Minimizing Orifice Meter Installation Lengths

By Ed Bowles, Eric Kelner, and Dr. Tom Morrow

The recent revision of the orifice flow meter standard used in the United States (i.e.,
Chapter 14.3 of the American Petroleum Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum Measurement
Standards (MPMS) or American Gas Association (AGA) Report No. 3) includes changes in the
upstream length requirement for orifice meter installations. When no flow conditioning is used,
the minimum recommended length of straight pipe upstream of an orifice meter may now be as
long as 145 pipe diameters. The financial impact of these new installation length requirements
on the U.S. oil and gas industry is yet to be determined, but could be substantial. For instance, a
square foot of floor space on an offshore platform can cost upwards of $100,000 or more. It is
easy to see how significant increases in orifice meter installation lengths could quickly impact
the construction cost of a new platform. The new installation length requirements could also
limit future expansion of existing meter stations. For example, if extensive plumbing
modifications are required to accommodate longer meter runs, such modifications may be too
costly. Or, existing land-based sites may be “land locked” and additional real estate may not be
available to accommodate meter station expansion.
A research project was recently conducted at the GRI (formerly the Gas Research
Institute) Metering Research Facility (MRF) located at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) in
San Antonio, Texas to address the need for short orifice meter installations (both single- and
multi-tube configurations) that are not assessed a penalty in measurement uncertainty. Tests
were run in the MRF Low Pressure Loop (LPL) to evaluate the feasibility of reducing the size,
footprint, and weight of a multi-tube meter/header installation by approximately 50%. Capital
savings due to such a size reduction for typical offshore flow meter installations are estimated to
be on the order of $250,000 to $500,000 (U.S. dollars) per offshore structure. Following is a
summary of this research project.

Historical perspective.
In the fall of 1996, Savant Measurement Corporation proposed a research project to
Southwest Research Institute aimed at developing a compact multi-tube orifice flow
meter/header installation configuration. At that time, a series of flow conditioner tests had been
performed in the MRF using a 10-inch diameter orifice meter tube with an upstream length (i.e.,
the A' dimension from Chapter 14.3 of the API MPMS) of 17 pipe diameters (D) installed
downstream of a tee.[1] (A flow conditioner is a device placed in the meter run upstream of the
orifice. It is intended to “condition” the flow by eliminating distortions in the velocity profile
that can be produced by the upstream piping configuration. Measurement biases associated with
such flow distortions are, thus, eliminated.) During the flow conditioner installation effects tests,
values of orifice discharge coefficient, Cd, were measured and compared to values measured for
a “baseline” (or reference) meter tube configuration. The difference in Cd values was expressed
as a percentage of the baseline value.

∆ C d = (C d − installati on − C d − baseline ) / C d − baseline

Figure 1 shows results for one of the flow conditioners (i.e., a Savant Measurement
Gallagher Flow Conditioner (GFC)) evaluated during these tests. As Figure 1 shows, the GFC
reduced the installation error to less than ±0.20% for orifice beta ratios between 0.20 and 0.75.

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 1 June 8, 2000

(orifice beta (β) ratio is the ratio of the orifice diameter to the meter tube diameter), when the
distance between the flow conditioner and the orifice plate ranged from 5D to 13D. This result
suggested that the upstream meter tube length might be shortened to A' = 10D to 12D.

17 D Meter Tube, Downstream of a Tee

Gallagher Flow Conditioner (GFC)
1.0

∆Cd, % deviation from baseline Cd value

0.8 GRI MRF HPL with Natural Gas
0.6 Pipe Reynolds numbers = 1.1*106 to 1.3*107
Pressure tap #1
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4 Symbols
-1.6 β = 0.20 β = 0.50 β = 0.67
-1.8 β = 0.40 β = 0.60 β = 0.75
-2.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
C, distance from exit of flow conditioner to orifice plate

Figure 1. Flow conditioner test results for a 10-inch Gallagher Flow Conditioner (GFC) in
an A' = 17D meter tube downstream of a tee.[1]

