Report 9699fp 014-97-RP

Flowmeter Calibrations Using a Small Volume Prover
A Report for
National Measurement System Directorate
Department of Trade & Industry

151 Buckingham Palace Road
London, SW1W 9SS
Project No: OSDC53 Report No: 014/97 Date: October 1997

The work described in this report was carried out under contract to the Department of
Trade & Industry (‘the Department’) as part of the National Measurement System’s
1994-1999 Flow Programme. The Department has a free licence to copy, circulate
and use the contents of this report within any United Kingdom Government
Department, and to issue or copy the contents of the report to a supplier or potential
supplier to the United Kingdom Government for a contract for the services of the
Crown.
For all other use, the prior written consent of TÜV NEL Ltd shall be obtained before
reproducing all or any part of this report. Applications for permission to publish
should be made to:
Contracts Manager
TÜV NEL Ltd
Scottish Enterprise Technology Park
East Kilbride G75 0QU
E-mail: jduff@nel.uk
Tel: +44 (0) 1355-272096
© TÜV NEL Ltd 2003

National Engineering Laboratory
Flow Centre
Flowmeter Calibrations Using a

Small Volume Prover
A Report for
National Measurement Systems Policy Unit

DTI, London
SUMMARY
This report describes the findings of a project undertaken by NEL for NMSPU, Department of
Trade and Industry to investigate and quantify the performance of flowmeters calibrated under
simulated ‘on-site’ conditions using a Small Volume Prover (SVP).
The meters calibrated and tests undertaken were chosen from the results of a survey sent to
users of SVPs and site calibration services. This report discusses the testing of a turbine,
Coriolis mass, positive displacement and ultrasonic meters using a Brooks 18-inch SVP as the
reference calibration instrument.
All meters were subjected to an initial calibration using the NEL flow measurement reference
gravimetric test facility and SVP simultaneously. This was followed by each meter undergoing
repeatability tests entailing a number of SVP piston passes, SVP plenum pressure, one pulse per
revolution of meters with rotating parts and test meter pulse output during SVP piston traverse
between optical measurement switches.
Overall conclusions are given on the performance of each meter type. Particular interest is given
to the intercomparison of each meter type, pulse output mechanism and subsequent
performance.
A review of pulse interpolation methods has also been completed.
Prepared by: Mr S Nicholson ..............................................
Approved by: Mr R Paton ..............................................
Date: 24 October 1997

for W Paton
Director and General Manager
Project No: OSDC53

Report No: 014/97 Page 1 of 68
CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 4
2 INDUSTRY SURVEY ........................................................................... 5
3 SELECTION OF TEST METERS ......................................................... 5
4 TEST METER INSTALLATION ............................................................ 6
5 TEST PROGRAMME ........................................................................... 6
6 TEST RESULTS ................................................................................... 6
6.1 Brooks 3-inch Nominal Bore Parity Turbine Meter ............................... 7

6.2 Danfoss 4-inch Nominal Bore Ultrasonic Meter ................................... 7
6.3 Smith 3-inch Nominal Bore Positive Displacement Meter .................... 8
6.4 Fisher-Rosemount 3-inch Nominal Bore CMF300 Coriolis Mass Meter . 8
6.5 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 9
7 NUMBER OF SVP PISTON PASSES VERSUS TEST METER

REPEATABILITY .................................................................................. 9

7.4 Fisher-Rosemount 3-inch Nominal Bore CMF300 Coriolis Mass Meter 11
7.5 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 11
8 PLENUM PRESSURE VERSUS TEST METER REPEATABILITY ..... 12

8.5 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 14
9 PULSE OUTPUT FROM TEST METERS DURING SVP PISTON

PASSES BETWEEN OPTICAL MEASUREMENT SWITCHES ........... 15

9.5 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 16
Project No: OSDC53

C O N T E N T S (contd)
Page
10 ONE PULSE PER REVOLUTION TESTS ............................................ 16
10.1 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 17
11 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 18
12 REVIEW OF PULSE INTERPOLATION METHODS ............................ 19
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 30
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. 31
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................... 32
Project No: OSDC53

1 INTRODUCTION
Flowmeters are widely used in the downstream production side of the oil industry. This
inevitably leads to ‘on-site’ calibration of meters. This enables meters to be tested in the
working product at typical operating conditions and often without closing down a
production stream. The latter is of obvious benefit to the meter operator.
With the recent introduction of mass meters into fiscal fluid streams, their obvious
advantages over existing volume meters and the future possibility of ultrasonic meters
being introduced, it was considered valuable to test a cross-section of these meters using
a Small Volume Prover (SVP).
The equipment utilised during this project was a Brooks 18-inch SVP with standard Brooks
compact prover electronics console (BCPE).
Figure 1 shows a sketch of the Brooks Small Volume Prover. The key components are
the prover cylinder and piston, poppet valve and the optical detectors. When the SVP is in
standby (idle) mode or not being operated, the poppet valve is held open by hydraulic fluid
and test fluid allowed to flow freely through the piston assembly. When a prover pass is
initiated the poppet valve is closed pneumatically, using nitrogen from the plenum
chamber, and seals against the face of the piston creating a solid piston surface. The
flowing test fluid pushes the piston downstream through the cylinder sweeping out a
volume of test fluid. A metal, invar, rod that has an optical ‘flag’ mounted on it is attached
to the piston. As the piston sweeps through the cylinder volume the ‘flag’ passes through
optical measurement switches. When the flag triggers the first measurement switch,
pulses from the test meter are accumulated by a pulse counter. When the ‘flag’ passes
through the second measurement switch the pulse counter is triggered to stop
accumulating pulses. Finally the poppet valve is opened and hydraulic fluid is pumped
into the actuator cylinder to move the measurement piston back to the initial standby (idle)
position. This is one pass of the prover piston. The precise volume between optical
switches is determined by calibration against a volumetric test measure or gravimetric
weighing system.
To provide acceptable accuracy the SVP uses a measurement technique known as double
chronometry pulse interpolation. This technique will be explained in detail in Section 12,
Pulse Interpolation Guidance Note, of this report but basically utilises two counters. One
to measure the time between triggering of the measurement switches and the other to
measure the time between the leading edges of the flowmeter measurement pulses. The
ratio of the two times is used to determine the fractional flow measurement pulses that
occur between the prover measurement switches. This method of pulse interpolation
provides better pulse resolution which permits small volumes to be used for flowmeter
calibrations.
SVPs are generally the chosen ‘tool’ used for on-site calibration of flowmeters. This
generally means turbine volume meters as they are the most popular meter used on high
accuracy fluid streams. The introduction of new metering technology has lead to the
availability of additional information from meter electronics, ie derived meter pulse output,
temperature and density.
Meter types using this technology, such as Coriolis mass and ultrasonic, have generally
been considered unsuitable for use with SVPs due to their method of pulse signal output.
This output is essential to the operation of the SVP electronics and final derived test meter
K-factor. The pulse output from these types of meter are generated by software within
each meter’s flow transmitter. This can lead to the pulse output lagging behind real time,
output of pulse batches at different frequencies or the introduction of corrected pulses.
Project No: OSDC53

This may cause pulse count time-frame errors for the BCPE within the time taken for the
SVP’s piston to displace its calibrated volume. This obviously leads to an inaccurate
calibration of the test meter.
Until now there have been too few comprehensive tests utilising these meters to discover
how they perform under various test conditions simulating a variety of typical problems
encountered by SVP and meter users.
2 INDUSTRY SURVEY
An initial industrial survey was undertaken to discover what problems have been
encountered by British industry’s SVP operators and end users of small volume provers
and their associated meters.
To this end SVP operators were contacted by letter and fax with a survey form requesting
details of meters calibrated using their SVP and what problems they had encountered
while using each meter type, as well as problems they have encountered while using the
prover mechanism itself.
Seventy-five per cent of the survey questionnaires were returned. Out of the returned
surveys two companies refused to supply information based on NEL’s possible entry into
the on-site calibrations market in direct competition with themselves and the other on the
grounds that they were the manufacturer of the most popular SVP and felt they could not
give objective comments on operation of their product or divulge operating problems to
NEL.
The main aspects requiring investigation, based on survey replies, were:
Number of passes per run required for accurate, repeatable proving.

Effect of plenum pressure on test meter repeatability.
Calibration of mass flowmeters (pulse collection problems).
Calibration of ultrasonic flowmeters (pulse collection problems).
Pulse output during piston operation between SVP optical switches.
3 SELECTION OF TEST METERS
To enable the test criteria, determined by the survey conclusions, to be fulfilled, four types
of flowmeter were procured. The meter manufacturers were chosen for their popularity in
field use hence replicating the problems commonly found by those surveyed. All test
meters were provided with pulse outputs. This enabled direct input to the SVP flow
computer (BCPE) and therefore volumetric comparison could be made.
The test meters chosen were:
Brooks 3-inch Nominal Bore Parity Turbine Meter.

