Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GUIDELINE
for the estimation of the individual
uncertainties related to the full and
part load efficiency measurement
for boilers
ANNEX to Final Report, Contract No. SAVE 4.1031/Z/99-306
8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 68
4
PRELIMINARY REMARK
This document is elaborated in the frame of the project
SAVE: CREATION OF A HARMONISED AND DETAILED CALCULATION METHOD FOR THE
EVALUATION OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT. (Contract SAVE 4.1031/Z/99-
306)
The following organisations did participate in sending data and information about the instru-
ments used for testing boilers:
ARGB, BBRI, CETIAT, DGC, DVGW, GASTEC, G.d.F., ITALGAS, OMV, REPSOL, SP,
TNO, and VTT.
The reference testing methods for the full and part load efficiency measurement are those from
documents produced by CEN and also described in the GLP for efficiency measurements. (Good
Laboratories Practice documents for the measurement of boiler efficiency elaborated in the frame
of the project FULL AND PART LOAD EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENTS FOR BOILERS (Contract MAT 1 -
CT 92-0009) 1993-1996).
This document is written in a way that it can be (or part of it can be) used later on, as an
Appendix of the GLP.
INTRODUCTION
It was established through several inter-comparison tests that the boiler efficiency reproducibil-
ity is too bad for a correct application of the boiler directive 92/42.
One of the weak points is that laboratories do not well enough know their own uncertainties, and
in any case the methods used by laboratories for the determination of uncertainty differ too much
from each other. Laboratories putting more efforts in the determination of the uncertainty have
larger figures and seem to have a bad measurement accuracy compared to laboratories only pro-
ceeding with a quick approximation and thus neglecting a number of important factors.
This is why a detailed and harmonised method for the determination of the uncertainty is needed.
Such a method is now being developed in the framework of this project.
One of the main conclusions achieved is that the method cannot be and shall not be “frozen”.
Together with the permanent evolution in the instrument technology there are new factors to
include in the method and there are some existing ones that can be eliminated. The method de-
veloped is to a certain extent based on the growing experience of laboratories and new data shall
be implemented in the method as well.
Laboratories testing boilers are only instrument users and do not have an extended knowledge of
the instruments’ uncertainties (if not given by the manufacturers). Manufacturers of instruments
and calibration organisation shall as far as possible also make efforts in order the data we have to
use are reliable and comparable.
6
1 DEFINITIONS (ISO)
1.1 Introduction
The present section of the document aims at clarifying a number of statistical tools used for the
expression of the efficiency.
More definitions can also be found in [1], [2] and [3], which are the reference documents used
for the work carried out.
The methods used for the evaluation of the results of inter-comparison tests are:
[1] ISO 5725: (Precision of test methods - Determination of repeatability and reproducibility
by inter-laboratory tests)
Some basic definitions of ISO 5725 are given below (in bold):
Repeatability [2]
The repeatability (r) is the value, below which the absolute difference between two single
test results obtained with the same method on identical test material, under the same con-
ditions (same operator, same apparatus, same laboratory, and short interval of time) may
be expected to lie within a probability of 95%.
The repeatability is a value indicating how one single laboratory can reproduce the same meas-
urement, for example when repeating the same efficiency test (e.g. in the morning and in the
afternoon).
The repeatability is calculated with the standard deviation (s) (See further below).
r = 2.83 s
Note that the repeatability is an amplitude. It is not expressed as ± value as are the uncertain-
ties.
Example
Suppose the boiler efficiency tested 5 times in the same laboratory:
7
Reproducibility [2]
The reproducibility (R) is the value, below which the absolute difference between two sin-
gle test results obtained with the same method on identical test material, under different
conditions (different operators, different apparatus, different laboratories, and different
time) may be expected to lie within a specified probability of 95%.
The reproducibility is a value indicating how measurements obtained by several laboratories can
compare, for example when repeating the same efficiency test on the same boiler. The notion of
outliers is used to detect measurements for which large mistakes have been done during tests
(e.g. test carried out with wrong heat input or wrong load).
The reproducibility is calculated with the standard deviation (s) (See further below).
R = 2.83 s
Note that the reproducibility (and the repeatability) are amplitudes. They are not expressed as ±
value as are the uncertainties.
3 89 89.0
4 88.4 88.5
5 89 88.0
6 90 87.5
7 87 87.0
8 87.4 86.5
9 88 86.0
10 88.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Laboratory
8
The reproducibility is 2.42% (absolute value). This means that the statistical absolute difference
between two single test results is 2.42%. There is, however, a probability of 5% that it is larger
(see further “confidence level”). This is the reason why the amplitude Max-Min seen on the
graph or table is larger.
91.0
90.5
90.0
Efficiency (%)
89.5
89.0
88.5 Max- Min R =2.43%
88.0 =3%
87.5
Max
87.0
86.5 Min.
86.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Laboratory
Outliers [2]
Outliers are entries among the original test results that deviate so much from comparable
entries that they are considered as irreconcilable with the other data. An outlier does not
properly belong to the experiment and is corrected or discarded in keeping with the expla-
nation obtained after investigations.
Outliers and stagger values can be investigated by using the Dixon tests or other tests described
in standards.
n
1
s =
n -1
i=1
(Xi - X)2
X: average of Xi
9
The standard deviation used is always an experimental standard deviation unless otherwise
specified. Note that the "traditional" standard deviation is using a dividing factor of (n) instead of
(n-1).
Uncertainty [2]
Parameter associated with the result of a measurement that characterises the dispersion of
the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand.
In the present report - when not otherwise mentioned - we are dealing with uncertainty
with a confidence level of about 95% (we write "about" because the factor 2 chosen is in fact
the rounding of 1,96 corresponding to exactly 95%).
So instead of
u (95%) = 1,96.s
we use:
u (95%) = 2.s
Measurand [2]
Particular quantity subject to measurement [2].
Error [2]
Result of a measurement minus a true value of the measurement.
Normal distribution
Calculations are generally based on a hypothesis of a normal or approximately normal distri-
bution of the results. However, when another distribution is known, the appropriate formulas are
used (see further below).
Unless otherwise indicated, one may assume that a normal distribution was used to calculate the
quoted uncertainty [2].
10
Gaussian distribution
(STD= 1% abs. ;U= 2 % abs.)
0.50
0.45
0.40
Probability
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-4 -2 0 2 4
Eff m easured - Eff real
For a normal distribution, the quoted uncertainty defines an interval having 90, 95 or 99% of
confidence (see further below).