In 1989, Dr. P. L. Wilcox,[2] Scientific Manager at K-Lab in Norway, stated that short gas
metering systems, complying with the requirements of ISO 5167,[3] had been developed using a
new type of flow conditioner. His work was later supported by the research conducted by Dr. E.
M. Laws[4] of Salford University. In 1990, Laws wrote that “a flow conditioner could be
designed to give fully-developed flow conditions, irrespective of the nature and quality of the
upstream flow…” Laws followed that paper with a series of research investigations[5],[6],[7] to
develop a flow conditioner for compact orifice meter installations. Section 6.4 of ISO 5167[3]
provides a general requirement for acceptable flow conditions at the primary device:
Acceptable velocity profile conditions can be presumed to prevail when, at each point
across the pipe cross-section, the ratio of the local axial velocity to the maximum axial velocity
at the cross-section agrees to within ±5% with that which would be achieved in swirl-free flow at
the same radial position at a cross-section located at the end of a very long straight length (over
100D) of similar pipe.
Additional orifice meter installation effects tests with flow conditioners were performed
at the MRF in 1997. The aim of this work was to develop a flow conditioner performance test[8]
for API MPMS, Chapter 14.3, Part 2. Flow conditioner performance tests were run for upstream
meter tube lengths of A' = 17D, A' = 29D, and A' = 45D for four different types of installation
configurations: (1) “good” flow conditions, (2) two 90° elbows out-of-plane, (3) a gate valve
closed 50% against the flow, and (4) a strongly swirling flow transported through a tee. The
flow conditioner performance test results of most interest were those for the A' = 17D meter
tube. These results suggested the GFC flow conditioner, the NOVA #50E flow conditioner, and

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 2 June 8, 2000

the Stuart C-3 tube bundle might give acceptable performance in even shorter meter tubes for
compact header installation conditions.
These results meant that it was plausible that the overall size, footprint, and weight of a
typical multi-tube orifice meter/header installation could be reduced by approximately 50%
without adversely affecting flow rate measurement uncertainty, if flow conditioners were used as
part of the meter installation. It was also concluded that it might be possible to extend the
allowable range of orifice beta ratios in such installations. Figure 2-5 of API MPMS, Chapter
14.3, Part 2[9] indicates that ß = 0.45 is the current upper limit for an upstream meter tube length
of A' = 10D. Because of the potential industry-wide economic impact of a compact orifice meter
and header design configuration, GRI provided funding in late 1998 for a follow-on research
project that is described herein.

Typical orifice meter header designs.

There is no single, industry-standard multi-tube orifice meter installation configuration.
However, Figure 2 shows an example of a typical compact header and orifice meter tube
arrangement for an offshore installation.

Figure 2. Typical offshore header and meter tube arrangement.

The header and meter tubes are turned 90°, from horizontal to vertical, to reduce the
width and footprint area. Two 6-inch diameter meter runs are arranged one above the other, with
gas flowing from left to right in the figure. Gas enters through an 8-inch diameter inlet then
moves into a 10-inch diameter vertical header. The flow leaves the header through either an
upper or a lower branch outlet, passing through a 4-inch diameter valve and into the center
branch of the tee. A blind flange that can be removed to allow for cleaning and maintenance
terminates one side branch of the tee. The other side branch is connected to the meter tube inlet.
The spacer distance between the header outlet and the center branch of the tee is short, allowing
space only for the 4-inch valve. The upstream meter tube length is 25D. A 19-tube bundle flow
conditioner is located 10D upstream of the orifice plate. The downstream meter tube length is
approximately 7D. The total meter tube length between headers is approximately 32D. The goal

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 3 June 8, 2000

of this research initiative was to reduce the total meter tube length by at least half for
installations similar to the one described above.

Flow conditioners selected for evaluation.

As noted above, past research suggests that short orifice meter tube installations are
possible, if an effective flow conditioner is included in the design. In this study, several flow
conditioner designs were evaluated. These are pictured below.
Concentric 19-tube bundle straightening vane. This device is commercially available
from several sources. The design meets the specifications in the 3rd Edition of API MPMS,
Chapter 14.3, Part 2, Section 2.5.5.1. Nineteen tubes, each having the same diameter, are
arranged in a concentric packing. Figure 3 shows the 19-tube bundle straightening vane used in
this test program. The length of the straightening vane was 2.5D for a 4-inch diameter meter
tube.

Figure 3. Concentric 19-tube bundle straightening vane.

Savant Measurement GFC flow conditioner.[10] This is a patented device[11],[12] that is

available commercially from Savant Measurement Corporation in Kingwood, Texas. A
prototype version of the GFC design performed well in the MRF flow conditioner performance
evaluation tests.[8] Three commercial versions of the GFC flow conditioner were included in
these tests. The first was a perforated plate with a tube bundle anti-swirl device (GFC TAS)
shown in Figure 4. The length of the GFC TAS was 2.65D.

Figure 4. GFC TAS (tube bundle anti-swirl device).

The second was a perforated plate without the anti-swirl device (GFC NAS) shown in
Figure 5. The length of the GFC NAS was just the thickness of the perforated plate. The rods
and crosspiece that provided support and stability to the plate did not significantly obstruct the
upstream flow.