Danfoss 4-inch Nominal Bore Sonoflo 3000 Ultrasonic Meter.
Smith 3-inch Nominal Bore Positive Displacement Meter.
Fisher Rosemount (Micromotion) 3-inch Nominal Bore CMF300 Coriolis Mass Meter.
Project No: OSDC53

4 TEST METER INSTALLATION
Each test meter was installed downstream of the SVP as detailed in Figure 2 with the
manufacturer’s recommended installation requirements followed.
The Brooks SVP flow computer (BCPE) requires a pulse input to enable prover piston
passes to be initiated. The use of the Brooks 3-inch turbine flowmeter, as shown in Figure
2, throughout the test series ensured operation of the SVP during tests not requiring direct
pulse counting comparison between test meter and SVP, ie test meter pulse output
between SVP optical measurement switches.
All tests were carried out with the test fluid temperature of nominally 20ºC and test fluid
line pressure of nominally 2.5 bar. The SVP plenum pressure was set, according to
Brooks instructions depending on the exact line pressure of individual tests. The
exception was the plenum pressure tests where the nitrogen plenum pressure was
obviously altered to determine its effect on test meter performance.
5 TEST PROGRAMME
The SVP used during the test series was initially water drawn to determine its calibration
volume. This was completed using volumetric and gravimetric methods simultaneously
and in accordance with procedures described in the Institute of Petroleum, Petroleum
Measurement Manual, Part X Meter Proving, Section 3 - Code of Practice for Design,
Installation and Calibration of Pipe Provers.
All SVP calculated K-factors quoted in this report have been subject to corrections for fluid
temperature and pressure, material temperature and pressure and invar and SVP tube
material constant as described in the Institute of Petroleum, Petroleum Measurement
Manual, Part X Meter Proving, Section 3 - Code of Practice for Design, Installation and
Calibration of Pipe Provers.
The test programme was split into five sections:
• Initial calibration of the test meter using the SVP and NEL’s National Standard
single phase flow measurement facility.
• Effect of SVP piston passes on test meter repeatability.
• Effect of SVP plenum pressure on the test meter repeatability.
• Pulse output of test meters during SVP piston passes between optical switches.
• One pulse per revolution of turbine meters.
6 TEST RESULTS
Initial Calibration Against SVP
All test meters were initially calibrated against the SVP and NEL’s National Standard six
tonne gravimetric test facility simultaneously. A reference calibration for each meter was
thus obtained.
Using the gravimetric standard two pulse collection methods are employed. The
‘standard’ method utilises a pulse counter gated from the weightank inlet valve. Pulses
are counted from the start of flow until the flow is stopped coinciding with the closure of the
weightank inlet valve. The ‘extended’ method used a pulse counter where the gate is
opened prior to the weightank inlet valve opening and closed a predetermined time after
the flow stops, ensuring any delayed pulses are collected.
Project No: OSDC53

6.1 Brooks 3-inch Nominal Bore Turbine Meter
This was a ten blade meter supplied with signal amplifier and installed with twenty
diameters upstream and ten diameters downstream of straight 3-inch nominal bore
pipework. This type of meter is widely used by industry, in conjunction with Small Volume
Provers, for simultaneous calibration of flowmeters and pipe provers at site locations.
The meter was calibrated over the flowrange 5 to 35 l/s with the results shown in Table 1
and Figure 3. Each test point consisted of one run of the SVP, each run entailed ten
passes of the SVP piston. Repeatability test points were completed at 10 and 30 l/s. The
linearity of both SVP and NEL gravimetric calibrations, over this flowrange, was nominally
0.05% with repeatability of each set of results typically within 0.01% except at the lower
flowrates where this figure increased to 0.06%. These results are typical of a turbine
meter calibration. The ‘standard’ pulse counting method was used.
The comparison between SVP and Gravimetric system results is generally within 0.015%.
This falls within the expected comparison figures between the two systems.
6.2 Danfoss 4-inch Nominal Bore Ultrasonic Meter
This meter was a two path meter supplied with a Danfoss Sonoflo 3000 flow transmitter
mounted on the meter casing. The meter was zeroed under operating conditions, as
recommended by manufacturer, immediately prior to the first test point. Installation of the
meter was completed according to manufacturer’s recommendations.
The meter was calibrated over a 10 - 35 l/s flowrange with the results shown in Table 2
and Figure 4. Based on the comments received from our survey it was anticipated that
problems may be witnessed during the calibration of this meter against the SVP. Industry
opinion stated that they were not confident that the pulse output from this type of meter
would be suitable for calibration against a SVP.
To enable this to be quantified the meter was calibrated using the ‘standard’ and
‘extended’ pulse counting methods.
The individual calibration results from the meter using the SVP and NEL gravimetric
system, using both gating methods, are shown in Figure 4. The calibration curve from the
NEL gravimetric system is typical of this type of meter, with meter K-factor increasing by
nominally 2% as the flowrate decreases over the calibration range. These results can be
compared with the SVP calibration curve which shows a systematic and almost parallel
shift of 0.35% from the gravimetric system calibration.
The test meter’s K-factor repeatability from the SVP and gravimetric system results is
0.2%. This is within the manufacturer’s specification.
The systematic shift between test facility calibration curves can be explained by the
possibility of the NEL gravimetric system missing pulses from the test meter. The use of
both pulse counting systems enabled this to be quantified. Operator suspicions were
confirmed when the use of the ‘extended’ pulse gating system demonstrated that the test
meter was outputting pulses up to four seconds after the weightank inlet valve had closed.
Project No: OSDC53

Figure 4 demonstrates that data collected from the NEL ‘extended’ pulse gated system
corresponds to the data simultaneously taken by the SVP. This shows that this type of
meter is not suitable for calibration using standing start stop calibration systems utilising
pulse gating directly from valve actuation.
6.3 Smith 3-inch Nominal Bore Positive Displacement Meter
This meter is a sliding vane meter with a pulse signal mechanism attached to an extended
gear shaft. This signal was amplified by an onboard amplifier prior to output to SVP and
NEL gravimetric data acquisition systems.
The meter was calibrated over the flowrange 3 - 30 l/s.
The pulse counter used by the NEL data acquisition system was used in conjunction with
a manually operated gating signal. This allowed the pulse counter gate to be opened prior
to the NEL weighbridge inlet valve opening and to remain open following the inlet valve
closure. This allowed all of the test meter’s generated pulses to be collected and alleviate
the problem previously encountered with the Danfoss ultrasonic meter.
The results are shown in Table 3 and Figure 5.
The NEL gravimetric system results show K-factor repeatability figures of less than 0.02%
at nominal flowrates of 7 l/s and 23 l/s. The K-factor increased by 0.1% between 30 l/s
and 7.5 l/s before decreasing to a K-factor similar to 30 l/s at very low flowrates.
This calibration curve is typical of this type of meter and is repeated on the SVP calibration
curve although a drop in K-factor of nominally 0.03% is witnessed across the flowrange.
This is within the expected accuracy of this type of meter.
6.4 Fisher Rosemount 3-inch Nominal Bore CMF300 Coriolis Mass Meter
This meter is a ‘U tube’ design and operates using a 9739 remote flow transmitter (RFT).
The pulse output signal from the RFT was used to calibrate this meter against the SVP
and NEL gravimetric weighing systems.
During initial set up of this meter the pulse counter was operated on ‘extended’ gating,
where the test meter’s pulse output was witnessed to continue outputting pulse counts ten
seconds after the weightank inlet valve had closed. This method of pulse gating was used
for the remainder of this meter’s tests.
The results of the simultaneous calibration of this meter using the SVP and gravimetric
weighing system are shown in Table 4 and Figure 6.
The calibration produced from the gravimetric system shows a repeatability and linearity of
0.04%. The SVP calibration data shows similar results at above 25 l/s but as the flowrate
falls the spread of SVP K-factor results gradually increases to 0.7% at 5 l/s. This may be
caused by delayed pulse output from test meter electronics. This will be investigated later
in this project.
Project No: OSDC53