The factors corresponding to the above three levels are 1.64, 1.96 and 2.58, respectively.
This means that the standard uncertainty has to be multiplied by the corresponding factor.
Example
u (95%) = 1,96.s
u (about95%) = 2.s
Probability 0.60
(Cumulated) 0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Eff measured - Eff real
11
The uncertainty and the reproducibility are always given with a certain level of confidence. In
general, most of the laboratories are using a level of 95% of confidence (calculated as about two
times the standard deviation). This means that when the uncertainty given is 2%, there is a prob-
ability (5%) that the result is outside of the range of uncertainty. On the graph it can be seen that
the cumulated probability of having the result below -2% is 2.5% and the same probability ap-
plies for having the result over 2%.
the probability that the value of the quantity lies between a + (upper limit) and a - (lower lim-
it) is 100%
the probability it lies outside the interval is zero
In case the upper and lower bounds are not symmetric, the standard uncertainty is:
(a a ) 2
u=
12
a2
u=
3
For simplification’s sake, we will assume that the distribution is either Gaussian or rectan-
gular. In the example worked out in this report it was seen that for the application to the
uncertainty calculation of boiler efficiency, the hypothesis is acceptable. For information
we also describe below other distribution types.
In the computer program developed we have only considered symmetric rectangular dis-
tribution and Gaussian distribution.
By not including the non-symmetric rectangular distributions, the method becomes much
simpler (only one parameter is used to describe a given distribution). As a result, the meth-
od becomes a bit less accurate, but the effect seems to be very small.
This choice is justified by the target of having an overall acceptance of the method by the
laboratories doing type testing of boilers. Therefore, we have chosen to have a simplified
method that might be slightly inaccurate, but used; instead of having an accurate, but very
complicated method that will not be used (because of the difficulties in applying the meth-
od).
a 2 (1 ) 2
u=
6
In case = 0 (triangular distribution), the standard uncertainty is:
a2
u=
6
As mentioned above, we will not use such distribution in the method chosen, as it requires the
knowledge of the parameters a and , which are generally not known.
1.4 Application
The guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement [2] is giving details of how to inter-
pret the different uncertainty sources (in the annex F of the document [2]).
Hysteresis : if the range of possible reading is x , the standard uncertainty equal to:
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (hysteresis) = = 0,29 . x
3 12
1. Calculation of a single mean correction over a certain range of interest of the influencing
parameter (e.g. 40 to 60°C).
b is this mean value obtained by integration of the correction over the range of interest.
2. Calculation of the variance associated with the mean correction b over the range of interest
(this is the uncertainty of using a fixed value instead of the real correction).
T2
1
u 2 (b) = . (b(T ) b) 2 .dT
T2 T1 T 1
3. Mean variance of the correction. This is the variance due to the actual determination of the
correction.
T2
1
2
u (b(T )) = . u 2 [b(T )].dT
T2 T1 T 1
13
The correction is in most cases given by the calibration laboratories. So the above variance is
to be given by those.
14
The target is to give the laboratories a tool they can use in order to calculate their own uncertain-
ty in a way that is comparable with other laboratories.
In the present situation, we cannot be sure that a laboratory claiming 2% accuracy is better than
the one claiming 2.5%. In the future, with the method proposed, this should be possible. As a
result, it will give better possibilities for laboratories for improving their own systems. Not only
will the global value of the accuracy be known, but also the details allowing to identify the weak
points of the system.
Often some of the data needed for estimation of the uncertainty are not known. Until now, those
were often not considered in the calculation (when not known, the error was not considered). In
the frame method proposed here, when the error or uncertainty is not known, a worst-case error
concept will be used.
For that sake, data from different sources are gathered in order to get statistics on the different
uncertainty factors. The worst case would typically be the highest uncertainty found within the
experience known.
The laboratory can set up its own strategy for improving its own accuracy. The less the laborato-
ry knows about its instruments, the more it will be penalised. Taking into account the cost, po-
tential gain in accuracy etc., it will be possible for each laboratory to perform partial or extended
test or investigation on the measurement instruments used.
Following accurately the requirements of the standards [1], [2] would lead to a very long and
difficult process for the estimation of efficiency uncertainty. A more pragmatic route has been
chosen here. When the correction or influence factor is small, it can cause an unacceptable and
unnecessary expense for the laboratory, so we will as far as possible voluntarily ignore the influ-
ences or uncertainty sources which, at the end, do not change the final result. This is typically
factors having less than 1% influence on the total uncertainty.
However, there are and there will always be factors that will need to be investigated before one
can conclude they are too small to be taken into account.
15
Calculation of efficiency
1. Uncertainty on corrections on ambient condition influence
2. Global repeatability of the efficiency (stability)
The above uncertainties will be investigated for all instruments used for the measurement of
efficiency. They are explained in detail in Section 5 (see below).
16
ARGB, BBRI, CETIAT, DGC, DVGW, GASTEC, Gaz de France, ITALGAS, OMV, REPSOL,
SP, TNO, VTT.
This goal of this survey is to make sure that the uncertainty calculation method developed is ap-
plicable to all laboratories, and that the specificity of each instrument is taken into account.
In this section we list the different instruments used by the laboratories. In the next section (5)
we will look at the instruments used, and for each instrument we determine the uncertainties to
be taken into account.
Explanations on the physical principle of the instruments are given in Annex 3. This is important
as one need to know how the instrument works in order to be able to determine the uncertainties.
Density
As above, chromatography, calorimetry or use of pure gas are used to measure and calculate the
density the gas. Densimeters can be used as well.
Gas flow
Dry volumic flow meters, wet volumic flow meters, massic flow meters are used
Balance is used exclusively for fuel oil (no flow meters are used).
Temperature
Either Pt (platinum) or TC (thermo-couples) temperature probes are used.
Pressure
U manometer, Bourdon tube or pressure transducer are used.
Calorific value
An external laboratory (the laboratory performing the test sends a sample of fuel to an external
laboratory) generally provides the calorific value of the fuel.
Time
Chronometers are used, but also time given by the computer or acquisition system.
Temperature
Either Pt (platinum) or TC (thermo-couples) temperature probes are used.
Flow
Electromagnetic meters are mostly used but Coriolis effect meters, Faraday and Inductive effect
meter or turbines are sometimes used as well.
Temperature
Either Pt (platinum) or TC (thermo-couples) temperature probes are used.
Humidity
Psychrometer, capacitive sensors, semi-conductors or cooled mirrors are used.