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 4 June 8, 2000

 Figure 5. GFC NAS (no anti-swirl device).

The third was the GFC perforated plate (in this case, it was the GFC NAS flow
conditioner installed in the meter tube) in combination with a vane-type anti-swirl device (shown
in Figure 6) installed at the inlet to the central branch of the tee in the compact header.
The combination of the GFC perforated plate and the vane-type anti-swirl device was
designated the GFC VAS. The GFC perforated plate had a 3-8-16 hole pattern with a porosity of
approximately 49.9%.

Figure 6. Front and back views of the vane anti-swirl device used together with the GFC
perforated plate to form the GFC VAS Flow Conditioner System.

K-Lab/NOVA #50E prototype flow conditioner.[13] This flow conditioner design is

covered by the Laws patent[14], but the particular hole pattern was optimized by NOVA. Canada
Pipeline Accessories (CPA) in Calgary, Alberta is licensed to manufacture and distribute the
CPA CL 14.3 K-Lab/NOVA #50E flow conditioner based on the NOVA #50E prototype. CPA
was asked to provide a commercial CPA CL 14.3 K-Lab/NOVA #50E flow conditioner for these
tests. Due to time constraints, CPA elected to furnish the original NOVA #50E prototype flow
conditioner (shown in Figure 7) instead of a new, commercial unit. The NOVA #50E prototype
perforated plate has a 1-8-16 hole pattern with a porosity of approximately 48.3%.

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 5 June 8, 2000

 Figure 7. NOVA #50E Prototype Flow Conditioner.

The NOVA #50E prototype flow conditioner performed well two years ago in the MRF
flow conditioner performance tests[8], but the surface of the plate had rusted when the flow
conditioner was returned to NOVA at the end of the test program. CPA elected to wire-brush the
NOVA #50E prototype plate to remove the rust before shipping it to the MRF for the compact
meter tests. Surprisingly, the ∆Cd test results and the velocity profile measurements in good
flow conditions, indicated that the flow conditioning performance had changed. We speculate
that the cleaning process may have caused this. The diameter and location of the holes in the
perforated plate were unchanged. The ∆Cd results were discussed with CPA, but it was too late
to substitute a new CPA CL 14.3 K-Lab/NOVA #50E flow conditioner. Consequently, the entire
suite of tests was not run on the available NOVA #50E conditioner.
K-Lab Laws flow conditioner[15] Laws has described several flow conditioner designs,
including one that combines vanes and tabs as an integral part of the perforated plate.[16] K-Lab
in Kårstø, Norway, holds the patent rights[17] to the Laws flow conditioner.

Figure 8. K-Lab Laws Flow Conditioner without tabs or vanes.

Figure 9. Front and back views of the K-Lab Laws Flow Conditioner with tabs (front) and
vanes (back).

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 6 June 8, 2000

 K-Lab furnished two flow conditioners for the compact header tests. The first was a
perforated plate without vanes or tabs with a 1-6-12 hole pattern and a porosity of approximately
44.7%, shown in Figure 8. The photograph shows the mounting rods and the cross piece used
upstream of the perforated plate to stabilize the orientation of the plate orientation and to allow it
to be traversed through the meter tube.
The second was a perforated plate with vanes and tabs with a 1-6-12 hole pattern and a
porosity of approximately 53.3%, shown in Figure 9. Note that the vanes are on the upstream
side of the plate, and the tabs on the downstream side.

Stuart C-3 tube bundle straightening vane.[18] This device meets the 3rd Edition of API
MPMS, Chapter 14.3, Part 2, Section 2.5.5.1 specifications for a tube bundle straightening vane.
It differs from the concentric 19-tube bundle straightening vane in that there are 22 tubes rather
than 19, and that the tubes are not all the same diameter. The straightening vane design is
covered by a patent[19] held by Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The C-3 straightening vane
performed better than the concentric 19-tube bundle in the MRF flow conditioner performance
evaluation tests.[8] The Stuart C-3 straightening vane is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Stuart C-3 tube bundle straightening vane.

Experimental setup and test conditions.

