Iranian Journal of Gas Engineering

Gas Measurement Systems Overall Uncertainty: Gas Meter Calibration Laboratories Case Study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Professor, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Research Laboratory, School of Chemical, Petroleum and Gas Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, 16846 Tehran, Iran

2 M.Sc., Fluid Flow Measurement Research Institute, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

3 M.Sc., Mechanical Repair Engineer, South Pars Gas Complex Company, Bushehr, Iran

4 Research and Technology, Gas Company of East Azarbaijan Province, Tabriz

5 Sc., Research and Technology, Gas Company of East Azarbaijan Province, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

One of the most important issues in accurate gas measurement is the uncertainty of the meter as the measurement tool. According to relevant standards and guidelines, it is necessary that the uncertainty of each component of the measurement system, such as the measurement element (e.g., orifice plate), temperature and pressure transmitter devices, etc., be within the permissible range. In addition, one of the very critical issues that unfortunately is not given much attention today is the overall uncertainty of the measurement system and the interactions and mutual effects of the system components on each other and on the overall uncertainty of the system. Therefore, this study presents the necessary relationships for calculating the overall uncertainty of gas meter calibration laboratories in the country. Finally, the overall uncertainty of two centers is calculated and reported as an example. One of these centers had the ability to calibrate turbine meters and the other had the ability to calibrate diaphragm meters. The results showed that the overall uncertainty of the turbine meter calibration center was 0.422%, of which the calibration deviation of the reference meter had the greatest role in this overall uncertainty. Also, the calculation of the overall uncertainty of the diaphragm meter calibration center showed that the best overall uncertainty of this center was 0.23%.

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1. Arpino, F., M. Dell'Isola, G. Ficco, and P. Vigo, Unaccounted for gas in natural gas transmission networks: Prediction model and analysis of the solutions. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 2014. 17: p. 58-70.
  2. Ficco, G., M. Dell’Isola, P. Vigo, and L. Celenza, Uncertainty analysis of energy measurements in natural gas transmission networks. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 2015. 42: p. 58-68.
  3. Dörr, H., T. Koturbash, and V. Kutcherov, Review of impacts of gas qualities with regard to quality determination and energy metering of natural gas. Measurement Science and Technology, 2019. 30(2): p. 022001.
  4. Bekraoui, A., A. Hadjadj, A. Benmounah, and M. Oulhadj, Uncertainty study of fiscal orifice meter used in a gas Algerian field. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 2019. 66: p. 200-208.
  5. Tang, P.W. and F.B. Energy, Pressure, Temperature, and Other Effects on Turbine Meter Gas Flow Measurement. J Sch. Gas Meas. Technol, 2015. 3.
  6. Kegel, T., Flow Measurement Uncertainty - Analysis Based on Field Grade Components, in 4th CIATEQ Seminar on Advanced Flow Measurement. 2004.
  7. Kegel, T., Uncertainty Analysis of Turbine and Ultrasonic Meter Volume Measurements, in American Gas Association. 2005.
  8. Johnson, A. and T. Kegel, Uncertainty and traceability for the CEESI Iowa natural gas facility. Journal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2004. 109(3): p. 345.
  9. Kegel, T., Uncertainty Analysis Of A Volumetric Primary Standard, in 5th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement. 2002.
  10. Emrys, H. and J. Jones, Theoretical Uncertainty Of Orifice Flow Measurement, in International School of Hydrocarbon Measurement. 1986.
  11. NASA, P., Overall Measurement Accuracy —Determination And Influence, in American School Of Gas Measurement Technology. 2003.
  12. Marinho, F., Uncertainty In Flow Gas Measurement Systems With Ultrasonic Meters, in North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop. 2015.
  13. Abernethy, R., R. Benedict, and R. Dowdell, ASME measurement uncertainty. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 1985. 107(2): p. 161-164.
  14. ا. اکبری، م. سیاح نژاد و ن. ا. رضوی، «محاسبه عدم قطعیت ترکیبی سیستم میترینگ گاز پالایشگاه شهید هاشمی نژاد بر اساس استاندارد ایزو 5168»، سومین همایش ملی اندازه‌گیری جریان سیالات در صنایع نفت، گاز، پالایش، پتروشیمی و آب، 1395.
  15. Johnson, R.C., Real-gas effects in critical flow through nozzles and thermodynamic properties of nitrogen and helium at pressures to 300x105 newtons per square meter (approx. 300 atm). nasa sp-3046. NASA Special Publication, 1968. 3046.
  16. Johnson, R.C., Calculations of the flow of natural gas through critical flow nozzles. 1970.
  17. Choi, H.M., K.-A. Park, Y.K. Oh, and Y.M. Choi, Uncertainty evaluation procedure and intercomparison of bell provers as a calibration system for gas flow meters. Flow measurement and instrumentation, 2010. 21(4): p. 488-496.
  18. Johnson, A.N. and J.D. Wright, Gas flowmeter calibrations with the 26 m 3 PVTt standard. NIST Special Publication, 2009. 1046.
  19. Lunde, P., K.-E. Froysa, S. Neumann, and S. Vervik. Handbook of Uncertainty Calculations–Ultrasonic Fiscal Gas Metering Stations. in 26 th International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop. 2003.
  20. NFOGM, Handbook of uncertainty calculations for ultrasonic, turbine and Coriolis oil flow metering stations. 2018.
  21. Lonna Dickenson, E. Reduce operational uncertainty in large volume gas transfers. 2024; Available from: https://forcetechnology.com/en/articles/reducing-operational-uncertainty-in-large-volume-gas-transfers.
Iranian Journal of Gas Engineering
Volume 10, Issue 2 - Serial Number 18
December 2023
Pages 17-28
  • Receive Date: 01 November 2023
  • Revise Date: 24 December 2023
  • Accept Date: 30 December 2023