Pressure
Barometer, capacitive or piezoresistive meters are used. Vibrating cylinder (?) was also men-
tioned.
As the standards are today, the flue gas losses are not used in the calculation of the efficiency,
but this may change in the future and it is, therefore, also taken into consideration here.
Temperature
Either Pt (platinum) or TC (thermo-couples) temperature probes are used.
CO2
Infra red absorption meters are used exclusively.
O2
Paramagnetic meters are used exclusively.
determined for the correction of the heat output measured. Those losses are measured by means
of an electric method as for the stand by losses (see next point).
Some laboratories measure the standby losses for the calculation of the part load efficiency.
Temperature
Either Pt (platinum) or TC (thermo-couples) temperature probes are used.
Electrical power
Digital wattmeter measuring W, A, V, cos () is used.
Because of the experience gained with instruments by the laboratories, a number of weak points
are already known. In the following we have tried to list by instrument the points that need spe-
cial attention.
We have tried to define procedures that can apply to all measurements and all technologies of
instruments. It is clear that this approach is probably not entirely satisfactory and that future
adaptations will be necessary.
The uncertainty/errors are related in general to the technology used; even identical meters might
not have identical errors. When data on a given instrument are available, it should be made clear
if (and how) they can be used on another instrument of the same technology, trademark, or mod-
el.
The needed values referred to below are in general all comprised in the report (calibration certifi-
cate) provided by the organisation in charge of the calibration.
In case it is not included in Cal 1: In order to make the calculation easier and simple, it is
suggested to consider on the range of utilisation only a maximum value of the calibration
repeatability error considered as a random error.
Cal 5 The possible error due to the use of a calibration curve. ("error due to the inaccuracy in the
error model").
The calibration curve is either given on the calibration certificate or calculated with the data
from the calibration certificate. A polynomial expression of the “reading error” is calculated. It is
advisable that the polynomial expression shall have a degree limited to 3 and even 2 if possible.
a) After correction, the meter error is not eliminated totally: because of the accuracy of the
polynomial expression, there is in general a little difference, but it is often possible to find a
polynomial expression which can quite accurately target the experimental deviations given by
the calibration institute. In most of the cases, we expect this factor should be much lower than
the error of the meter.
20
Again here the results might depend on the value measured. In order to make the work easier,
exactly the same approach as above is suggested. Over the range of utilisation the error lies
between one min. and max. value. It is assumed that this is a case of a rectangular distribution
[2], which means that:
the probability that the value of the quantity lies between a + (upper limit) and a - (lower
limit) is 100%.
the probability that it lies outside the interval is zero.
(a a ) 2 a2
u= or u = if we consider a rectangular symmetric distribution.
12 3
b) If no correction is made, the instrument error remains. In order to make the work easier,
exactly the same approach as above is suggested. Over the range of utilisation the error lies
between one minimum and maximum value. It is assumed that we have a rectangular
distribution [2], which means that:
the probability the value of the quantity lies between a + (upper limit) and a - (lower limit)
is 100%.
the probability it lies outside the interval is zero.
(a a ) 2 a2
u= or u = if we consider a rectangular symmetric distribution.
12 3
When not given directly by the calibration institute, the drift between calibrations can easily be
measured by comparing the new obtained calibration curve with the previous one. The data are,
therefore, available from the calibration reports. The drift could be a function of the value to be
measured.
The history of the drift is very important. The more data are available the more precise is the
determination of the drift.
The drift is a systematic error but which is not known in forehand and, therefore, cannot be
corrected.
As a result we have to consider the drift as a random error.
There can be two situations, generally depending on the physical principle of the instrument:
1. There is a trend of decreasing drift after each calibration
2. The drift is random
ANNEX 2 describes how to decide whether or not there is a trend of decreasing drift.
In order to make the calculation easier and simple, it is suggested to consider on the range of
utilisation one single maximum value of the drift. In this way, the sign of the drift will not be
taken into account. The value can be either relative or absolute, depending on the profile of the drift.
21
Taking into account the method proposed, the choice of the value (relative or absolute) which is the
most constant over the range of utilisation will be made.
The random drift (within a calibration period) is in general not known. It is supposed to be much
smaller than the calibration drift and can, therefore, be neglected.
5.4 Resolution
The resolution of the meters is to be taken into account in the uncertainty calculation. For exam-
ple gas meters are generally giving one pulse for each unit of gas volume which went through
the meter. The resolution is, therefore, an absolute value( x ) in l of gas. The absolute standard
uncertainty is:
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (resolution) = = 0,29 · x
3 12
The meters used for the test are used in conditions that are not necessarily identical with the
calibration conditions.
The table given below in this section indicates the potential influences of various parameters on
instruments. Note that this first version of the table will need to be updated in the light of new
experience and new instruments.
In general the influence factors have to be corrected.
In case the influence is NOT known a worst case should apply; however, the development of this
is not possible in the frame of the present project and such worst case table has to be developed in
the future. It requires a detailed analysis of the instrument behaviour and this work shall
preferably be done in collaboration with the measurement instrument manufacturers.
Various parameters may influence the meters. The influence factors, if any, are to be de-
scribed in the technical documentation by the meter manufacturer. But sometimes the calibra-
tion data can be used to determine the influence of a given parameter, if this influence is
measured during the calibration (e.g. temperature of the water for water flow meters).
In most cases, the influence of the parameter is small and will, therefore, not be corrected. We
are, therefore, in the known case of [2], where the correction from a calibration curve is
not applied.
In most cases, the influence given is linear, e.g. in [l/°C] or [l/mbar] etc.
For example, the influence of ambient temperature on a gas flow meter is + 0.01 l/°C.
Calculation of a single mean correction over a certain range of interest of the influencing
parameter (e.g. 40 to 60°C). b is this mean value obtained by integration of the correction
over the range of interest. In case no correction is applied b = 0.
Calculation of the variance associated with the mean correction b over the range of interest.
This is the uncertainty of using a fixed value (zero in this case) instead of the real correction.
T2
1
2
u (b) = . (b(T ) b) 2 dT
T2 T1 T 1
In general, the correction is a linear function of the influence parameter.
b(T) - b =A.T + B where A and B are constants.
1 A2 T 3
u 2 (b) = .[ A B T 2 B 2 T ]TT 12
T2 T1 3
In case B= 0, the uncertainty is obtained with:
A 2 (T2 T1 )
3 3
1
u 2 (b) = .