Flow conditioner tests were performed in nominal 4-inch (102-mm) diameter meter tubes
with an upstream length of only 10 pipe diameters for (1) “good” flow conditions, (2) a meter
tube installed downstream of a tee, and (3) a meter tube installed in a compact header
configuration. The tests were performed in the GRI MRF Low Pressure Loop using dry natural
gas at a nominal line pressure of 180 psia and a nominal gas temperature of 70°F. The axial
location (measured in pipe diameters from the orifice plate) of the flow conditioner in the meter
tube was varied and the orifice discharge coefficient was measured. Four orifice beta ratios (i.e.,
0.50, 0.60, 0.67, and 0.75) were used for each flow test.
For the flow conditioner tests, a 3/8-inch diameter cylindrical steel rod was attached to
the flow conditioner under test to allow it to be moved along the pipe axis within the meter tube.
This technique effectively allowed the distance from the exit of the flow conditioner to the
orifice plate (i.e., dimension “C” referred to in API MPMS, Chapter 14.3, Part 2[9] for orifice
meter installation configurations) to be varied. The figure referred to in API MPMS, Chapter
14.3, Part 2, is shown in Figure 11. Note that “A'” is the upstream meter tube length (A' = 10D
in this study), and “B” is the downstream meter tube length (B = 7D in this study).

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 7 June 8, 2000

Figure 11. Relevant orifice meter tube dimensions.[9] (C is the distance from the exit of the
flow conditioner to the orifice plate.)

In the tests, the flow conditioners were traversed upstream of the orifice plate to
determine optimum location. The minimum distance between the orifice plate and the flow
conditioner was C = 1D. The maximum distance varied between C = 7.5D and C = 10D,
depending on the length of the test flow conditioner.

“Baseline” flow test configuration.

The “baseline” tests were used to establish reference values of orifice Cd. The reference
flow field in the meter tube should be fully-developed, turbulent pipe flow at the location of the
orifice fitting. This condition ensures that the baseline Cd values lie within the 95% confidence
interval for the Reader-Harris/Gallagher (R-G) orifice discharge coefficient equation given in
API MPMS, Chapter 14.3, Part 1.[20]
The baseline test configuration is shown in Figure 12. The essential element of the
piping arrangement is the long, 100D, straight length of meter tube upstream of the orifice
fitting. This long straight length consisted of a 55D-long spool piece, a 16D-long spool piece, a
12D-long spool piece, a 7D-long spool piece, and the 10D meter run with the orifice fitting.
This same combination of meter tube pipe was used for the previous MRF project that developed
a flow conditioner performance test.[8] The long A' = 100D length of straight pipe allowed the
flow leaving the tee at the meter run inlet to develop into a fully-developed, turbulent pipe flow
by the time it reached the orifice fitting. The flow entering the center branch of the tee is also
similar to a fully-developed, turbulent pipe flow. A GFC TAS flow conditioner was installed
33D upstream of the tee to remove swirl and produce good flow conditions at the inlet to the tee.
A valve and short spool piece attached to the tee at the upstream end of the orifice meter run
provided access to the meter tube to allow for insertion and removal of the test flow
conditioners. However, flow conditioners were not installed in the meter run for the baseline
tests.

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 8 June 8, 2000

 Figure 12. Test section configuration for baseline calibrations and tests in good flow
conditions. (Drawing is not to scale.)

“Good” flow test configuration.

The term “good” flow conditions was used by Smith[21] to describe the installation of a
flow conditioner when there is fully-developed, turbulent pipe flow upstream of the flow
conditioner. Any influence on orifice Cd would, therefore, be caused by the flow conditioner
itself. The tests performed in good flow conditions were done using the baseline test
configuration shown in Figure 12, but with a flow conditioner installed upstream of the orifice
meter. The distance from the exit of the flow conditioner to the orifice plate was varied over the
range of C = 1D to C = 10D. When the flow conditioner is placed a great distance from the
orifice plate, the measured values of Cd should approach the baseline value. Data were also
taken for C = 50D to verify that the baseline Cd value had not shifted over time.

Compact header flow test configuration.

The compact header installation is shown in Figures 13 and 14. Figure 13 shows that the
flow entered the test header installation from the left through a 6-inch diameter, 90° elbow. The
elbow turned the flow vertically upwards where it passed through a 17D-long run of straight pipe
that served as a riser. The flow then turned 180° and flowed vertically downwards through a
GFC TAS flow conditioner placed 10D upstream of the entrance to the header. The purpose of
the flow conditioner was to provide an approximately fully-developed, turbulent velocity profile
at the inlet to the 6-inch diameter compact header. The flow entering the header turned 180° and
left the header through a 3-inch diameter full-port ball valve. Leaving the valve, the flow next
entered the center branch of a 3-inch by 4-inch diameter tee and turned 90° before it entered the
short meter tube with an upstream length of A' = 10D.

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 9 June 8, 2000

 Figure 13. Test section configuration for flow conditioner tests in A' = 10D meter tube
installed in a compact header configuration. (Drawing is not to scale.)