6.5 Conclusions
Using the SVP as a calibration facility while simultaneously calibrating each test meter
against the National Standard enabled data from both sources to be compared.
The calibration of turbine meters using SVPs is well documented with the Brooks meter
performing as expected with repeatability of better than 0.02% and comparison to the
National Standard facility within 0.01%. Points taken at 10 l/s which had slightly higher
repeatability may be due to a flowrate which equates to the typical transition period, where
the turbine meter’s K-factor peaks before falling at the bottom end of the meter’s
flowrange.
By using the ‘extended’ pulse gating system all Danfoss ultrasonic meter pulses were
collected by the National Standard facility data acquisition system. The comparison
between the SVP calibration and the automatic gating system, taken from the National
Standard facility weightank inlet valve operation, showed a parallel shift in calibration
curve. When the manual gating system was utilised the calibration data overlapped the
corresponding SVP derived K-factor. This information will be vital to future ultrasonic
meter calibration work. The calibration data produced by this meter was typical of a meter
of this type (see DTI project number OSDS37, Report No 35/96).
The Smith positive displacement meter, when compared with the National Standard
facility, showed a parallel K-factor shift of nominally 0.03%. This is within the expected
uncertainty of both gravimetric and SVP calibration methods. The SVP repeatability data
points showed a K-factor spread of 0.007% compared with the gravimetric facility spread
of 0.03%.
The Micromotion Coriolis mass meter produced a typical calibration when using the
National Standard facility. The SVP data shows poor repeatability and a greater spread of
K-factor results over the calibration flowrange. The pulse output from the mass meter
required to be used on the National Standard manual pulse gating system due to the ‘run-
on’ of pulse output after the weightank inlet valve was operated.
7 NUMBER OF SVP PISTON PASSES VERSUS TEST METER REPEATABILITY
From the initial survey it was discovered that SVP users and operators had shown concern
regarding the effect of the number of SVP piston passes on the repeatability of flowmeters.
For site calibrations it is generally recommended that between five and ten passes of the
SVP piston are carried out per run. This allows for an effective mathematical standard
deviation to be computed on each set of results. Obviously the number of passes has a
primary effect on the overall test time. It is therefore beneficial for both SVP operator and
client to perform the correct number of passes, to enable accurate calculation of meter
performance, within the shortest time. Short time scales also prevent the need for large
fluid volumes, should the test meter require calibration in product.
To enable this problem to be quantified each meter was tested against the SVP at a
nominal flowrate of 25 l/s. This flowrate is representative of where this type and size of
meter would be used in operation.
Project No: OSDC53

One, five, ten and twenty pass per run samples were completed with each increasing pass
number running consecutively with the previous sample. This ensured that the test
conditions remained constant throughout each meter’s test period. Six test points were
recorded at each of one, five, ten and twenty passes per run with a SVP K-factor
calculation being completed for each run.
The test results from this meter are shown in Table 5 and Figure 7. A nominal flowrate of
28 l/s was set and the initial six test points, each point entailing one pass, were completed.
This produced a 0.004% spread in K-factor results over the six test points. Test data at
five passes per run provided a K-factor spread of 0.006%. This figure increased to
0.008% during the ten passes per run and remained at this level during the twenty passes
per run test.
This type of meter is widely used in conjunction with SVPs for site calibrations and hence
the results provided are of a type generally expected. The criteria for acceptance of a
turbine meter for fiscal use is five consecutive runs obtaining an overall spread in K-factor
results of 0.02%.
The results from the one pass per run tests demonstrate that this number of runs is
statistically unsatisfactory. There is not enough data to provide a useable statistical
analysis of the meter’s performance.
A K-factor spread of 0.006% was obtained from the five passes per run test with the ten
and twenty pass per run providing a K-factor spread of 0.008%.
This demonstrates that, with a SVP operated at five passes per run, this meter could
provide a satisfactory repeatability but statistically the use of ten passes per run is more
satisfactory even with the slight increase in K-factor spread. Twenty passes per run would
increase the test time to unacceptable levels with no great advantage over ten passes per
run.
A nominal flowrate of 29 l/s was set and the initial six test points at one pass per run were
completed. This produced a 0.7% spread in K-factor results over the six test points. Test
data at five passes per run provided a K-factor spread of 0.33%. This figure decreased to
0.24% during the ten passes per run test with a further reduction to 0.18% during the
twenty passes per run test. The test results from this meter are shown in Table 6 and
Figure 8.
7.3 Smith 3-inch Positive Nominal Bore Displacement Meter
This test was completed at a nominal flowrate of 27 l/s and the results are shown in Table
7 and Figure 9.
At one pass per test point a K-factor spread of 0.009% was obtained. This decreased to
0.007% for five passes per run, increased to 0.01% for ten passes per run with a final
spread of 0.007% during the twenty passes per run tests.
Project No: OSDC53

Positive displacement meters are regularly used for service where repeatability is of prime
importance. The results of this test demonstrate justification for this.
7.4 Fisher-Rosemount 3-inch Nominal Bore CMF300 Coriolis Mass Meter
This test series was carried out at a nominal flowrate of 23 l/s. The initial six test points at
one pass per run were completed. This produced a 0.12% spread in K-factor results over
the six test points. Test data at five passes per run provided a K-factor spread of 0.04%.
This figure increased to 0.05% during the ten passes per run test but reduced to 0.03%
during the twenty passes per run test. The test results from this meter are shown in Table
8 and Figure 10.
This indicates that this meter’s performance is unaffected by the number of passes
provided that there is ample number to provide a statistical analysis, with five being a
suggested minimum.
7.5 Conclusions
The Brooks turbine meter repeatability was smallest at 1 pass per run with the
repeatability figure getting gradually larger as the number of passes per run increased.
The figure obtained from the twenty passes per run is half the fiscal metering acceptance
criteria. Operating at ten passes per run would produce an acceptable repeatability figure
and allow optimum time usage of the facility.
At ten passes per run the Danfoss ultrasonic meter results concur with the initial
repeatability figure of 0.24% at a similar flowrate. The repeatability value decreases from
0.7% to 0.18% over the 1 run per pass to twenty runs per pass suggesting that this meter
would benefit from the increased number of runs. When comparing ten passes per run, at
0.24%, to twenty passes, at 0.17%, the reduction is considerable enough and could merit
the increased time involved in completing the entire prover operation with a larger number
of passes. It should be stressed that the repeatability figures obtained during this test
suggest that this type of meter would be, at present, unsuitable for fiscal use.
Positive displacement meters generally have good repeatability but experience has
previously shown that the introduction of gear and linkage mechanisms can cause poor
repeatability when this type of meter is calibrated using an SVP. The Smith meter used in
this project did not demonstrate this problem. K-factor repeatability figures varied from
0.009%, at 1 pass per run, to 0.007% at twenty passes per run. A K-factor spread of
0.01% was achieved at ten passes per run but this was mainly due to one point, from six,
producing a larger K-factor than the other five and hence increasing the overall spread.
Without this point the K-factor spread would have been similar to the other pass per run
tests.
The Micromotion Coriolis mass meter showed improved repeatability when compared with
the data produced from the initial calibration. K-factor repeatability figures were reduced
to nominally 0.04% during the five, ten and twenty pass per run tests with the 1 pass per
run test being 0.12%.
The Smith PD meter produced the best repeatability figures of the meters tested, closely
followed by the Brooks turbine both of which could be utilised for fiscal use. The
repeatability of the ultrasonic and mass meters was above the 0.02% fiscal acceptance
criteria, although the mass meter may achieve this level at higher flowrates. This may be
due to the method of pulse output from these meters.
Project No: OSDC53

8 PLENUM PRESSURE VERSUS TEST METER REPEATABILITY
Survey results showed SVP user concern regarding the effect of SVP plenum pressure on
test meter repeatability. It was suspected that during site tests SVP operators may not set
the SVP plenum pressure at the manufacturer’s recommended pressure, which is
dependent on test line pressure. If plenum pressures were set at levels many times
greater than the test line pressure the SVP piston could be launched past the first
measurement optical switch at a greater velocity than the test fluid would normally allow.
This could cause a pressure surge effect on the meter performance. If the plenum
pressure flowrate was set too low the SVP poppet valve may not be fully closed at the time
of passing the first optical measurement switch.
Prior to operation the manufacturer’s recommended plenum pressure was based on a

formula incorporating the test fluid operating pressure. The operation of the plenum was
previously described in the report introduction. The plenum pressure is used to ensure
that the piston poppet valve is closed prior to the piston passing the initial measuring
optical switch with the test fluid pushing the piston through the calibrated volume in the
SVP.
Brooks Plenum Pressure formula:
prover inlet pressure

Plenum pressure = + 60 ( psi )
5.0
This equation was used throughout the test program with the exception of intentional
resetting of the plenum pressure during this test phase.
This test phase involved two individual tests. Each test concentrated on one aspect of the
plenum pressure’s possible effect on the test meter performance.
Initially each test meter was tested using the SVP as the reference instrument at a fluid
inlet pressure of 2.5 bar and the plenum pressure set according to the above equation.
Six test points were completed entailing ten passes per run. The plenum pressure was
then adjusted to 7.5 bar, 10 bar and 2.5 bar with the process being repeated at each
plenum pressure.
Following each plenum pressure test the SVP was programmed to complete a number of
piston passes. A National Instruments “Labview” software program was run
simultaneously to establish the test meter output frequency versus time over the three
passes. This was repeated at each plenum pressure and also with the SVP piston at idle
and switched off.
This enabled a graph to be plotted for each test meter detailing the effect of plenum
pressure at all operating conditions on meter frequency output.
Project No: OSDC53