T2 T1 3
A = very influential
Or B = influential
Or C = little influence only
Or D = No influence
Or ? = Not known
PERTURBATING PARAMETER
Amb. T. T. variat. Water T. Atm. Voltage Humidity Other
Pressure
23
PERTURBATING PARAMETER
Amb. T. T. variat. Water T. Atm. Voltage Humidity Other
Pressure
GAS
Calorific value/Wobbe index
Chromatog. D C C C C
Calorimetry C/D C/D Gas composition
Use of Pure gas D Gas composition
Wobbe meter D
Density
Chromatog. D C C B C
Calorimetry C/D C/D C/D
Use of Pure gas
Densimeter
PAAR, Pyknometer
Gas flow
Vol. Dry C D (6) D C Calibration with
air instead of gas
Vol. Wet ? D (6) D D
Mass meter D B (5)D C? (6) D C/D Strong hysterisi
Fuel oil flow
Balance B/C (6) B? (6) D B/C (6)
Temperature
Pt D C/D C/D
TC D B (6) D
Pressure
Mano U C D D D
Bourdon tube C D D
Pressure Trans- A (6) B (6) D D
ducer
Vibrating cylinder A (6) B (6) D D
Piezoelectric (1) A (6)? (1) A D B (6)
transducers (6)?
Induction trans- (2) B (6) B (6) D C
ducers
WATER
Flow
Eletromagnetic D D C C/D C/D
Faraday Inductive
Coriolis Effect D D C D D
Turbine D D C D D
Ultra sound (3) C C B (6) D (4) D
(=acoustic ?)
Temperature
Pt D C/D C/D
TC D B (6) D
Temperature difference
Pt D C/D C/D
TC D B (6) D
AIR
Temperature
Pt D C/D C/D
TC D B (6) D
Humidity
Psychrometer A (6) B (6) A (6) D
Capacit. A (6) B (6) B (6) C
Semi- Cond. A (6) B (6) B (6) C
24
PERTURBATING PARAMETER
Amb. T. T. variat. Water T. Atm. Voltage Humidity Other
Pressure
Mirror D D C
Pressure
Barometer D D D
Capacit. A (6) A (6) C B (6)
Piezoresistive A (6) A (6) D B (6)
STANDBY LOSSES
Electrical power
Digital Wattmeter
5.6 Linearity
The linearity error of a gas or water meter is the possible difference between the calibration
curve and the real value not measured (between calibration measurement point having being
used for establishing the calibration curve). In other words, it is the possible error due to the fact
that the curve might not be exactly adapted, not on the calibration points but in-between.
As the linearity error cannot be measured, it is suggested that the linearity is included in the error
of the instrument (calibration curve).
5.7 Hysteresis
The hysteresis is either given by the manufacturer of the instrument or by the calibration
organisation. The hysteresis is a systematic error, which can be corrected, but it is difficult to
handle simply. Therefore, in the (normally rare) cases where there is a hysteresis error, it is
suggested to consider on the range of utilisation a maximum error x . The standard uncertainty is
equal to
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (hysteresis) = = 0,29 · x
3 12
25
Hysterisis
200
190
180
170
160
Y
150
140
130 x
120
110
100
0 2 4 6 8 10
X
In case the curve is not a typical hysteresis curve as the one above (see example of 6.3 water
flow), it can be concluded that there is no hysteresis or that there is a greater uncertainty source.
In both cases the hysteresis error will be considered as zero.
5.8 Instruments
This includes any error of the instrument given by the manufacturer and not included in the list
of errors already taken into account above.
5.9 Other
When not using an acquisition system, the "human" reading of the counter introduces an error (in
this case, this reading error shall be considered also in relation with the resolution of the meter).
Other aspects from the method and procedure are supposed to have no influence, but sometimes
a specific procedure can lead to an error.
5.11 Hardware
The hardware may introduce an error when the signal from the meter is treated in the acquisition
system.
The uncertainty due to hardware is supposed to have a normal distribution.
A study done by CETIAT (2000) shows that the uncertainty due to the hardware is very small
compared to the uncertainties due to the instruments themselves. Its is generally neglected.
However, the conclusion cannot apply to all cases, as it was also seen that some manufacturers
give rather large figures.
It is always preferable to consider the whole or complete measurement line (from the instrument
to the acquisition system) when it is possible to do so. (Reference CETIAT: NT99206, 99210,
99211).
But it is rather time consuming and complicated to get a fair value for the uncertainty, taking
into account the whole chain after the measurement probe, also taking into account whether the
calibration is performed with or without the probes connected.
26
As it seems that the error is in general less than about 0.1%, the effort of getting a fair value is
not justified, therefore, it is proposed to use a fixed value of 0,1% for the hardware drift (time,
etc.) unless the value of the manufacturer is known.
For the temperature measurement, a value of 0,2°C shall apply, unless the real uncertain-
ty/error is given in the technical documentation of the acquisition system. In future, a procedure
shall be developed in the GLP to describe how this error can be checked in practice in order to
be sure it is lower than the value proposed.
The resolution error due to the hardware shall be taken into account separately (see under “Reso-
lution”). See also additional details in ANNEX 4.
What we call “representativity” is the error that is caused by the fact that what the laboratory
measures is not exactly what is wanted or needed to be measured. This error is linked to the fact
that the meter or probe is not placed in the right place or that the measurement does not occur at
the right time for different reasons. It should also include the possible sampling time influence
on the measurement.
A typical example is the measurement of calorific value of the gas when using gas from the net-
work (the composition of which is subject to variations). Some laboratories carry out the analysis
of gas before the measurement, and the variations of the gas calorific value during the test shall
be estimated. When proceeding to several samplings during the test, the possible variations of
gas in between the analysis points shall be estimated as well.
In general, the representativity can be due either to a mistake of the laboratory (in this case it is
difficult to estimate the effect) or to an error because of simplification in a measurement proce-
dure (in this case the “cost” in accuracy of the simplification can be estimated). The representa-
tivity of the measurand can be the main factor of uncertainty or error. It is also the one the labor-
atory has the entire responsibility of (compared to instruments where laboratories depend on
instrument manufacturer’s data, calibration certificates, etc.).
The sampling time effect shall be carefully considered In case of a fluctuation of parameters (do
we have the fluctuation correctly integrated in the measurement?).
But a fluctuation of a parameter can also create some instability. This error is linked with the
repeatability of efficiency (does the fluctuation create an alteration of the efficiency to be meas-
ured?).