Figure 14. Compact header configuration detail. (Drawing is not to scale.)

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 10 June 8, 2000

Test results.
Test results are presented as the percent deviation in orifice discharge coefficient, Cd, for
a given test configuration compared to a baseline (i.e., fully-developed, turbulent velocity profile
at the meter and no flow conditioner installed upstream) orifice discharge coefficient:
(C d ,measured − C d ,baseline )
∆C d = *100
C d ,baseline
where:
∆Cd = % deviation from baseline Cd value,
Cd,measured = discharge coefficient for the test configuration
Cd,baseline = discharge coefficient for the baseline configuration

This method has been used in previous research investigations[8] to minimize the effects
of laboratory measurement bias errors. For example, a bias error in the flow rate measured by
the reference flow meter will normally affect both the installation effects test and the baseline
calibration test by the same amount. Therefore, when ∆Cd is calculated as shown above, the
laboratory biases are correlated and their effects cancel out. Coleman and Steele[22] consider the
effect of non-independent (correlated) bias errors in the estimation of experimental uncertainty.
The desired value for ∆Cd is 0%. This means that a particular test piping configuration
introduces no measurable bias error, compared to the baseline configuration. However,
experience in performing baseline calibration experiments at the MRF has shown that baseline
Cd values are typically repeatable to within approximately ±0.1%. In a similar manner, orifice
meter installation effects tests, such as flow conditioner tests, are also repeatable to within
approximately ±0.1%. If the baseline and installation effects test Cd values are at opposite
extremes of this range, the total measurement uncertainty would then be approximately ±0.2%.
As a side note, the API MPMS Chapter 14.3, Part 2 Working Group previously selected
an installation effects acceptance interval equal to half of the 95% confidence interval for the R-
G orifice equation. The acceptance interval varies from ±0.22% for ß = 0.50 to ±0.28% for ß =
0.75.

Baseline calibration tests.

Baseline values of Cd were determined from separate tests before the good flow
conditions tests and after the conclusion of the tests for A' = 10D meter tube downstream of a
tee. Figures 15a and 15b show the baseline test data expressed as the mean deviation from the
R-G orifice equation versus orifice beta ratio. The uncertainty limit, denoted by the dashed lines,
is the 95% confidence interval at infinite Reynolds number for the R-G orifice equation. All Cd
values lie within this interval, indicating that the Cd values measured in the MRF LPL agreed
well with the values calculated using the R-G orifice equation. Note also that the spread of data
points at each beta ratio was of the order of ±0.1% to ±0.2%. Figure 15a shows the pre-test
results, performed before the installation effects tests, and Figure 15b the post-test results, after
the installation effects tests had been finished.

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 11 June 8, 2000

 1.0
Baseline Calibration Test on 2/23/99
0.8 Upstream Meter Tube Length A = 100 D

∆Cd, Deviation from RG Equation, %

tap #1
0.6 tap #2
+ 95% Confidence Limit
0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4
- 95% Confidence Limit
-0.6

-0.8

-1.0
0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
β, Orifice Diameter Ratio

Figure 15a. Deviation of baseline calibration data from the R-G orifice equation.

1.0
Baseline Calibration Test on 4/14/99
0.8 Upstream Meter Tube Length A = 100 D
∆Cd, Deviation from RG Equation, %

tap #1
0.6 tap #2
+ 95% Confidence Interval
0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4
-95% Confidence Interval
-0.6

-0.8

-1.0
0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75
β, Orifice Diameter Ratio

Figure 15b. Deviation of baseline calibration data from the R-G orifice equation.

Flow conditioner installation effects tests.

Performance differed for each flow conditioner tested. Due to space constraints for this
article, only ∆Cd results for ß = 0.67 for the GFC TAS and K-Lab flow conditioner (with no tabs
or vanes) are shown here. These results are intended to provide the reader with a sense of how
two of the better performing devices worked. The reader is referred to a GRI Topical Report[23]
for complete test results (in tabular and graphical form) for each flow conditioner for each
installation configuration and all four values of beta ratio.
Good Flow Conditions Tests
The test in good flow conditions, with a fully-developed, turbulent pipe flow velocity
profile at the inlet to the flow conditioner was used to determine the minimum installation
distance upstream of the orifice plate, based upon ∆Cd measurements. Note that it was not