The initial test results using the SVP are shown in Table 9 and Figure 11. The spread of
K-factor results shown in Figure 11 indicates that this meter is not affected by plenum
pressure below a value of 10 bar. Here the spread in K-factor increases from 0.004% at 5
bar to 0.007% at 10 bar. This effect could be reflected in the possible implications for the
meter’s overall repeatability should the plenum pressure be set at a much higher level than
the manufacturer’s equation suggests. If this situation occurred the meter’s ability to
achieve the repeatability criteria for fiscal measurement could be impaired.
The Labview analysis, Figure 12, shows that the frequency output remains constant, for all
plenum pressure settings, during the SVP piston travel irrespective of prover piston
passes.
The SVP reference test details are shown in Table 10 and Figure 13. These detail the
effect of plenum pressure on the repeatability of the Danfoss meter K-factor results.
Figure 13 shows the spread of K-factor results increasing from 0.15% to 0.21% as the
plenum pressure increased from 2.5 bar to 5 bar. The spread of K-factor results at 7.5 bar
plenum pressure was 0.35%, although this was exaggerated due to one point producing a
K-factor 0.2% lower than the other five at this plenum pressure. The K-factor spread at 10
bar returned to 0.15%. The meter’s performance showed a slight plenum pressure effect
especially between too low a plenum pressure and the manufacturer’s recommended
setting.
Figure 14 shows the Labview analysis of the meter’s frequency output versus time when
the prover was operating over three passes and when the prover was in the idle position
and switched off.
The meter frequency output when the SVP is off and at the idle position, SVP on and
piston ready to launch, show similar results. When the plenum pressure was set to 2.5 bar
the frequency reduced by 3.6% and produced an increase of 2% during the piston’s travel
between launch and return strokes. This result was similar to a plenum pressure setting of
7.5 bar. This represents a 2.5 bar increase to the manufacturer’s recommended plenum
pressure setting, although there was an overall rise of 3% during the piston travel between
measurement switches at this plenum pressure.
At plenum pressures of 7.5 bar and 10 bar the results return to the same frequency as the
initial piston idle frequency but produce a further increase of 2.4% during the piston travel
between launch and return.
The initial test results using the SVP as the reference are shown in Table 11. A nominal
flowrate of 256 l/s was selected and six points were completed each entailing ten passes
per point.
Figure 15 shows these results in graphical form. The 2 bar plenum pressure results
produced a spread in K-factor results of 0.01%. This reduced to 0.006% during the 5 bar
plenum pressure results. The 7.5 bar and 10 bar plenum pressure results produced K-
factor spreads of 0.01% and 0.007% respectively.
Project No: OSDC53

The results from this test show that this meter’s repeatability was slightly affected by the
plenum pressure. The manufacturer’s recommended plenum pressure of 5 bar produced
the smallest K-factor spread although the difference in K-factor spread throughout the
plenum pressure tests was nominal.
The data taken from the Labview software is shown in Figure 16. The test meter
frequency output while the piston was at the idle position remained within 2% throughout
this test series. The frequency data produced from the test meter during the SVP on, but
piston at idle position, show that the meter frequency output increased by 0.5% from SVP
off conditions. The meter’s frequency output during the 2.5 bar plenum pressure test
remained at the same level as the piston idle frequency output although a noticeable rise
of 3% was witnessed during the SVP piston’s launch and return phases. When the
plenum pressure was increased to 5 bar the frequency output increased by 6%, during the
period between piston launch and return, compared with the piston at the idle condition.
The data taken from the 7.5 bar and 10 bar plenum pressures showed further rises of 7%
and 9% respectively during the piston travel.
8.4. Fisher Rosemount 3-inch Nominal Bore CMF300 Coriolis Mass Meter
This meter’s results are shown in Table 12 and Figure 17. The results from the 2 bar
plenum pressure tests show a spread in K-factor results of 0.05%. This figure was
repeated during the 5 bar plenum pressure results. The 7.5 bar plenum pressure results
indicate an increase in K-factor spread to 0.09% before the K-factor spread returns to
0.05% at 10 bar plenum pressure.
The data from the Labview software, Figure 18, shows the meter frequency output when
the SVP was off and when the SVP was at the piston idle position to be comparable.
When the piston was travelling between launch and return strokes, at 2.5 bar plenum
pressure, the meter frequency output showed a rise of 2%. The rise in frequency at 5 bar
plenum pressure was 3% although the time periods outwith launch and return strokes
returned to the same frequency levels as previous tests in this series. The rise in
frequency output during piston traverses between launch and return during the 7.5 and 10
bar tests was 5% although there was a systematic shift of 1.25% between the plenum
pressure tests.
8.5 Conclusions
The effect of plenum pressure on the repeatability of turbine meters was one of the main
areas that our survey required NEL to investigate. The performance of the Brooks turbine
meter indicates that the effect of plenum pressure would only be detectable, but not
significant, if it was set at a much higher level than the manufacturer specifies. NEL’s data
shows a plenum pressure of 10 bar, double the manufacturer’s recommendation,
producing K-factor repeatability of 0.007% with a fiscal acceptance criteria of 0.02%.
Fluctuations in the frequency output of the test meter throughout this test series were
negligible.
The effect of plenum pressure on the Danfoss ultrasonic meter showed improved
repeatability at the higher, 10 bar, plenum pressure. The test meter frequency output
analysis showed a definite frequency rise during the SVP piston travel time although this
was not pressure related as the increase in frequency was constant throughout the
plenum pressure tests.
Project No: OSDC53

K-factor figures from the Smith positive displacement meter suggest that the meter’s
repeatability was not affected by plenum pressure settings. The frequency output did
show continuous increase dependent on plenum pressure although this obviously had no
effect on the meter’s performance.
The Micromotion mass meter shows no significant effect of plenum pressure on K-factor
repeatability with only a slight increase during the 7.5 bar plenum setting. The frequency
output data does show that the test meter output during the SVP piston travel increased to
higher levels dependant on the plenum pressure. The increase in frequency at each
piston travel remains constant for each plenum pressure setting and therefore has no
effect on individual pass repeatability.
9 PULSE OUTPUT FROM TEST METERS DURING SVP PISTON PASSES

BETWEEN OPTICAL MEASUREMENT SWITCHES
This test series utilised National Instruments “Labview” software to quantify each test
meter’s pulse output frequency during four passes of the SVP piston. The voltage signal
from the optical measurement switch, normally used by the BCPE pulse counter, was
used to trigger a Labview monitor window. Another Labview window collected the pulse
output from the test meter. Both monitoring windows operated simultaneously and on
real-time mode. This allowed the SVP piston traverse to be monitored over the four
passes simultaneously and the first measurement switch voltage output to be
superimposed.
Each pass of the SVP piston is indicated by the voltage output from the first measurement
switch, both on the proving and return strokes. The actuation of the first measurement
switch, and therefore SVP counters, is indicated by a voltage increase on the piston
proving/return voltage line.
All test data was carried out with a line pressure of 2.5 bar, plenum pressure of 5 bar and
a nominal test fluid temperature of 20ºC.
The results from this meter’s test is shown in Figure 19.
This meters frequency output does not alter significantly during the SVP piston cycle.
Although there is some fluctuation in the meter’s frequency output over the indicated test
time, this is similar to that experienced during the plenum pressure test series.
The Danfoss ultrasonic meter results are shown in Figure 20. This demonstrates the rise
in meter output frequency coinciding with the launch of the SVP piston.
The meter reached its maximum frequency output before the first measurement optic was
reached, in three of the four passes, with the frequency reducing as the piston reaches the
end of the calibrated volume as the effect of plenum pressure reduces. As the SVP piston
returns, past the first optic to the idle position, the frequency output sharply reduced to a
frequency similar to that indicated at piston idle.
Project No: OSDC53

Figure 21 shows the results from this meter’s tests. The frequency output rate remains at
the same level throughout the SVP piston’s travel.
9.4 Fisher Rosemount 3-inch Nominal Bore CMF 300 3-inch Coriolis Mass Meter
The results are shown in Figure 22. This shows the rise in meter output frequency
coinciding with the launch of the SVP piston.
This meter did not reach its maximum frequency output until after the piston passed the
first optical switch. This was demonstrated on all four passes.
This shows the possible pulse output time lag from the meter’s software. The pulse output
remains constant once the maximum output is achieved. As the SVP piston returns, past
the first optic to the idle position, the frequency output sharply reduced to a value similar to
that indicated at the piston idle position.
9.5 Conclusions
The Brooks turbine and Smith positive displacement meter results show that both meter
frequency outputs remained constant throughout the SVP piston proving cycle. This factor
reflects the initial calibration of these types of meter.
The Danfoss ultrasonic meter’s frequency output gradually increases following the SVP
piston launch. The frequency then peaked before the piston reached the first optical
measurement switch and remained at this level throughout the piston traverse of the
prover’s calibrated volume. The meter’s frequency output, during the SVP piston traverse
time, shows an expected gradual decline due to the plenum pressure having less effect as
the piston reaches the end of its travel.
The Micromotion frequency output shows a time difference, of nominally 1.5 seconds,
between reaching its maximum pulse output and the SVP piston passing the first
measurement optic. This demonstrates a pulse output time delay from this meter’s
software and may be the reason for poor test results during the initial calibration of this
meter.
10 ONE PULSE PER REVOLUTION TESTS
The criteria for calculating the minimum number of pulses collected during SVP
calibrations is described in the Section 12, Review of Pulse Interpolation Methods, of this
report. It states that theoretical analysis by modelling has shown that the K-factor error
introduced by pulse variations reduces in proportion to the number of raw pulses, in
accordance with a mathematical square law.
To enable this theory to be analysed, one pulse per revolution tests were carried out on
two turbine meters. One with a proven repeatability and assumed intra-rotational non-
linearity, the other with intentionally damaged rotor blades to provide poor intra-rotational
non-linearity. Reducing the number of raw pulses per revolution without altering the
number of meter revolutions would demonstrate that one pulse per revolution, from the
meter with proven repeatability, should not be altered by the reduction of pulses per
revolution. The meter with poor intra-rotational non-linearity would provide a greater
spread in K-factor repeatability when comparing reduced pulse count per revolution to full
blade pulse counting methods.
Project No: OSDC53