In case corrections are carried out on the efficiency (correction of the influence of ambient con-
ditions according the GLP [4]), an error caused by the fact that a correction is generally not per-
fect is taken into account. As long as no detailed estimation of this error is made, we will sup-
pose it is 1/3 of the correction.
27
a2
u= (standard uncertainty)
3
5.13.2 Global repeatability of the efficiency (stability). Uncertainty due to the test rig.
The efficiency measured every 10, 20 or 30 minutes is subject to variations that may be caused
by:
fluctuation of boiler efficiency due to the influence of ambient conditions, gas quality, com-
bustion etc.
dynamic effects on the boiler, measurement probes etc.
The ambient condition effect is already taken into account by the corrections, but in general, the
corrections are only carried out on the final result of efficiency and not on the efficiency meas-
ured every 10, 20 or 30 minutes. (In any case, the correction shall apply on a relative long time
period to eliminate possible errors due to the boiler time constant). So in practice, it is not con-
venient to dissociate the ambient condition effect from the other effects leading to perturbation
in efficiency constancy. Therefore, we suggest to use directly the value of the standard deviation
measured in order to get an overall figure for the efficiency repeatability, knowing that this value
is probably a bit overestimated.
The standard deviation is the value resulting from the application of the stability criteria as de-
scribed in the GLP [4]:
u= 2s
28
IMPORTANT
Please note that this is only an example and not a universal uncertainty to be used for the
meter described. In each case, each laboratory shall calculate the uncertainty by instru-
ment and not take the values from this section, as the example is only given as a guidance
to show how the problem has been treated in one laboratory (here DGC, CETIAT or GdF,
depending on the example).
6.1.1.1 Chromatography
The chromatography technique is generally not used directly by the boiler test operators them-
selves, but by experts. The use of a chromatograph is more sophisticated than the use of a simple
water meter, the calculation of the accuracy is also much more complicated. In order to facilitate
the calculation we have proposed a number of simplifications so as to make the use of the meth-
od possible for non-experts. The method can be discussed and revised in the light of the contri-
bution of chromatograph users/experts. In the following we have proposed the same approach as
for the other errors.
The reference standard for the calculation of U is the ISO 6974-2: 2000 Natural gas - Determina-
tion of composition with defined uncertainty by gas chromatography.
The above points (Cal 2 to Cal 5) are, in general, small compared to the calibration of the uncer-
tainty.
29
Random drift
The random drift is supposed to be much smaller than the calibration drift and can, therefore, be
neglected.
Resolution
The resolution is considered to be very small in comparison to other errors. It is not taken into
account.
Instrument/Repeatability
When no specific data is available, the repeatability of test can be used to determine experimentally
the influence of the instrument errors. When impure gas is used, the overall uncertainty is obtained
by weighting as above (see Calibration).
Other
The stratification in calibration bottles shall be considered, but not so much is known on this
subject at present.
Hardware
There is for the time being no identified error.
Uncertainty on corrections
Not relevant (no corrections).
For the variation of the gas quality during the test (if laboratories are using natural gas) a specific
protocol needs to be developed (See example of in ANNEX 5).
30
WI a U b
CH4 (99,9%)
70% CH4 and 30% 0,6% N2
1 Control every two weeks using pure methane. A statistical study of these controls, shows
that the worst case corresponds to a variance of 1,6 10 -5
2 Control every two months by chromatography. This control is done using the distributed
gas. A statistical study of theses controls, shows that the worst case corresponds to a vari-
ance of 1,095 10 -5
The value obtained by the calibration gas (CH4) is used in the following calculations.
The WOBBE meter operates continuously. The value of the indication is always taken just be-
fore the efficiency measurement starts. The variation of the indication during the testing period is
controlled. We suppose that there is influence of this variation on the efficiency measured since
it is averaged over the testing period.
Random drift
Not relevant.
Resolution
The resolution of the voltmeter is the only error considered during the calibration of the WOBBE
meter with the two reference gases. This resolution is taken equal to 0,1 mV.
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (resolution) = = 0,29 · x
3 12
The pressure of the air and the gas are controlled and maintained constant by regulators. The
accuracy depends then on the sensitivity of the regulators used. The humidity affects directly the
values given because the amount of water present in the air does not undergo (participate) to the
combustion but it absorbs some of the heat generated.
The temperature does not affect the values read because the products of combustion are returned
to the ambient temperature.
Linearity
Not relevant.
Hysteresis
Not relevant.
Instruments
Not relevant.
Other
Not relevant.
Hardware
Not relevant.
Uncertainty on corrections
Not relevant.
Overall uncertainty
The calorific value of the gas is obtained from the WOBBE INDEX and the specific gravity,
which are both measured.
H = WOBBE x d 1/2
The uncertainty associated with the calorific value is composed of the uncertainties of the
WOBBE index and the specific gravity.
The uncertainty associated with the specific gravity is given in 6.1.2.9 and lead to
U = 0,50%
32
The uncertainty associated with the WOBBE index takes into account the calibration, the
drift and the resolution. It was calculated in a previous work done at CETIAT [6] and is
equal to 0,42%.
The uncertainty associated with the calorific value is then the combination of the WOBBE index
and the specific gravity.
or
As above, chromatography, calorimetry or use of pure gas are used to measure and calculate the
density the gas. Densimeters can be used as well.
The gas specific gravity (density) is measured by introducing on the two sides of a paddle, the
gas and air at relative pressure equal to zero. The ratio of the pressures at the exit with no flow is
equal to the specific gravity of the gas.
d = Pg / Pa
The accuracy of the measurement depends on the adjustment of the zero pressure of the gas. This
adjustment is done at regular intervals and is controlled before each measurement of the specific
gravity.
The pressure of the air and the gas are read on the same inclined manometer.
The uncertainty on the specific gravity depends mainly on:
the drift
the resolution
Cal 3 The influence of ambient conditions during the calibration. See Cal 1.
Cal 4 The repeatability of the calibration.
Cal 5 The possible error due to the use of a calibration curve.
Random drift
Not relevant.
Resolution
The resolution when reading the pressure of the air is ¼ of a graduation and is due to the possi-
ble variation of the zero on the reading scale.
The calculation of the uncertainty gives U = 0,38%.
Linearity
Not relevant.
Hysteresis
Not relevant.
Others
Not relevant.
Hardware
Not relevant.
Uncertainty on corrections
Not relevant.
The gas flow can be measured either directly (6.1.4) or the volume (number of impulses) (6.1.3)
and time (6.1.5) can be measured. The calibration results in an average volume corresponding to
one impulse.