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 12 June 8, 2000

certain that the mean and turbulence velocity profiles at the orifice plate location returned to a
fully-developed state downstream of the flow conditioner, but the orifice pressure differential
readings were consistent with a baseline flow field. Since later tests involved a short, A' = 10D,
upstream length, the ∆Cd values should have approached zero within the range of C = 1D to
10D.
Figure 16a shows the ∆Cd test results for the GFC TAS flow conditioner in good flow
conditions for ß = 0.67. The new test results are compared with similar flow conditioner results
in good flow conditions taken almost two years earlier, during another MRF flow conditioner
performance test program.[8] The agreement between old and new data is good. The GFC TAS
flow conditioner gave ∆Cd values within the acceptance interval for values of C greater than
about 4D.
GFC TAS Flow Conditioner
1.4 Sliding flow conditioner tests
∆Cd, % Deviation from Baseline Cd Value

1.2 Good flow conditions

100 D straight pipe upstream of orifice plate
1.0 β = 0.67
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
GFC TAS GFC TAS
-0.8 prototype flow conditioner
flow conditioner
-1.0 Test on 3/8/99 Test on 3/7/97
tap #1 tap #1
-1.2 tap #2 tap #2
-1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
C, Distance from flow conditioner exit to orifice plate

Figure 16a. Comparison of flow conditioner results for good flow conditions using the
GFC TAS.

Figure 16b shows the ∆Cd results for the K-Lab flow conditioner without tabs or vanes in
good flow conditions for ß = 0.67. The ∆Cd results lie within the acceptance interval for C
between 3D and 10D.

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 13 June 8, 2000

 K-Lab Flow Conditioner - Without Tabs or Vanes
1.4 Sliding flow conditioner tests

∆Cd, % Deviation from Baseline Cd Value

1.2 Good flow conditions
100 D straight pipe upstream of orifice plate
1.0 β = 0.67
0.8 tap #1
tap #2
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
C, Distance from flow conditioner exit to orifice plate

Figure 16b. Flow conditioner results for good flow conditions using the K-Lab Flow
Conditioner without tabs or vanes.

During the flow conditioner tests in good flow conditions, a set of data was also taken
with each flow conditioner pulled back a distance C = 50D upstream of the orifice plate. These
results can be used to check the baseline Cd values for each value of beta ratio. The results are
presented in the Topical Report.[23] With a few exceptions, the data for each flow conditioner
and C = 50D lie within the acceptance interval for the beta ratio used. No significant bias shifts
in ∆Cd were seen for any of the flow conditioners.

Compact Header Tests

Figure 17a shows the ∆Cd test results for the GFC TAS flow conditioner installed in the
compact header for ß = 0.67. The total length of this device was 2.65D, so the maximum
distance from the orifice plate to the perforated plate was about 7.35D. The test results cover the
range of C between C = 1D and C = 8D. The short segment of straightening vane was just inside
the tee upstream of the meter tube for C = 8D. ∆Cd values were in the acceptance region of
±0.23% for C = 4D to C = 6D. Note that the flow conditioner test was performed on 3/13/99 and
was repeated on 3/17/99. There was no significant difference between the two sets of results.
Also, note that the results shown in Figure 16a for good flow conditions were quite similar to the
compact header results. The GFC TAS flow conditioner performed well as a velocity profile
shaping device.

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 14 June 8, 2000

 GFC TAS Flow Conditioner
1.4 Sliding flow conditioner tests
A' = 10 D meter tube in a compact header configuration

∆Cd, % Deviation from Baseline Cd Value

1.2
β = 0.67
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2 + 0.23%
0.0
-0.23%
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8 GFC TAS
-1.0 03/17/99 Test 03/13/99 Test
tap #1 tap #1
-1.2 tap #2 tap #2
-1.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
C, Distance from flow conditioner exit to orifice plate

Figure 17a. Flow conditioner results for the GFC TAS in a compact header with upstream
meter tube length, A' = 10D, for ß = 0.67.

Figure 17b shows the ∆Cd test results for the K-Lab flow conditioner without tabs or
vanes installed in the compact header for ß = 0.67. The total length of this device was just the
thickness of the perforated plate, 0.13D, so the maximum distance from the orifice plate to the
perforated plate was about 10D. ∆Cd values lie at the lower limit, -0.23%, of the acceptance
interval for C = 5D.
K-Lab Flow Conditioner - Without Tabs or Vanes
1.2
1.0 Sliding flow conditioner tests
A' = 10 D meter tube in a compact header configuration
∆Cd, % Deviation from Baseline Cd Value

0.8 β = 0.67
0.6 tap #1
tap #2
0.4
0.2
+ 0.23%
0.0
-0.2 - 0.23%

-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

C, Distance from flow conditioner exit to orifice plate

Figure 17b. Flow conditioner results for the K-Lab Flow Conditioner without tabs or
vanes in a compact header with upstream meter tube length, A' = 10D, for ß = 0.67.