The Brooks 3-inch NB turbine meter was fitted with a ten blade rotor. During one piston
pass between optical detectors the BCPE would record ten pulses per revolution from this
meter’s pulse output.
To enable the effect of one pulse per revolution to be quantified a pulse dividing
mechanism was introduced. This was placed between the pulse output, after amplification
by the meter, and the BCPE’s input. This allowed for real time pulse division.
Three tests were completed at 10 l/s, 20 l/s and 30 l/s. At each flowrate the ten pulses per
revolution test was carried out immediately before the one pulse per revolution test. The
tests were completed consecutively at each flowrate therefore ensuring the test conditions
were constant during each comparison. Each point consisted of one SVP piston run of ten
passes with the average K-factor standard deviation, at each flowrate, expressed as a
percentage of the average flowrate K-factor.
The Brooks 3-inch NB turbine meter results are shown on Table 13. The flowrate
averaged results from the ten pulses per revolution tests produced percentage standard
deviations of 0.004%, 0.003% and 0.009% from 10 l/s, 20 l/s and 30 l/s respectively. The
respective figures for the same flowrates during the one pulse per revolution tests were
0.004%, 0.003% and 0.005%. This shows the spread of K-factor results from the one
pulse per revolution and 10 pulses per revolution tests to be of similar magnitude.
The same test was completed using a Brooks 4-inch NB, twelve blade meter which had its
rotor blades altered. To ensure a poor intra-rotational non-linearity each alternate pair of
blades were pushed together ensuring that the pulsed output from the meter during the
twelve pulses per revolution tests was at an unequal frequency. The pulse divider was
then set to divide by twelve to repeat the previous test. The results are shown on Table
14.
The flowrate-averaged results from the twelve pulses per revolution tests produced
percentage standard deviation of 0.03%, 0.02% and 0.01% from 10 l/s, 20 l/s and 30 l/s
respectively. The respective percentage figures for the same flowrates during the one
pulse per revolution were 0.04%, 0.01% and 0.02%. This shows the spread of results
from the one pulse per revolution tests to be similar to those produced during the twelve
pulses per revolution.
10.1 Conclusions
The results obtained from the 3-inch turbine meter show that reducing the number of pulse
counts per revolution, on a meter with good intra-rotational linearity, does not affect the
repeatability of the meter.
The 4-inch turbine meter, with blades altered to simulate poor intra-rotational non-linearity
should have shown an increased K-factor spread during the reduced pulse per revolution
test. This was only evident at two of the three flowrates. Evaluation of the true time period
between each pulse would have to be completed to enable the pulse reduction theory to
be proved.
Project No: OSDC53

11 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
Of the four meters tested the Brooks turbine and Smith positive displacement meter
produced better repeatability throughout the test series. The initial calibration comparison
using the PD meter utilising the SVP and NEL National Standard facility was only
marginally less accurate, over the flowrange, than the turbine meter. Both meters
performed within their manufacturer’s tolerances during plenum pressure and SVP piston
passes per run tests. The turbine meter showed that reducing the number of passes per
run from ten to five did not produce a significant difference in the meter’s K-factor
repeatability.
One pulse per revolution tests on turbine meters showed that K-factor repeatability was
impaired when rotor blades were damaged, simulating poor intra-rotational non-linearity,
but results from reduced pulses per revolution were inconclusive. This may be improved
by further research into the true time between raw pulses over the flowmeters’ range.
Research into the effect of one pulse per revolution from PD meters would also be
advantageous as they are widely used in bulk loading operations.
Once initial pulse counting problems were solved the Danfoss ultrasonic meter performed
well throughout the test series. This type of meter is becoming more popular within the oil
industry and may supersede the turbine meter in some applications.
The pulse output from the Coriolis mass meter appears to be the cause of poor calibration
and repeatability from this type of meter when calibrated using an SVP. Pulses appear to
be output on a time delay, ie the meter pulse output lags behind real time. Present SVP
electronics do not have the capability to cope with this type of pulse output. Alterations to
the method of pulse output from this type of meter or to the BCPE package on the SVP
may be required before this problem is overcome.
With the exception of the turbine meter the remaining test meters demonstrated a rise in
output frequency during the SVP piston travel. This rise was generally proportional to the
plenum pressure.
Increasing the number of SVP piston passes per run generally increased the repeatability
of test meter K-factor results particularly when using the Danfoss ultrasonic meter.
Alteration to the present operation method, to account for the possible improvement in
repeatability, would have to be considered in conjunction with operating conditions at the
time of meter proving. This would account for volume of calibration fluid available, proving
timescale etc.
For experimental purposes the analysis of pulse output during SVP piston travel,
especially for ultrasonic and mass meters, could be improved with increased data
sampling frequency. This would increase the 0.05 second sample rate available during
this test series. Data analysis would also be improved with the addition of additional
software voltage inputs to allow for the output of the second optical measurement switch.
Further analysis of true pulse time intervals of meters utilising rotating parts could lead to
revised industry standards regarding number of pulses required during one pass of the
SVP piston.
Project No: OSDC53

12 REVIEW OF PULSE INTERPOLATION METHODS
What is pulse interpolation and why is it needed ?
Pulse interpolation covers a range of techniques used to enhance the resolution of the
pulsed output from an instrument and in the context of this document, a flowmeter. The
technique is usually applied to allow calibration using a smaller volume of liquid than might
conventionally be needed. Generally, flowmeters with a low resolution are accurate and
provide more than adequate resolution to meter bulk quantities of product. If only enough
fluid can be collected during calibration to generate say 100 pulses, the resolution error is
1%. For fiscal and high quality meters this is unacceptable and standards normally call for
a minimum of 10000 pulses to be collected to reduce the resolution error to 0.01%. To
achieve this calibration tanks or meter provers require volumes large enough to allow this
10000 pulse criteria to be exceeded. These large volumes lead to high cost through
capital and the size and weight needed for the equipment are substantial. With the design
of small volume provers, it was found that a small calibration volume could be measured
very accurately even at high flowrates which left the problem of how to increase the
resolution of the flowmeters to match the volume capability of the provers.
One way of overcoming this problem is to re-design flowmeters to provide increased

resolution. This is impractical for many technical and economic reasons. The second
approach is to artificially increase the resolution of the meters by utilising pulse
interpolation.
This review outlines the current methods of pulse interpolation, gives their limitations and
discusses their use with small volume provers. Potential new methods and enhancements
to the techniques are also discussed. Although the review is written around current
techniques for calibrating flowmeters using small volume pipe provers, hopefully it will not
be restricted to this and it is left to the reader’s interpretation on how the techniques could
be applied to other metrological requirements.
Are we talking the same language?
Starting with the title - Pulse Interpolation is not commonly used in conversation and
therefore some definitions and glossary are required.
Clock: Normally used to tell the time - but for this application it is the device used to
generate a stable frequency, the period of which is used as a standard reference for time
measurements.
Detector signal: The signal which starts or stops the indicating device, pulse counters or
clock totalisers. These signals are normally generated by micro-switches or optical
detectors. They indicate the passage of the displacer, hence marking the calibrated
volume.
Rotational linearity: This describes the variation in pulse widths or spacing which occur
in the output of a flowmeter caused by mechanical, electronic and flowrate variations.
Although the terms were defined for rotating meters such as turbines and positive
displacement meters, they have been adopted to cover variations in pulse widths from
non-rotating meters such as vortex, Coriolis etc.
Project No: OSDC53

Intra-rotational linearity: Quantitative measure of the degree of regularity of spacing

between the pulses, produced by a rotating meter at constant flowrate, generally
expressed as the standard deviation of pulse spacing about the mean pulse spacing.
This measure will include cyclic and non-cyclic measurements introduced by the meter
mechanism. The pulse spacing is the time between the leading or lagging edges of
consecutive pulses.
Inter-rotational linearity: The regularity of measurement which repeats in a periodic or

cyclic manner attributed to the rotation of the meter.
Leading/lagging edge: Rising or falling voltage of a pulse signal generated by a detector

trigger or ‘gate’ counter.
Phase detector: Electronic circuit which detects a phase difference between two
frequencies.
Ramp generator: Electronic circuit whose output voltage varies in a controlled way with
time. This variation can be linear or shaped in a controlled way although only linear
versions are known to be applied to this technology. The generator can be single pass,
repeating, or set to increase then decrease in a cyclic fashion as required.
Repeatability (of a measuring instrument): Closeness of the agreement between the

results of successive measurements of the same measurand carried out under the same
conditions of measurement (VIM).
NOTE: The defined conditions of use are usually as follows:

• repetition over a short period of time;
• use at the same location under constant ambient conditions;
• reduction to a minimum of the variations due to the observer.
Resolution: Quantitative expression of the ability of an indicating device to distinguish

meaningfully between closely adjacent values of the quantity indicated (VIM).
Rotating meter: Meter, the measuring element of which has one or more rotating parts
driven by the flowing fluid (eg turbine meters and displacement meters).
Note: (VIM) denotes the definition is taken from the International Vocabulary of Basic
and General Terms in Metrology.
How do you do it?
Three basic concepts are used to provide pulse interpolation: timing methods, pulse
multiplication and computer methods.
Project No: OSDC53

Timing methods
All timing methods are based on the principle that detector signals will occur part-way
through an output pulse period. The first detector or gate signal occurs at the beginning
and the second at the end of the calibration pass. It is also assumed that the period of a
pulse is equivalent to a consistent and known volume but the pulse event is only recorded
at one edge of the pulse. If the proportion of each pulse missed before or after the gate
signal can be measured, a increase in resolution is derived. Two techniques are used
with two variants of the second one.
Double-timing or double chronometery
This is by far the most common method employed in practice on commercially available
flow computers and small volume provers. It was pioneered on ‘conventional’ (large
volume) pipe provers in France where very low resolution turbine meters were used for
bulk custody transfer and even conventional provers could not collect enough fluid
economically.
The principle of this method is shown below. The total number of complete meter pulses,
n, generated during a proving run are counted as would normally take place in any
proving operation. Two time intervals are also measured - T1 and T2.
a) T1, is the time-interval between the first meter pulse following the first detector
signal and the first meter pulse following the last detector signal.
b) T2, is the time-interval between the first and last detector signals. This is the time
normally measured to derive flowrate.
The interpolated number of pulses is given by:
T2
n′ = n .
T1
This method, due to the simplicity of the circuitry is by far the most common pulse
interpolation method used in practice. A high precision clock, two totalisers for the time
measurement and one totaliser for the meter pulses along with fairly simple gating is all
that is required.
In terms of performance when the pulse widths vary, the method is not quite as good as
the quadruple-timing method but the difference is marginal and is normally not
considered worth the extra circuitry involved in using the quadruple method as given
below. It is much superior to the simple Quadruple timing method.
Quadruple-timing.
Two variants of the quadruple-timing method of interpolation are possible. The simple
method described at the end of this section is not advised but included as it may be found
in older systems. This, the first variant, provides slightly better performance than double
chronometry while the second variant is significantly poorer. Both require more complex
electronics but the first preferred method is by far the most complex as it requires
anticipatory circuits.
Project No: OSDC53

The principle of operation of the first variant is shown below. The total number of
complete meter pulses, n, generated during a proving run are counted as would normally
take place. Five time intervals are also measured t1, t2, t3, t4 and T2.
a) t1, is the time-interval between the first detector signal and the first meter pulse
following that signal: ie the fraction of the pulse remaining after the first detector is
actuated.
b) t2, is the time-interval between the last meter pulse before the first detector signal
and the first meter pulse after it: ie the width of the pulse present when the first detector
switch is activated.
c) t3, is the time-interval between the second detector signal and the first meter pulse
following that signal: ie the fraction of the pulse remaining after the second detector is
actuated.
d) t4, is the time-interval between the last meter pulse before the second detector
signal and the first meter pulse after it: ie the width of the pulse present when the second
detector is actuated.
e) T2, is the time between detectors to allow calculation of flowrate. This is not used
in the interpolation process.
The number of complete pulses, n, in the main pulse count is counted in the normal way
by a counter gated by the detector signals.
The interpolated number of pulses, n1, between the detector signals is then:
t1 t 3
n1 = n + − .
t2 t4
This method does offer an advantage over the double timing method where intra-
rotational linearity (pulse variations) becomes an issue. A counter, clock and five timer
totalisers are required along with quite complex gating circuits. As the circuitry has to
anticipate the occurrence of the detector signal to allow t2 and t4 to be measured, the
problem is obvious. Although showing improved performance over double chronometry,
most applications do not find the complexity gives any significant advantage to this
method.
The second variant is a simpler form of quadruple timing used to be utilised to avoid the
anticipatory circuits. In this t1 and t3 are the times of the first pulses after detectors rather
than the times of the pulses present when the detector is actuated. As this method
clearly gives larger errors in the presence of varying pulse widths: ie poor intra-rotational
linearity, this simple method is no longer advised.
Pulse multiplication or phase-locked-loop?
At first sight this method, being radically different from the timing methods, provides a
simpler solution to increasing resolution. The concept is to multiply the output frequency
from the meter by a factor to produce a measured pulse frequency suitably higher than
the meter frequency. Calibration can then take place conventionally with no requirement
for extra counters, timers and calculations.
Project No: OSDC53

The pulses from the meter are introduced to input 1 of the phase comparator. This
device produces a voltage proportional to the difference in phase (frequency) of the two
inputs. This output voltage is passed to the voltage controlled oscillator (VCO). This
device generates a frequency which is proportional to the input voltage and is chosen to
provide a frequency range larger by a suitable factor than the meter frequency.
The output signal of the VCO is fed back, through a frequency divider, to input 2 of the
phase comparator. As the output voltage of the phase comparator is proportional to the
difference in phase (or frequency) between its two inputs, the output of the VCO is
continually being servo-controlled to ensure that the frequency and phase of the two
inputs are identical. As the frequency divisor has reduced the output frequency from the
VCO by the given factor, this factor is in fact the multiplication factor for the system. The
selection of frequency divisor, R, thus determines the pulse interpolation divisor.
The interpolated number of pulses collected during the proving run is normally expressed
as:
n*
n1 = .
R
Where n* is the number of multiplied pulses collected from the multiphase output and R is
the selected divisor (or multiplication factor).
In many ways this method seems at first sight to be by far the best solution to
interpolation as the output frequency is simply a multiple of the input hence increasing
meter resolution. Unfortunately, to achieve precise control of the feedback loop, it is
necessary to filter the output of the phase comparator to avoid sudden VCO changes and
hence instability of the output frequency. This filter, normally of the simple RC type, has
the property of momentarily retaining the voltage required by the VCO to maintain R times
the meter frequency between each phase comparison. Selection of the filter’s time
constant is where the problem lies. If the time constant is too short, the output frequency
can become unstable. If the time constant is too long, the output frequency will not track
changes in the input frequency due to legitimate changes in the measured parameter
such as a flowrate changes caused by the prover launch.
It is this lack of precise control of the filter circuits across a range of frequencies,
(flowrates and meter types) and in the presence of poor intra-rotational linearity that has
lost this method popularity.
Computer methods - the future?
As yet no known methods are in production other than those given above but it is
possible that other techniques could be evolved to utilise the advances in high speed
computing and counting.
With the rapid development of high speed computer data acquisition and calculation
techniques, the potential of developing methods based on monitoring and correcting for
the time of every pulse from the meter and therefore deriving the fraction of a pulse
missed or gained relative to the average volume for that individual pulse becomes
possible. Similarly the potential for producing a multiplied frequency output based on the
input pulse frequency corrected for inter- and intra-rotational linearity becomes
theoretically possible.
Project No: OSDC53

If multiple counters or a microprocessor based system was used to time the period of
each consecutive pulse from the flowmeter and these times are collected in a controller
along with the position of the meter prover switch operation in the time frame, full
information about the volume/pulse time can be derived and a profile of the meter
performance giving average volume per pulse or volume per revolution can be provided.
From this data a high quality indication of the meter performance in terms of short and
long term repeatability can be provided as well as potentially a characterisation of the
prover or flow system being used.
Clearly this is a very powerful technique but the hardware and software have not been
developed to allow any commercial application of the techniques. No further guidance is
given to this method’s application.
How do you design and use the timing methods?
a) Resolution
The resolution of the final interpolated pulse count for high accuracy flow measurement
calibrations should in all instances be better than 1 in 10000. As this criteria relates to
the meter under test, its resolution and the volume of the calibrator, this is not an absolute
criterion but one which must be looked at for each application.
b) Number of significant digits for the interpolated number of pulses, n′
The interpolated number of pulses, n′, generated by the timing methods is not a whole
number. For the timing methods which yield a fractional result, there will be a practical
limit on the number of decimal places which are used for n′. The number of significant
figures used to finally express n′ should not exceed the number allowed by the resolution
of clock and counters used even though a greater number may be generated by the
calculation. In practice, for fiscal metering of oils, ISO 7278/3 states that n′ should be
rounded to five significant digits, not more and not less.
c) Detector switch signal
The switching edge from the detector should be well defined and repeatable (some
mechanical switches produce signals with non-repeatable lagging edges due to switch
bounce). It is necessary to define and use the same switching edge in all operations.
d) Clock stability
With modern electronic clocks and the relatively short times involved, stability should not
be a concern. It is essential that during the design and use of the equipment that the
chosen clock does actually have a stability commensurate with the required resolution.
e) Timer resolution
To ensure that the resolution of the interpolated pulses meets the 1 part in 10000 criteria,
the clock frequency must be suitably high.
Project No: OSDC53

