for the Testing of the Wafer V-
Cone Meters in Air
8.1 Air tests were performed on 4 Wafer V-Cones -
One 2 inch Wafer V-Cone with a beta of 0.45 and
three 4” Wafer V-Cones with betas of 0.45, 0.5, and
0.65.
8.2 Testing was performed using compressed air on
all of the Wafer V-Cones at a line pressure of 87
psia to establish baseline performance. These tests
revealed that the characteristic curves of all of the
Wafer V-Cones were very similar. The similarity of
the characteristic curves indicates that the
expansibility equation used with the Wafer V-Cone
is correct.
8.3 During the baseline test for the 4” line size with
the 0.65 Beta insert, the lowest Reynolds number
range tested was 93 962. At the time of the test, it
would have taken exceedingly long to cover the low
end of the range, so the decision was made to
move on to other testing. Due to the shape of the
Cd vs. Reynolds number curve, this has a
significant effect on the calculation of the Mid Cd.
In Table 2, the results are first shown with the
installation effects test values over the entire
Reynolds number range from 50 000 to 500 000.
This shows that there is a significant difference
between the Mid Cd values of each installation
effects test from the baseline test. Due to the non-
linearity of the Cd vs. Reynolds number curve, the
proper way to compare Mid Cd values is to
compare the installation effects tests over the same
range that the baseline test was run. These results,
limiting the installation effects Reynolds number
range from 90 000 to 500 000, are at shown as a
separate section at the bottom of Table 2.
8.4 The conclusions for the half-moon disturbance
tests are as follows:
2” 0.45 Meter.
There is no statistical difference from the
baseline test when
Half Moon Plate 5D Upstream
Half Moon Plate 1D Downstream
Half Moon Plate 5D Upstream and 1D
Downstream
8.5 Noise measurements were made during all of
the low pressure air testing performed on the four
Wafer V-Cone meters. It was not possible to
differentiate between the background noise in the
test area and the noise produced by the Wafer V-
Cone meters.
8.6 In conclusion the McCrometer Wafer V-Cone
meter in these tests exhibited an exceptional ability
to operate effectively downstream of extreme flow
disturbances. McCrometer will now advise their
customers of the Upstream and Downstream
straight pipe requirements between such
disturbances and the Wafer V-Cone Meter to
achieve the claimed uncertainty.

4” 0.45 Meter
There is no statistically difference from the
baseline test when
Half Moon Plate 5D Upstream
Half Moon Plate 2D Downstream
It is concluded that there would be no
statistical difference if there is
Half Moon Plate 5D Upstream and 1D
Downstream

4” 0.50 Meter
There is no statistically difference from the
baseline test when
Half Moon Plate 5D Upstream
Half Moon Plate 1D Downstream
Half Moon Plate 5D Upstream and 1D
Downstream

4” 0.65 Meter
Restricted Re range of 90,000 to 500,000
There is no statistically difference from the
baseline test when
Half Moon Plate 5D Upstream
Half Moon Plate 2D Downstream
It is concluded that there would be no
statistical difference if there is
Half Moon Plate 5D Upstream and 1D
Downstream
9. Discussion on the API Standard 22.2
“Differential Pressure Flow Measurement
Devices”

9.1. The Standard now provides an even more

comprehensive series of tests for a differential
pressure flow measurement device and subjects
the meter to onerous flow regimes.

9.2. It specifies the use of an orifice plate to

determine the laboratory’s ability to test differential
pressure meters in a manner which is traceable to
NIST. The new requirements in the Standard
appear to be more reasonable but the authors
wonder if this is still an unnecessary requirement for
reputable laboratory.

9.3 Expansibilty Factor was supplied by

McCrometer and from these tests for the Wafer V-
Cone and there was every indication that it was an
effective value.

9.4 The uncertainty presentation requirements were

addressed in API 22.2 and from these tests one
would conclude that CEESI have been able to work
to the protocol.

9.5 The Standard is now easier for the testing

facility to follow. This will result in different testing
facilities performing the testing in a much more
consistent manner. The reporting of the testing will
also be more consistent.