Since the compact header tests were the most important performed on this project, great
care was taken to assure that differences in flow conditioner performance were not caused by
day-to-day variations in the measurement and control systems at the MRF. This was

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 15 June 8, 2000

accomplished by repeating one test on a daily basis, and analyzing the results to see whether the
variation was within the normal range for quality control. The GFC TAS flow conditioner was
used as the quality control artifact during the compact header test period. The GRI Topical
Report[23] shows the variation in ∆Cd measured with the flow conditioner placed at C = 5D
during the compact header test period from 3/13/99 to 3/25/99. All ∆Cd values, expect one, lie
within the acceptance interval of ±0.23% for ß = 0.67.

Discussion of results.
The orifice meter tube and orifice fitting used in this investigation were manufactured to
comply with the specifications in API MPMS, Chapter 14.3, Part 2.[9] These specifications were
not verified during the compact header project. However, the baseline values of Cd lie well
within the uncertainty interval for the R-G orifice equation, as expected for an AGA orifice
meter installation. This result gave confidence that the meter tubes still met the specifications in
API MPMS, Chapter 14.3, Part 2.
A baseline flow condition was established mechanically using a long upstream length,
100D, of straight pipe with a tee at the inlet to the meter tube. The measured values were
defined as the baseline Cd values. The flow conditioners were then expected to give the same Cd
values in a short length (i.e., A' = 10D) of meter tube. The baseline Cd tests were performed both
before and after the installation tests. In addition, it was possible to check the baseline Cd values
when the flow conditioners were placed at C = 50D during the good flow condition tests.
However, the different flow conditioners evaluated on this project were not necessarily
developed to produce the same baseline velocity profile or the same range of ∆Cd values for the
Reynolds number range from 1.2(10)6 to 3.5(10)6 in D = 4-inch pipe, as used on this project.
The relative performance of the different flow conditioners might change if the tests are repeated
in larger diameter meter tubes and for a higher range of Reynolds number.
The tests performed on this project produced real orifice meter installation effects. The
∆Cd values were not caused by bias errors in the measurement of pressure, temperature, or flow
rate. If measurement errors were present, they would have been obvious at ß = 0.50, as well as ß
= 0.75. The absence of a ∆Cd bias for ß = 0.50 confirms that the pressure and temperature
transmitters were in calibration. The tests with C = 50D in good flow conditions and the tests
with the GFC TAS artifact installed during the compact header tests also confirmed that day-to-
day measurement variations were negligible.
Why aren’t flow conditioner results shown for beta ratios lower than 0.67? In the
absence of swirl, Reader-Harris, et al.[24] have shown that the magnitude of the installation error
caused by a distortion in the velocity profile varies approximately as ß3.5. All of the flow
conditioners tested during this research project were effective at removing swirl that may have
been present upstream of the conditioner. Therefore, installation effects tests were best
performed using a large beta ratio, such as 0.67. If the performance of a flow conditioner was
acceptable for ß = 0.67, it should be acceptable at lower beta ratios as well.

Conclusions.
The test results from this investigation suggest that it is quite possible that short orifice
meter tube lengths (i.e., A' = 10D, or possibly less) can be used without increasing measurement
uncertainty. This can be accomplished through the judicious selection and installation of an
appropriate flow conditioner upstream of the orifice. Additional test work is needed to fully

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 16 June 8, 2000

establish the range of meter diameters and orifice beta ratios over which this possible. A Joint
Industry Project has been proposed by SwRI to complete the required test work. Hopefully,
additional research results will be forthcoming soon.

Acknowledgements
The work described herein was funded by GRI. The GRI Program Manager who
oversaw the research was Mr. Charles E. French. The flow conditioner manufacturers provided
test articles at no cost to the project. Mr. James E. Gallagher of Savant Measurement
Corporation also provided technical assistance. A paper on this subject, entitled Development of
a Compact Header Orifice Meter Station, was presented at the American Gas Association
Operations Conference held in Denver, Colorado in June 2000.