The flow meter given in the present example is a gas meter ESTER G4/6.
0,4
0,3
(%)
0,2
0,1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Flow (m3/h)
During calibration, each point has been measured 6 times and the figure above indicates the standard
deviation of the error obtained (data given by the calibration laboratory). The results are depending
on the flow measured. In order to make the work easier, it is suggested to consider the range of utili-
sation only (0.5 to 12 m3/h).
1
Error (%)
0,5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0,5
y = 0,0125x3 - 0,2326x2 + 1,0673x - 0,0528
Flow (m3/h)
Again the results are depending on the flow measured. In order to make the work easier, exactly the
same approach as above is suggested. Over the range of utilisation only (0.5 to 12 m3/h) the error
lies between 0.27% and -0.13%. It is assumed that this is a case of the a rectangular distribution
[2]:
the probability the value of the quantity lies between a+ (upper limit) and a- (lower limit) is
100%
the probability it lies outside the interval is zero
(a a ) 2
u= = 0.115%
12
0,3
0,2
Drift (%)
0,1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0,1
-0,2
Flow (m3/h)
36
The figure above shows the example of the calibration drift for the gas meter (ESTER G4/6) over a
period of two years. To make the calculation simple, we suggest that over the range of utilisation
(0.5 to 12 m3/h), the drift lies between -0.2% and 0.2%. It is assumed that we have a rectangular
distribution.
a2
u= = 0.12%
3
As no previous calibration data is available, this value is used directly.
Random drift
The random drift is supposed to be much smaller than the calibration drift and can, therefore, be
neglected.
Resolution
The gas meters are generally giving one pulse for each unit of gas volume that went through the
meter. The resolution is, therefore, an absolute value ( x ) in l of gas. The absolute standard
uncertainty is:
u (resolution) = 0,29 · x
In the present example, the resolution of the meter is 1 l. So the absolute standard uncertainty is:
The relative uncertainty is calculated knowing the quantity of gas that went through the meter.
This example is not based on real data, but is given to illustrate how to treat a possible in-
fluence factor.
Linearity
Included in the calibration error.
Hysteresis
The hysteresis is supposed to be very small with all kinds of flow meters considered here. How-
ever, for certain types of meter it should be checked that there is no “start-stop” effect.
Other
There is no other known uncertainty with this meter, so u = 0%, but the following possible and
general problems with gas meters shall be listed:
Errors due to the fact that the calibration is carried out with air and not gas
Start-stop error (e.g. in case there is inertia)
Specific problems when measuring boilers with pilot flame
Absorption of gas in the oil of gas meter
Other aspects from method and procedure are supposed to have no influence.
u = 0%
Hardware
In case of gas metering the hardware is supposed to have only very small or no influence.
u = 0%
Uncertainty on corrections
Not relevant.
u = 0%
u = 0%
For the so-called “dry flow meters” the influence of the humidity of the gas can be a problem.
The solution of this problem is either to use a gas saturated in humidity (but in practice this is
difficult) or to use a dry gas in bottle (probably the best solution).
For the mass flow meters, the uncertainty due to the density of the gas should also be taken into
account (conversion to volume flow).
38
6.1.5 Time
Time is either measured by the computer used for the acquisition or with a chronometer.
In the first case, we will make the hypothesis that the uncertainty is small in relation to all other
uncertainties and so consider that U(t) = 0.
In the second case, the following examples is given:
Random drift
The random drift is supposed to be much smaller than the calibration drift and can, therefore, be
neglected.
Resolution
Generally, the chronometer resolution is not a problem (the electronic resolution is in any case
below 0,01s). For manual chronometers the absolute value ( x ) is about 0.5 s. The absolute
standard uncertainty is:
u (resolution) = 0,29 · x
In the present example, the resolution of the meter is 0.5s. So the absolute standard uncertainty
is:
Linearity
Included in the calibration error.
Hysteresis
No hysteresis.
39
Other
There is no other source of uncertainty known at this stage.
Hardware
Not relevant with the use of chronometers:
u = 0%
Uncertainty on corrections
Not relevant.
u = 0%
u = 0%
6.1.6 Temperature
U (2k) = 0.056°C
The certificate of calibration stipulates that the uncertainty includes the reference (Cal 1), the
calibration method and rig (Cal 2), the condition of calibration (Cal 3), but also the repeatability (Cal
4).
For Pt100 probes, a polynomial expression (degree 2) of the temperature is given by the calibration
laboratories (function of the resistance).
When no specific error is given in the calibration report, it is supposed that the uncertainty in
included is the one given above.
40
The calibration curve is to be implemented in the measuring chain (e.g. acquisition system).
However, In case that, instead of the calibration curve, an average polynomial expression is used,
the corresponding uncertainty shall be calculated.
0,20
0,15
Variation [°C]
0,10
0,05
0,00
-0,05
-0,10
-0,15
-0,20
0 25 50 75 100
Temperature [°C]
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
The figure above shows the example of the calibration drift of a DGC Pt100 used for the gas
temperature metering. Over the range of utilisation, the drift is always lower than 0.05°C.
Random drift
The random drift is supposed to be much smaller than the calibration drift and can, therefore, be
neglected.
Resolution
The resolution of the temperature metering is related to the acquisition system.
( x ) is lower than 0.01°C according to the specification of the instruments.
Linearity
This error is included in the calibration curve error.
Hysteresis
The hysteresis is supposed to be very small within the range of utilisation of Pt100 (< 400°C in
any case).
Other
The time constant of the probe can introduce an error when there is a sudden change in the gas
temperature. However, this does not occur in principle.
u = 0%
(Time constant of the probes: GdF 1,6 mm To95%= 3 to 4 seconds).
Hardware
In case of temperature metering the hardware can have a rather important influence. It is sug-
gested to start with:
Uncertainty on corrections
Not relevant.
u = 0%
u = 0.1°C
42
It was found that the uncertainty of the thermocouples depends mostly on:
non-homogeneity of the temperature of the water flowing in the pipe (representativity)
calibration of the thermocouple
stability and fluctuations of the temperature
u(2k) = 0,2°C
The influence of the non-homogeneity of the thermal bath (cold point) and heat (Joule effect) is
estimated from previous investigations to be:
U = 0,03°C
U = 0,06°C
Random drift
The random drift is supposed to be much smaller than the calibration drift and can, therefore, be
neglected.
Resolution
The resolution of the acquisition system used for resistance measurement is 0,01 mA
U = 0,003°C
Linearity
The linearity is included in the calibration error.