For double chronometry method, the period of the test, ie the time T2 , should be at least
20000 times greater than the reference period tc of the clock (ie the reciprocal of the clock
frequency) used to measure the time-intervals.
That is:
n 20000 20000
T2 ≥ 20000tc therefore ≥ therefore fc ≥ fm
fm fc n
where fm is the maximum meter test frequency,
fc is the clock frequency, and
n is the number of pulses collected during the proving run.
For the Quadruple timing method the period of the test, ie the time T2, should be at least
40000 times greater than the reference period tc of the clock (ie the reciprocal of the clock
frequency) used to measure the time-intervals. This gives by a similar analyses to the
double chronometry
40000
fc ≥ fm
n
Conditions of use and design criteria for the phase-locked-loop method
a) Frequency (locking) range
Any phase locked loop circuit will only operate over a limited frequency range. The
operating frequency range should always fully cover the frequency expected from the
meters being used.
NOTE: A minimum frequency rangeability of at least 100 to 1 is recommended for any

phase locked loop system to be used for pulse interpolation.
b) Resolution
To obtain a resolution better than ± 0.01% the count n* should be equal to or greater than
10000 pulses.
The great unknowns
The use of pulse interpolation is based on the assumption that there is not a significant
variation in the frequency of the pulses during the calibration period. Any variations in
frequency will degrade the accuracy. Variations in the pulse frequency come from many
sources and the variations can themselves be random, short term repeatable patterns,
longer term cyclic changes, longer term drift or sudden step changes. The causes can
come from many sources. Flowrate instabilities, uneven spacing of the mechanical
assembly of the meter, inconsistencies in gearing, correction changes in the flowmeter
software generating the frequency are all examples. To complicate things in any one
installation a number of different causes can exist at the same time.
Project No: OSDC53

Stability of flowrate
Pulse interpolation methods are based on the assumption that the frequency from the
flowmeter is stable during the time of the proving pass. Any change in flowrate will be
shown as a change in meter frequency (and pulse period). Stability of flow can be
difficult to achieve and measure. Clearly any fluctuations in flow are undesirable but for
practical guidance the standards call for the fluctuations in the flowrate, during a pass of a
prover displacer, to be less than ±2% of the mean flowrate. It presumed by current
thinking that a slow drift in flowrate will be more acceptable to pulse interpolation than
short duration changes which may be produced by pulsations or surging.
One particular flowrate change occurs when the prover displacer is launched. The time
between launch and the first detector must be long enough to allow the meter output to
stabilise to the new flowrate before the first measurement detector is reached. This is not
usually a problem for fast response turbine and PD meters but microprocessor based
meters often have long time constants on the output even if the meter sensor responds
quickly.
Other sources of pulse fluctuation
In an ideal meter, when operating at a constant flowrate, the emitted pulses will have a
constant period. In practice, the spacing of pulses will be somewhat irregular, owing to
intra- (and inter-) rotational linearity and other random fluctuations.
Pulse spacing can vary in three distinct ways. These are not exclusive and are frequently
present in the same meter.
a) A random variation of pulse widths is often caused by meter bearing variations,

output from a vortex meter or gearing backlash. Pulse widths can vary by 1 to 20% or
more depending on the cause.
b) A random variation of pulse widths but repeated during each revolution of the
meter. This is the second level of fluctuation and is usually associated with turbine
flowmeters where the spacing between the blades is uneven but clearly repeats as the
meter rotates. In general the number of pulses in the repeating pattern is low (4-10) but
could be greater in the case of rim type turbines. Variations in pulse widths tend to be in
the 4 to10% region.
c) A long cyclic variation of pulse width often associated with PD meters where the
rotation of the meter produces a cyclic increase and decrease in pulse width during the
rotation of the meter rotor or gearing. Variation of the pulse widths occurs with a period
of tens or hundreds of pulses. Variations are seen in the 5-30% level. In practice these
distinctive features can be superimposed and are of very different magnitudes.
Project No: OSDC53

What does this mean?
Variations in pulse widths reduce the accuracy of a pulse interpolation system. The
greater the degree of irregularity, the more random error is introduced in the interpolated
figure and this can only be counteracted by collecting more raw pulses during a proving
run. Even this is not exactly true because it is found that the relationship between the
number of pulses, the pulse variation and the random error is asymptotic and as a result
at high pulse fluctuations, no significant improvements can be made by increasing the
number of pulses collected and in fact lower error can be achieved by counting raw
pulses.
It has often been noted in practice that not always does poor repeatability on a calibration
using pulse interpolation indicate a poor meter. The same meter may give good
repeatability when calibrated against a large volume with no interpolation.
What do we do?
Clearly the minimum number of pulses to be collected to provide good proving conditions
has been at the heart of debate on the use of interpolation since its inception as a
flowmeter calibration tool. Even now not enough is known about the effect to lay down
mandatory rules, but if the guidelines given below are followed then the errors resulting
from pulse spacing irregularities are considered unlikely to be very significant. As well as
not being able to lay strict guidelines, in practice, the magnitude of pulse variation is not
generally known, not easily measurable in the field and certainly not quantifiable in terms
of pattern without specialised equipment.
Theoretical analyses by modelling and by statistical analyses have shown that the error
introduced by pulse variations reduces in proportion to the number of raw pulses in
accordance with a square law. It also shows that the number of pulses required to
provide an acceptable proving run is very much smaller for random fluctuations, more for
repeating patterns and very many more for cyclic variations.
Very little published work exists to relate carefully measured pulse variations to the
number of pulses collected and the repeatability of calibration in practice. What does
exist supports the conclusion above, but for all practical test work it appears that better
repeatability is found than is predicted by the theoretical or simulation work.
To assist the user, guidelines have been produced within ISO 7278/3 to advise on the
minimum number of pulses required to give an acceptable calibration with a spread of
results within ±0.02%.
If the pulse intervals scatter in a random manner as described in a) above, the following
equation gives an estimate of the minimum number of pulses required.
nm = 500(σ1)2
where: nm is the recommended minimum of pulses;
σ1 is the standard deviation of the pulse time intervals expressed as a percentage

of the mean pulse interval.
Project No: OSDC53

The constant 500 was derived from theoretical work and field experience and is no doubt
a compromise figure.
Where large degrees of cyclic intra-rotational non-linearity are present, this equation may
underestimate or overestimate the number of pulses required. As the repeatability of the
calibration is a complex function of the standard deviation related to the number of pulses
in the repeating cycle, the nature of the cycle, and the pulses collected in the proving run,
no more detailed guidance can be given.
In all cases it is recommended that more than 100 pulses should be collected in a proving
pass and calibration should be with more than one meter rotation or intra-rotational cycle.
The above guidance is only that - guidance. Many practical results show acceptable
calibrations with fewer pulses than recommended above; others require more.
What else can be done?
When using small volume provers it is common practice to effectively increase the
number of pulses collected by averaging a number of proving passes to provide one
result. It is common to average 5 passes, increase up to 10 if good repeatability is not
found but the IP advises increasing only to a maximum of 20 if it is known that pulse
variation is the problem.
It has also been reported that where large amounts of intra-rotational linearity are
present, with a low level of purely random component, eg a good turbine meter with poor
blade spacing, good results are obtained by counting only one pulse per revolution of the
meter. This reduces the number of pulses collected by the number of blades on the
turbine (typically 6 to 10) but also very significantly reduces the standard deviation of
pulse widths, hence an improved result is obtained. Pulse width variation reductions from
10% to 1% can be achieved by this technique.
The above recommendations are based on practical and theoretical experience. In each
particular application where poor calibration repeatability is found, poor meter
repeatability or effects from pulse interpolation errors may be the cause. Separation of
the two effects can be difficult but looking at the pulse spacing from the meter would be
the first diagnostic tool. Increasing the number of collected pulses may improve the result
and this is done normally by increasing and averaging a number of meter prover passes.
How do you measure pulse widths?
Currently, in field calibration situations the pulse width variation is not measured and the
equipment and staff to take the measurements are not normally available. This section
provides some techniques to both correctly measure the intervals or to provide some idea
of the intervals using readily available equipment.
Electronic timers can be used to measure the time interval between two pulses.
Unfortunately due the time taken to read the result, by hand or by data logger, they can
not be used to measure every pulse. They can be used as a simple useful tool by
triggering and logging, by hand or computer, a large number of pulse widths. If using
computer logging, it is advisable to modify the logging rate to avoid synchronising the
measurements with the meter revolutions.
Project No: OSDC53

