AGA Report No.

11 Revised
Measurement of Natural Gas by Coriolis Meter Angela Floyd ConocoPhillips Company The original AGA 11 document was developed in 2003 to meet the requirements for the transmissions gas companies use of the meters in custody transfer applications. During this time some independent review of the meter performance had been carried out namely to establish the capabilities of the meter and to prove the water calibration proposed by the manufacturers could be translated to a comparable gas calibration. These documents were presented in the original technical paper which was included in the original 2003 document as an appendix. The documents described the fundamentals of the meter and offered recommendations for installation. They touched on various outputs available from the meter and the use of the software provided. Overall, it was a good start at introducing the Coriolis meter in natural gas measurement. Even though the liquid Coriolis meter had been used for many years, its use in the gas industry had been avoided due to the uncertainty requirements; the relatively large pressure drop and a basic misunderstanding of the meter capabilities and limitations. Another hurdle for the meter installation was its inability to provide actual cubic feet measurements. Remember, we are talking a direct mass meter. The gas industry is drenched in volumetric measurement while much of the downstream market where the liquid meters were used was happy to use mass measurement. The lack of an accepted standard did not help either. Through the years to 2009, many of the majors had done independent evaluation of Coriolis meters in gas service. This was a test period where many of the features of the meter were identified, addressed or avoided altogether. The lack of maintenance and installation requirements was always a plus for the meter but proving and the black box syndrome had many potential detractors. While some operators forged ahead with unmanned installations and custody transfer stations, others dabbled. Many were limited to their company software which meant huge changes to accommodate the mass or actual volume input from the meter. The layout of the documents required improvement and alignment with the latest revision of AGA 9 for USM and AGA7 for Turbine meters proved a successful format. In reading through these documents you will see the similarity in content and structure as well as data presentation. The performance based content and layout of the document should increase familiarity and ease of reference for those used to using the AGA 7/AGA 9 reports as well as providing an established layout for the new reader.

So, after 6 years of playing with the meter it was determined that enough additional data and experience had been gained to update the existing AGA 11 document to; 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Improve the level of detail in the use of the meter Discuss the diagnostic capabilities of the meter Discuss calibration capabilities Offer guidelines on the calculation processes available in the software Offer guidelines in determining uncertainty

1.0 Detailed Use of the Coriolis Meter By now many users could offer suggestions on how to get the best performance from the meter based upon their own flowing parameters. Although they followed basic principles of installing the meter upwards to avoid liquid buildup, they were now more aware of the importance of installing the meter in a bypass design and how to install the appropriate instrumentation with improved results.

Fig 1 Installation example

The figure above shows an example of a Coriolis meter installed in a by-pass line. This is recommended to allow the meter to be re-zeroed for verification and also to reduce the need to shut down the line for the re-zeroing or maintenance process. The Coriolis meter in gas measurement applications is typically one or more pipe sizes smaller than the upstream and downstream piping it is connected to, requiring the use of reducers and expanders in the design. It should be noted that excessive lengths of small diameter pipe, rapid flow diameter reductions, rapid changes in flow direction (tees, short radius elbows, etc.) can adversely affect piping pressure drop. Therefore, conservative piping design techniques should be incorporated when the pressure drop is of concern in any particular application. The piping design should consider the following: Flow Direction Flow Stream protrusions Meter Mounting Orientation Filtration Sample Port Location Gas Velocity

In addition to the normal considerations of vibration and noise when installing a meter, more detailed discussion on the consideration of pressure and temperature compensation are discussed in the new revision. It was recognised that although P and T are not required to calculate mass or base volume, they are important parameters in the fundamental performance of the meter accuracy. Therefore, to account for temperature changes due to Youngs Modulus on the sensor tubes, a temperature measurement should be taken upstream of the meter. Many meter designs have the temperature sensor incorporated into the meter design for this purpose. Similarly, the effects of pressure on the sensor tube stiffness should be accounted for by taking a pressure measurement either up or downstream of the meter. This value when collected upstream of the meter - can be used in the pressure compensation during calibration and set up of the meter. Pressure compensation should be performed during initial calibration of the meter. As flowing gas pressures are typically higher than the water calibration pressure, a negative flow bias will be induced relative to the flow pressure effect specification for the particular meter design. Pressure compensation can by applied by ether a fixed value if the pressure is relatively stable or via active line pressure if the pressure has more fluctuation. To establish a new pressure compensation factor other than the original water calibration reference, eg on natural gas, the calibration facility personnel should be instructed to disable the flow pressure effect compensation. The performance requirements of the Coriolis meter were reevaluated during the revision of this document. It was determined that many of the meter manufacturers performance requirements were based upon out-dated data and that field experience proved that many

of the meter designs were capable of providing greater uncertainty, especially calibrated. See table 1 below for changes on performance requirements.

if

As you can see from the increased uncertainty numbers below, the Coriolis meter is being required to compete in a tighter performance range and therefore go head to head with other gas custody metering. This and much of the terminology is taken from AGA 9! 2003 Uncertainty +/- 0.5% +/- 1.0% +/- 1.0% +/- 1.5% +/- 1.0% +/2011 Uncertainty 0.35% Of reading 1.0% Of reading 0.7% Of reading 1.4% 0.7% 1.4% Of reading Of reading Of reading

Repeatability Maximum Mean Error Maximum Peak-Peak Error

QtQiQmax QminQiQmax QtQiQmax QminQiQmax QtQiQmax QminQiQmax

Table 1. Minimum Uncertainty Performance Specifications 2003 -2011 In addition to the performance values shown above, the data representation has been recharted to show how the terminology now applies to the Coriolis meter. See Fig 2 below.