9.6 The Standard provides end users with a tool for

evaluating differential pressure meters on a level
playing field. It also provides a specific path for
manufacturer’s to prove the performance of new
innovations.
Meter Beta Pressure Mid 95% Wafer Percent Percent Comments
Size (psia) Cd V-Cone Difference Difference
Performance (%) Uncertainty
Confidence (%)
Bands (%)
A B C

2" 0.45 87 0.8781 0.2873 Baseline

2" 0.45 87 0.8902 1.3740 0.5051 Half Moon 3D Upstream
2" 0.45 87 0.8747 -0.3872 0.5051 Half Moon 5D Upstream
2" 0.45 87 0.8757 -0.2750 0.5051 Half Moon 5D Upstream + Half Moon 1D
Downstream
2" 0.45 87 0.8755 -0.2972 0.5051 Half Moon 1D Downstream
4" 0.45 87 0.8795 0.2637 Baseline
4" 0.45 87 0.8865 0.7862 0.6740 Half Moon 3D Upstream
4" 0.45 87 0.8887 1.0369 0.6740 Half Moon 3D Upstream + Half Moon 1D
Downstream
4" 0.45 87 0.8734 -0.6987 0.6740 Half Moon 1D Downstream
4" 0.45 87 0.8742 -0.6134 0.6740 Half Moon 5D Upstream
4" 0.45 87 0.8748 -0.5349 0.6740 Half Moon 2D Downstream
4" 0.50 87 0.8857 0.2256 Baseline
4" 0.50 87 0.9356 5.6369 0.6179 Half Moon 3D Upstream
4" 0.50 87 0.8886 0.3342 0.6179 Half Moon 5D Upstream
4" 0.50 87 0.8837 -0.2196 0.6179 Half Moon 5D Upstream + Half Moon 1D
Downstream
4" 0.50 87 0.8804 -0.5941 0.6179 Half Moon 1D Downstream
4" 0.65 Beta with Reynolds Number Range 50 000 to 500 000
4" 0.65 87 0.9020 0.3046 Baseline
4" 0.65 87 0.9677 7.2868 0.6121 Half Moon 3D Upstream
4" 0.65 87 0.9664 7.1387 0.6121 Half Moon 3D Upstream + Half Moon 1D
Downstream
4" 0.65 87 0.8937 -0.9232 0.6121 Half Moon 1D Downstream
4" 0.65 87 0.9504 5.3657 0.6121 Half Moon 3D Upstream Flipped
4" 0.65 87 0.8963 -0.6336 0.6121 Half Moon 5D Upstream
4" 0.65 87 0.8849 -1.8946 0.6121 Half Moon 2D Downstream
4" 0.65 Beta with Reynolds Number Range Restricted from 90 000 to 500 000
4" 0.65 87 0.9020 0.3046 Baseline
4" 0.65 87 0.9677 7.2868 0.6121 Half Moon 3D Upstream
4" 0.65 87 0.9664 7.1387 0.6121 Half Moon 3D Upstream + Half Moon 1D
Downstream
4" 0.65 87 0.9029 0.1001 0.6121 Half Moon 1D Downstream
4" 0.65 87 0.9504 5.3657 0.6121 Half Moon 3D Upstream Flipped
4" 0.65 87 0.9030 0.1048 0.6121 Half Moon 5D Upstream
4" 0.65 87 0.8980 -0.4423 0.6121 Half Moon 2D Downstream
Table 2 Results of API 22.2 Testing of McCrometer Wafer V-Cone Meters
References
[1] Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards,
Chapter 22 – Testing Protocol
Section 2 - Differential Pressure Flow Measurement
Devices. First Edition, August 2005
[2] Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards,
Chapter 5.7 – Testing Protocol for Differential Pressure
Flow Measurement Devices. First Edition, January 2003
Measurement Workshop, Kristiansand, Norway, October
2001
[4] Peters R.J.W., Steven R., Caldwell S., Johansen B.,
“Testing the Wafer V-Cone Flowmeters in accordance
with API 5.7 “Testing Protocol for Differential Pressure
Flow Measurement Devices” Flomeko 2004, Guilin,
China. Sept. 2004