Counter boards within computers with suitable acquisition software can be used to record
every pulse. The actual pulse time may not be accurate due to time delays but as long
as it has a consistent error the variation in pulse widths can still be recorded.
Older storage oscilloscopes, with screen storage, can show an image of the pulses if
switched to ‘store’ and ‘free run’. This provides a very rough guide to the spread of pulse
intervals.
Modern digital storage oscilloscopes can store the incoming pulse signal and play it back
on to the screen or download it to a computer. As this information is the pulse voltage
and the time from a start point, extracting the time between pulses can be difficult. The
capabilities of individual instruments would have to be examined to assess their ability to
give the required performance. Visual interpretation of a digital storage scope display
can also be used but this is time consuming.
Possible use of computers with data acquisition boards and programmed to simulate an
oscilloscope can also be considered.
Logic analysers, used to test the operation of complex electronic systems, will time and
record the data. Most analysers have multiple channels, only one of which is required for
interval timing. Each channel has the capability of timing many hundreds of events,
either in real time or relative to the last event. The collected data can be displayed on the
instrument’s screen or in many cases transmitted to a computer or printer for calculation
and display.
Usually signal processing will be required as analysers are designed to operate at normal
electronic logic levels of 5 V or 12 V with square edged pulses
Project No: OSDC53

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 ISO 7278-2: 1987, Liquid hydrocarbons - Dynamic measurement - Proving

systems for volumetric meters - Part 2: Pipe provers.
2 ISO DIS 7278-3: 1997, Liquid hydrocarbons - Dynamic measurement -

Proving systems for volumetric meters - Part 3: Pulse interpolation.
3 International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology -

International Organisation for Standardisation, 1993.
4 Petroleum Measurement Manual Part X Section 1 field guide to proving meters

with a pipe prover. Institute of Petroleum, London.
5 Prediction of flowmeter calibrations repeatability using compact provers. R Paton,

NEL, East Kilbride, Glasgow.
6 Test Report on irregularity of pulse spacing for PD meters. A Takada Oval

Engineering Japan. (Private correspondence.)
7 Pulse interpolation. Revision of ISO 7278/3. R Paton, North Sea Flow

Measurement Workshop, NEL 1998.
8 Simplified statistical analyses of the effect of pulse spacing variation on the

repeatability of meter proving where pulse interpolation is employed. A T J
Hayward, SGS technical report, June 1988.
9 Influence on the irregularity of output pulses from flowmeters in the pulse

interpolation method. Y Ogawa (Private correspondence.) Oval Engineering
Japan.
10 Ultrasonic meters for oil flow measurement. G Brown, NEL, East Kilbride, DTI
Report, November 1996.
Project No: OSDC53

LIST OF TABLES
1 Calibration of 3-inch Brooks turbine meter against SVP and 6T weighbridge

simultaneously
2 Calibration of 4-inch Danfoss Ultrasonic meter against SVP and 6T weighbridge

simultaneously
3 Calibration of 3-inch Smith PD meter against SVP and 6T weighbridge

simultaneous
4 Calibration of 3-inch Micromotion mass meter against SVP and 6T weighbridge

simultaneously
5 Brooks 3-inch turbine meter. Results of tests on the effect of number of SVP
passes per run versus test meter repeatability
6 Danfoss 4-inch Ultrasonic meter. Results of tests on the effect of number of SVP
passes per run versus test meter repeatability
7 Smith 3-inch positive displacement meter. Results of tests on the effect of number
of SVP passes per run versus test meter repeatability
8 Micromotion 3-inch Coriolis mass meter. Results of tests on the effect of number
of SVP passes per run versus test meter repeatability
9 Calibration of a 3-inch Brooks turbine meter against SVP. Plenum pressure versus
test meter repeatability
10 Calibration of 4-inch Danfoss U/S meter against SVP. Plenum pressure versus
test meter repeatability
11 Calibration of 3-inch Smith positive displacement meter against SVP. Plenum

pressure versus test meter repeatability
12 Calibration of 3-inch Micromotion CMF300 mass meter against SVP. Plenum

pressure versus test meter repeatability
13 One pulse per revolution - Brooks 3-inch turbine meter
14 One pulse per revolution - Brooks 4-inch (damaged) turbine meter.
Project No: OSDC53

LIST OF FIGURES
1 Small Volume Prover schematic
2 Test facility schematic
3 Calibration of Brooks 3-inch turbine meter against SVP and NEL reference 6T
weighbridge simultaneously
4 Calibration of Danfoss Ultrasonic meter against SVP and NEL reference 6T

weighbridge
5 Calibration of Smith PD meter against SVP and NEL reference 6T weighbridge
6 Calibration of Micromotion mass meter against SVP and NEL reference 6T

weighbridge
7 Brooks 3-inch turbine meter. SVP passes versus repeatability
8 Danfoss 4-inch Ultrasonic meter. SVP passes versus repeatability
9 Smith PD meter. SVP passes versus repeatability
10 Micromotion CMF300 mass meter. SVP passes versus repeatability
11 Brooks turbine meter. Plenum pressure tests
12 Brooks 3-inch turbine meter. Frequency output during SVP operation at various
plenum pressures
13 Danfoss Ultrasonic meter. Plenum pressure tests
14 Danfoss Ultrasonic meter. Frequency output during SVP operation at various

plenum pressures
15 Smith PD meter. Plenum pressure tests
16 Smith 3-inch PD meter. Frequency output during SVP operation at various plenum
pressures
17 Micromotion CMF300 mass meter. Plenum pressure tests
18 Rosemount CMF300 mass meter. Frequency output during SVP operation at

various plenum pressures
19 Brooks turbine meter. SVP optical measurement switch tests
20 Danfoss Ultrasonic meter. SVP optical measurement switch tests
21 Smith PD meter. SVP optical measurement switch tests
22 Micromotion mass meter. SVP optical measurement switch tests.
Project No: OSDC53


Report 9699fp 014-97-RP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Report 9699fp 014-97-RP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report 9699fp 014-97-RP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flowmeter Calibrations Using a Small Volume Prover

National Measurement System Directorate

Department of Trade & Industry

Project No: OSDC53 Report No: 014/97 Date: October 1997

Tel: +44 (0) 1355-272096

© TÜV NEL Ltd 2003

Flowmeter Calibrations Using a

National Measurement Systems Policy Unit

A review of pulse interpolation methods has also been completed.

Prepared by: Mr S Nicholson ..............................................

Approved by: Mr R Paton ..............................................

Date: 24 October 1997

Project No: OSDC53

2 INDUSTRY SURVEY ........................................................................... 5

3 SELECTION OF TEST METERS ......................................................... 5

4 TEST METER INSTALLATION ............................................................ 6

5 TEST PROGRAMME ........................................................................... 6

6 TEST RESULTS ................................................................................... 6

6.1 Brooks 3-inch Nominal Bore Parity Turbine Meter ............................... 7

7 NUMBER OF SVP PISTON PASSES VERSUS TEST METER

7.1 Brooks 3-inch Nominal Bore Parity Turbine Meter ............................... 10

8 PLENUM PRESSURE VERSUS TEST METER REPEATABILITY ..... 12

8.1 Brooks 3-inch Nominal Bore Parity Turbine Meter ............................... 13

9 PULSE OUTPUT FROM TEST METERS DURING SVP PISTON

9.1 Brooks 3-inch Nominal Bore Parity Turbine Meter ............................... 15

Project No: OSDC53

10 ONE PULSE PER REVOLUTION TESTS ............................................ 16

10.1 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 17

11 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS ................................................................ 18

12 REVIEW OF PULSE INTERPOLATION METHODS ............................ 19

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. 31

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................... 32

Project No: OSDC53

Project No: OSDC53

The main aspects requiring investigation, based on survey replies, were:

Number of passes per run required for accurate, repeatable proving.

3 SELECTION OF TEST METERS

The test meters chosen were:

Brooks 3-inch Nominal Bore Parity Turbine Meter.

Project No: OSDC53

4 TEST METER INSTALLATION

The test programme was split into five sections:

Initial Calibration Against SVP

Project No: OSDC53

6.1 Brooks 3-inch Nominal Bore Turbine Meter

6.2 Danfoss 4-inch Nominal Bore Ultrasonic Meter

Project No: OSDC53

6.3 Smith 3-inch Nominal Bore Positive Displacement Meter

The meter was calibrated over the flowrange 3 - 30 l/s.

The results are shown in Table 3 and Figure 5.

Project No: OSDC53

7 NUMBER OF SVP PISTON PASSES VERSUS TEST METER REPEATABILITY

Project No: OSDC53

7.1 Brooks 3-inch Nominal Bore Turbine Meter

7.2 Danfoss 3-inch Nominal Bore Ultrasonic Meter

7.3 Smith 3-inch Positive Nominal Bore Displacement Meter

Project No: OSDC53

7.4 Fisher-Rosemount 3-inch Nominal Bore CMF300 Coriolis Mass Meter