Hysteresis
The hysteresis is negligible.
Instruments
43
u = 0,02°C
u = 0,014°C
Other
Stability is determined by a thermocouple installed in the centre of the unsteady state flow dur-
ing the first 10 seconds of measurements. The uncertainty component related to the stability is
estimated to:
U = 0,45°C
Hardware
The manufacturer gives the influence of the ambient temperature on the acquisition system.
Uncertainty on corrections
Not relevant.
6.1.7 Pressure
U-manometer (e.g. with barometers), Bourdon tube or pressure transducer are used. The absolute
pressure (range 1000 mbar) or the relative pressure (range 20 mbar) can be measured.
Random drift
Not relevant.
44
Resolution (reading)
Resolution = ±0,05 mbar
However, the same laboratory (GdF) indicates a correction of 0.7% of full scale per °C for
temperature above 25°C.
The viscosity of the liquid will influence the response time, but not the measured value.
The uncertainty on the density of the liquid (0,88 kg/l is very small).
Linearity
The linearity error is very small.
Hysteresis
The hysteresis is about 0,1 mbar
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (hysteresis) = = 0,29 · x = 0,029 mbar
3 12
Instruments
This includes any error of the instrument given by the manufacturer and not already taken into
account.
The manufacturer gives a freedom from bias (See 5.29 of NF X 07 001) of full scale (k = 2).
Repeatability error / fidelity: 0,1 mbar (u = 0,1 . 0,29)
Other
No other sources are known.
Hardware
Not relevant.
Uncertainty on corrections
Not relevant.
45
The certificate of calibration indicates in a table the calibration uncertainty as a function of the
pressure. The certificate stipulates that the uncertainty (2k) includes the reference (Cal 1), the
calibration method and rig (Cal 2), the condition of calibration (Cal 3), but also the repeatability (Cal
4).
The uncertainty depends very much on the pressure measured:
P ref U U
(Pa) (Pa) (%)
0 30
32001 42 0.13
64002 51 0.08
96003 52 0.05
128005 51 0.04
160006 47 0.03
However, in the range of use (about 1000 mbar) the uncertainty can be considered as constant for
100.000 Pa.
U (2k) = 52 Pa = 0.05%
46
120000
100000
80000
60000 P ref (Pa)
40000 Poly. (P ref (Pa))
20000
0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
Ui (V)
Taking into account the relative influence of the pressure on the final uncertainty of the efficiency,
this error can in general be neglected. When considering the variation of the voltage signal with the
pressure (almost linear), it is certainly always possible to find a calibration curve fitting well with the
calibration point when taking a degree 2 polynomial expression.
In case the real calibration curve of the pressure transducer is not used (this can be the case when the
pressure is read directly on the display of the device instead of measuring it through the voltage
signal) the above is not true anymore. Either a correction is applied (example for DGC meter 00101,
correction1997 = -4 hPa when 1000 hPa is on display, this is 0.4%); or if no correction is made, the
uncertainty is calculated with:
(a a ) 2
u= (standard uncertainty)
12
In the present example we are using the calibration curve and U = 0%.
We have no data for the example of the JUMO pressure device, but data from DGC (DRUCK)
suggest that drift in the range of 0.8% is not unrealistic (over 2 years).
a2
u= = 0.46%
3
47
Random drift
The random drift is supposed to be much smaller than the calibration drift and can, therefore, be
neglected.
Resolution
The resolution including the acquisition system is 0.1 mbar. The absolute standard uncertainty
is:
Linearity
The linearity error of pressure transducers is without doubt very small (the calibration curve is
close to being linear). We will, therefore, not consider this error.
Hysteresis
The hysteresis is supposed to be very small with all kind of pressure transducers considered here.
Other
No other sources of uncertainty are known at this time.
Hardware
The hardware is supposed to have only very small or no influence
u = 0%
Uncertainty on corrections
Not relevant.
u = 0%
u = 0%
The calorific value is determined using different standards according requirements of repeatabil-
ity and reproducibility. The following table presents the standards, the method used for the de-
termination of the calorific value and the repeatability and reproducibility of the measurements
required by each standard.
Reproducibility
Repeatability
Standard Method used
(MJ/kg)
(MJ/kg)
ASTM D 4868- CV = f( density, %S, %H2O and ash) 0,05 0,15
90
ASTM D 4809- Bomb calorimeter which gives GCV and NCV 0,096-0.1 0,2-0,45
95
ASTM D 240-92 Bomb calorimeter 0,13 0,4
NF M 07-030 Bomb calorimeter: gives GHV 0,2 0,4
Contribution/example by CETIAT.
The balance used for the weighting of the oil presents the following uncertainties:
U(k=2) = ± 0,02%
This value takes into account the systematic error, the repeatability, the calibration and the reso-
lution.
The uncertainty of the determination of a mass, M, using a balance consists of the main follow-
ing components (it appears that according to CETIAT the other sources are very small):
calibration of the masses (references)
calibration of the balance
reading on the balance (resolution)
We then have:
1 10 3
u 1 M 5 2,5 10 3 kg
2
s 2 M 110 3 kg
110 3
u 3 M 2,9 10 4 kg
2 3
Remark
When using CETIAT’s liquid flow meter calibration bench, other specific components, such as
the correction for the evaporation and the component related to the non-symmetrical movement
of the “partiteur” (the manual system used to start and stop the measuring of the fuel oil weight),
are also considered.
The standard uncertainty of the measurement of the mass M is:
u M u 12 M s 2 M u 2 M
2 3
Resolution
The resolution of the balance ( x ) is 10-3 kg which gives
50
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (resolution) = = 0.29 · x
3 12
Linearity
The linearity of a balance is also checked. In this example it has a very small influence only.
Hysteresis
Same as above. When there is a non-negligible value it is treated as follows.
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (hysteresis) = = 0,29 · x
3 12
Instruments
This includes any error of the instrument given by the manufacturer and not already taken into
account. No other points are to be added in this example.
Other
No other points are to be added in this example.
Hardware
Not relevant as the hardware is not used.
Uncertainty on corrections
Not relevant.
6.2.3 Time
6.2.4 Pressure
6.3.1 Flow
Electromagnetic meters are mostly used, but Coriolis effect meters, Faraday and Inductive effect
meter or turbines are sometimes used as well.
In the following, the general remarks apply for all meters above.
The flow meter given in the example is a water flow meter MASSFLO Mass 2100 (Danfoss). It is a
Coriolis effect meter.