REFERENCES
1. Morrow, T. B., “Orifice Meter Installation Effects: Ten-Inch Sliding Flow Conditioner
Tests,” GRI Technical Memorandum No. GRI-96/0391, November 1996.
2. Wilcox, P. L., “Comparison Between ISO 5167 and New Non-Fiscal Metering Installations,”
Gas Transport Symposium, Norwegian Petroleum Society, Haugesund, Norway, Jan. 30-31,
1989.
3. Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of Orifice Plates, Nozzles and Venturi Tubes Inserted
in Circular Cross-Section Conduits Running Full, ISO 5167-1980 (E), Geneva, Switzerland.
4. Laws, E. M., “The Development of an Efficient Flow Conditioner,” Flow Metering of
Commercially Important Fluids, London, Feb. 1990.
5. Laws, E. M., “Compact Installations for Differential Flowmeters,” Flow Measurement and
Instrumentation, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1994, pp. 79-85.
6. Laws, E. M., “The Design of Flow Control Devices,” Forum on Industrial and
Environmental Applications of Fluid Mechanics, ASME FED-Vol. 221, 1995, pp. 163-168.
7. Laws, E. M. and A. K. Ouazzane, “A Further Investigation into Flow Conditioner Design
Yielding Compact Installations for Orifice Plate Flow Metering,” Flow Measurement and
Instrumentation, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1995, pp. 187-199.
8. Morrow, T. B., “Orifice Meter Installation Effects: Development of a Flow Conditioner
Performance Test,” GRI Technical Memorandum No. GRI-97/0207, December 1997.
9. Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids - Specification and
Installation Requirements, Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, Chapter 14.3, Part
2, 3rd Edition, American Petroleum Institute, February, 1991, Washington, D.C.
10. Gallagher, J. E. and P. J. LaNasa, “Field Performance of the Gallagher Flow Conditioner,”
3rd International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement, Gas Research Institute, March 20-
22, 1995, San Antonio, TX.
11. Gallagher, J. E., R. E. Beaty, and P. J. LaNasa, “Flow Conditioner for More Accurate
Measurement of Fluid Flow,” U. S. Patent 5,495,872, March 5, 1996.
12. Gallagher, J. E., R. E. Beaty, and P. J. LaNasa, “Flow Conditioner Profile Plate for More
Accurate Measurement of Fluid Flow,” U. S. Patent 5,529,093, June 25, 1996.

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 17 June 8, 2000

13. Karnik, U., “A Compact Orifice Meter/Flow Conditioner Package,” 3rd International
Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement, Gas Research Institute, March 20-22, 1995, San
Antonio, TX.
14. Laws, E. M., “Flow Conditioner,” U. S. Patent 5,341,848, August 30, 1994.
15. Laws, E. M. and A. K. Ouazzane “Flow Conditioning for Orifice Plate Flow Meters,” 3rd
International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement, Gas Research Institute, March 20-22,
1995, San Antonio, TX.
16. Laws, E. M. and A. K. Ouazzane, “A Further Evaluation of the Vaned Laws’ Plate and Its
Impact on Future Research,” Proceedings of the 1997 ASME Fluids Engineering Division
Summer Meeting, June 22-26, 1997.
17. Laws, E. M., “Flow Conditioner,” U. S. Patent 5,762,107, June 9, 1998.
18. Stuart, J. W., J. T. Park, and T. B. Morrow “Experimental Results of an Improved Tube-
Bundle Flow Conditioner for Orifice Metering,” Flomeko ‘94, National Engineering
Laboratory, June 13-17, 1994, Glasgow, U. K.
19. Stuart, J. W., “Gradational Tube Bundle Flow Conditioner for Providing a Natural Flow
Profile to Facilitate Accurate Orifice Metering in Fluid Filled Conduits,” U. S. Patent
5,392,815, February 28, 1995.
20. Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids - General
Equations and Uncertainty Guidelines, Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards,
Chapter 14.3, Part 1, 3rd Edition, American Petroleum Institute, October 1990, Washington,
D.C.
21. Smith, D. J. M., “The Effects of Flow Straighteners on Orifice Plates in Good Flow
Conditions,” Paper No. 5.3, International Conference on Flow Measurement in the Mid-80s,
National Engineering Laboratory, June 9-12, 1986, East Kilbride, Glasgow, U. K.
22. Coleman, H. W. and W. G. Steel, Experimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers,
John Wiley & Sons, 1989, New York.
23. Morrow, T. B. and E. Kelner, “Metering Research Facility Program. Orifice Meter
Installation Effects: Compact Orifice Meter Station Development,” GRI Topical Report GRI-
99/0204, Gas Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois, December 1999.
24. Reader-Harris, M. J., J. A. Sattary, and E. Woodhead, “The Use of Flow Conditioners to
Improve Flow Measurement Accuracy Downstream of Headers,” 3rd International
Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement, Gas Research Institute, March 20-22, 1995, San
Antonio, TX.

c:\8890\Presentations\P&GJ3a.doc Page 18 June 8, 2000