[3] Peters R.J.W, Reader-Harris M., Stewart D., “An

Experimental Derivation of an Expansibility Factor for
the V-Cone and Wafer Meter”, North Sea Flow
 APPENDICES

A. FIGURES
4. Baseline and Water Data for 2” 0.45 Beta Meter
5. Baseline and Water Data for 4” 0.45 Beta Meter
6. Baseline and Water Data for 4” 0.50 Beta Meter
7. Baseline and Water Data for 4” 0.65 Beta Meter
8. Installation Effect Data for 2” 0.45 Beta Meter
9. Installation Effect Data for 4” 0.45 Beta Meter
10. Installation Effect Data for 4” 0.50 Beta Meter
11. Installation Effect Data for 4” 0.65 Beta Meter
12. Uncertainty Data for 2” 0.45 Beta Meter
13. Uncertainty Data for 4” 0.45 Beta Meter
14. Uncertainty Data for 4” 0.50 Beta Meter
15. Uncertainty Data for 4” 0.65 Beta Meter

B. DETAILED DATA
1. Water Data for 2” 0.45 Beta Meter
2. Water Data for 4” 0.45 Beta Meter
3. Water Data for 4” 0.50 Beta Meter
4. Water Data for 4” 0.65 Beta Meter
 0.900

0.895

0.890
D ischarge Coefficient

0.885

0.880

0.875

0.870

0.865
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
Reynolds Number

McCrometer Water Data CEESI Air Data

Fig. 4 2” 0.45 Beta Baseline and Water Data

0.900

0.895

0.890
D ischarge Coefficient

0.885

0.880

0.875

0.870

0.865
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
Reynolds Number

McCrometer Water Data CEESI Air Data

Fig. 5 4” 0.45 Beta Baseline and Water Data

 0.900

0.895

0.890
D ischarge Coefficient

0.885

0.880

0.875

0.870

0.865
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
Reynolds Number

McCrometer Water Data CEESI Air Data

Fig. 6 4” 0.50 Beta Baseline and Water Data

0.950

0.938

0.925
D ischarge Coefficient

0.913

0.900

0.888

0.875
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
Reynolds Number

McCrometer Water Data CEESI Air Data

Fig. 7 4” 0.65 Beta Baseline and Water Data

 0.900

0.895

0.890
Discharge Coefficient

0.885

0.880

0.875

0.870

0.865
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000
Reynolds Number
Baseline Data 3D Upstream 5D Upstream 5D and 1D 1D Downstream

Fig. 8 2” 0.45 Beta Installation Effect Data

1.00

0.98

0.96
D ischarge Coefficient

0.94

0.92

0.90

0.88

0.86
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
Reynolds Number

Baseline 3D Upstream 3D and 1D 1D Downstream 5D Upstream 2D Downstream

Fig. 9 4” 0.45 Beta Installation Effect Data

 1.00

0.98

0.96
D ischarge Coefficient

0.94

0.92

0.90

0.88

0.86
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
Reynolds Number

Baseline 3D Upstream 1D Downstream 5D Upstream 5D and 1D

Fig. 10 4” 0.50 Beta Installation Effect Data

1.00

0.98

0.96
D ischarge Coefficient

0.94

0.92

0.90

0.88

0.86
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
Reynolds Number

Baseline 3D Upstream 3D and 1D 1D Downstream 3D Upstream Flip 5D Upstream 2D Downstream

Fig. 11 4” 0.65 Beta Installation Effect Data

 1.00

0.90

0.80
Uncertainty Values (95% C onfidence)

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000
Reynolds Number

Fig. 12 2” 0.45 Beta Uncertainty Data

1.00

0.90

0.80
Uncertainty Values (95% C onfidence)

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
Reynolds Number

Fig. 13 4” 0.45 Beta Uncertainty Data

 1.00

0.90

0.80
Uncertainty Values (95% C onfidence)

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
Reynolds Number

Fig. 14 4” 0.50 Beta Uncertainty Data

0.60

0.50
Uncertainty Values (95% C onfidence)

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000
Reynolds Number

Fig. 15 4” 0.65 Beta Uncertainty Data