Fig 2. Graphical representation of meter performance specifications

2.0

Diagnostic Capabilities of the Coriolis Meter

Each manufacturer offers a range of diagnostic capabilities in the meter sensor and transmitter. These diagnostics may be automatic and integrated in the meter. They may require a manual process or the use of an external component. The main objective of these diagnostics is to use the internal measurements and output signals of the meter. These signals will provide indication of malfunction or change in the meter performance, or the flowing media going through it. This can be very useful to ensure stability of the meter and it process. During meter calibration a baseline should be established to fingerprint the particular meter performance. This baseline can then be used as a reference throughout the life of the meter to determine the health of the meter and to establish maintenance intervals or alarm limits for operations. The following is a list of examples of parameters that a manufacturer may provide for diagnostic measurement via a local display or a digital interface (e.g. RS-232, RS-485): EPROM checksum Configuration change flag Drive gain or power indication Pickoff or signal amplitude Temperature output(s) Live zero flow indication Status and measurement quality indicators Alarm and failure indicators Flowing density or flow tube resonant frequency Flow tube health indication Flow tube balance or symmetry Frequency output test Digital status output test

3.0

Calibration Capabilities

As previously stated, manufacturers typically calibrate the Coriolis meter with water in their own or other certified facility, and this data is translated for gas application. This revised AGA 11 document now requires the manufacturer to provide data on a number of tests performed on his given meter model. These tests should include alternative calibration fluids such as air or gas and include the uncertainty of the measurement for the meter under these tests. The manufacturer should advise the user of limitations or restrictions to the operational range of the meter in such gas service. It is recommended that at least 5 flow rate test points be reviewed during calibration and at least one verification point be reviewed if a calibration factor is applied. To minimize or eliminate any indicated bias error, a calibration adjustment factor may be applied to the meter. The accepted methods of applying factors are: 1) Using the flow-weighted mean error (FWME) over the meters expected flow range (Calculation of FWME is shown in Appendix A). 2) Using a polynomial algorithm 3) Multipoint linear interpolation 4) Piecewise linearization method

In the field, meter verification consists of monitoring and evaluating metering conditions, meter diagnostic outputs and/or ancillary devices of the system to determine if any changes to the meter performance are indicated and to determine the cause of the changes. The operator should consider design specific meter verification procedures recommended by the manufacturer, and may include the following: Meter Transmitter Verification Coriolis Sensor Verification Temperature Verification Meter Zero Verification

This verification of parameters will direct the operator in determining if the meter requires re-zeroing, re-calibration (In-situ or in a Lab) or modifications to the installation.

4.0

Guidelines on the calculation processes available in the software

Appendix E of the revised document provides detail of flow computer calculations used with the Coriolis sensor output to calculate flow accurately, taking into account the requirements of API 21.1, Flow Measurement Using Electronic Metering Systems, Section 1, Electronic Gas Measurement. The section covers the system architecture including discrete I/O communications and provides the computations applied in the flow computer and/or transmitter software. This important information has been displayed in a format which explains how the use of mass measurement at actual flowing conditions can provide volume and energy at base conditions. It explains how the gas physical properties and process conditions must be applied for accurate results. The computation and output of the Coriolis meter has been updated since 2003 to meet the requirements of the operator end users allowing an easier integration of the meter into their present software and hardware systems. 5.0 Guidelines in determining uncertainty

One of the most important aspects of the meter and its installation is limiting the amount of uncertainty added to it by design or installation practices. Although measurement practices make reference to the meter uncertainty, it is important that the operator understands the fundamental aspects and considerations which play into the uncertainty number which appears on all vendor specification sheets and operator data sheets. Therefore, this document has followed the direction of the AGA 9 in providing a complete section (Section 10 and Appendix D) describing the aspects which affect the Coriolis meter uncertainty.

As in all meters, the uncertainty is not only affected by the design of the meter but also by the method used and where the meter is calibrated. Flow calibration facilities carry their own uncertainties of operation, based upon their primary standards and contributing instrumentation. The facilitys repeatability and reproducibility capabilities are often the quoted uncertainty and must be considered and included in the overall calibrated meter uncertainty. Conclusion The revision of AGA 11 has been made possible by the dedicated efforts of multiple operators and end-users in the Natural Gas market place. The drive to have more accurate measurement and have metering options which cover all areas of the market, has led to a document which offers practical user-interface guidelines and instruction on how to get the best performance from the Coriolis meter when operated and installed as directed. Reference List AGA Engineering Technical Note XQ0112, Coriolis Flow Measurement for Natural Gas Applications, American Gas Association, 400 N. Capitol Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20001 AGA Engineering Technical Note M-96-2-3, Ultrasonic Flow Measurement for Natural Gas Applications, American Gas Association, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209 AGA Report No. 3, Orifice Metering of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Fluids, American Gas Association, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209 AGA Report No. 7, Measurement of Gas by Turbine Meters, American Gas Association, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209 AGA Report No. 9, Measurement of Gas by Multipath Ultrasonic Meters, American Gas Association, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22209

AR-001510