The certificate of calibration stipulates that the relative uncertainty related to the calibration rig at
calibration condition is Cal 1 to 3 (k=2) = 0,09% (2 standard deviation). The report mentions that
the uncertainty includes the reference (Cal 1), the calibration method and rig (Cal 2), the condition
of calibration (Cal 3), but also the repeatability (Cal 4).
Calibration at 40 deg. C
0.30
y = 0.018762x - 0.075078
0.25
Flow (kg/s)
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
I (m A)
The difference between the flow calculated and the flow measured during the calibration is
considered as the error of the meter, for which correction should be made.
52
Calibration at 40 deg. C
error calibration curve
0.02
0.02
0.01
Flow (kg/s)
0.01
0.00
-0.0110.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
-0.01
-0.02
I (m A)
The calibration data for a water temperature of 60°C shows that the formula is slightly different.
This point is treated further under the influence of various parameters.
The results depend on the flow measured, but in order to make the work easier, it is suggested to
take only the two extreme values of the error, which lies between -0.010 and 0.015%.
It is assumed that it is a case of rectangular distribution [2]:
Random drift
For all types of water meters, the random drift is supposed to be much smaller than the calibration
drift and can, therefore, be neglected.
Resolution
The water flow meters are generally having a very small resolution. However, in case the resolu-
tion is not small, the absolute standard uncertainty is:
u (resolution) = 0,29 · x
53
The technical documentation of the meter contains no information on the influence of ambient
conditions, but the calibration has been performed at two different water temperature.
Using the calibration curve formula at 40°C for another temperature set is leading to a systematic
error.
Example 1, the error is not flow depending and a fixed value of correction is used.
We suppose a correction:
If the correction of the calibration curve is not applied, but an average correction used instead,
the uncertainty due to this simplification is the following:
Over the water temperature range 40-60, we will use the average correction b = 0.13 · 10/20 =
0.065 (this is the correction which in principle applies to 50°C.)
The variance associated with the mean correction over the range of interest is:
T2
1
T2 T1 T1
u 2 (b) = (b(T ) b) 2 dT
2
1 0,13 A2 T 3
2
u (b) = [ A B T 2 B 2 T ]TT 12
T2 T1 20 3
with
A=1
B = 50
Application
u 2 (b) = 0.00141
u (b) = 0.0375
is the uncertainty because we use a fixed value instead of the real water temperature correction.
U = 2.s = 0.084%
54
The error is depending on the flow (e.g. effect of 0.18% for 20 K at 400 kg/h).
Suppose a correction:
with
A(T) = (T-40) · C/20; (C= -1.29E-04)
B(T) = (T-40) · D/20; (D= 2.32E-01)
0.150
Error (%)
y = -1.29E-04x + 2.32E-01
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0
Flow (kg/h)
Supposing that a unique value of correction is used; over the water temperature range 40-60, the
average correction b = 7.73E-02 will be used (this is the correction at 50°C. and 600 kg/h)
The variance associated with the mean correction over the range of interest is:
1
Q2
1 T2
u 2 (b) = (b(T ) b) 2 dT dQ
Q2 Q1 Q1 T2 T1 T 1
It is obvious that in this case the variance associated with the mean correction will be much more
complicated to calculate than the error itself!
Therefore, in this case it is suggested to proceed with the real correction.
In this case we need to know what is the uncertainty remaining after the correction.
Supposing we use the model of correction above the correction will be given by the expression
From the previous figure it is clear that the model is not perfect and that the errors at 60°C
are as follows:
0,010
0,005
Error (%)
0,000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
-0,005
-0,010
Flow (kg/h)
So, n case the influence is corrected, the remaining uncertainty after correction (at 60°C) is
given by:
a2
u= (standard uncertainty)
3
a is about 0.008%.
In principle, the uncertainty is water temperature depending (at 40°C there is no correction and
the uncertainty is 0) so that
In the present case, the uncertainty is so small that is not even necessary to carry out this adjust-
ment.
Hysteresis
The hysteresis is supposed to be very small with all kinds of flow meters considered here.
56
-0,03 Up
-0,04
-0,05 Up
-0,06
-0,07 Down
-0,08
-0,09
-0,10
Flow (kg/s)
In the present example, the calibration has been carried out with increasing flows (Up) and de-
creasing flow (Down). If there is a hysteresis it is much lower than the repeatability of calibra-
tion and can, therefore, not be detected.
Instruments
No other uncertainty to add at this stage.
Other
No other uncertainty to add at this stage.
Other aspects from the method and procedure are supposed to have no influence.
Hardware
In case of water flow metering the hardware is supposed to have only very small or no influence.
Uncertainty on corrections
Not relevant.
The temperature measurement has been treated in Section 6.1.4. There are, however, some points
for which 6.1.4 is not directly applicable:
Other
The water temperature probe response time and the sampling time are adding errors [7].
A model has been developed in order to make the calculation of this error possible (U = f (re-
sponse time, sampling time, load, etc.)). See ANNEX 6.
Probe type Pt 6 mm Pt 3 mm TC 1 mm
U1: Offset error 0.05 0 0
U2 Max error 10s sampling 0.05 0.04 0.03
(U 1 ) (U 2 / st)
2 2
U (total ) =
with
st = sampling time
The non-homogeneity of the water temperature at the measurement point may be due to the dif-
ference between the water temperature and the pipe wall temperature or when crossing a heat
exchanger. It can reach values up to about 1°C and can, therefore, be an important factor in the
uncertainty of the temperature measurement.
A solution would be to improve the homogeneity of the temperature in the pipe. This is done
naturally in the pipe, but the value of the straight length necessary is very high. The ratio
length/diameter shall be above 100. However, “mixing device” as diaphragms or nozzles (ventu-
ris) can be used to reduce this ratio to about 10.
u = 0.05°C
However, a CETIAT study on TC indicates that the influence of the non-homogeneity of the
water temperature in the duct is found using thermocouples at unsteady state regimes. It is esti-
mated to be:
U = 0,89°C
Note that in principle, the influence of the mixing system is higher on the forward temperature
(just after the boiler). The return temperature should in principle be more homogenous as the
58
water has been circulating in the pipes before returning to the boiler. For the sake of simplicity
and also because we do not have elements of information we will not treat the two temperatures
differently.
FROM CETIAT:
In a pipe with a mixing device, the maximum gap between the average tempera-
ture and the farthest temperature is 0,05 K. Without mixing, this gap depends
essentially on the design of the system used and it is difficult to give any value.
Also the contact probe-water shall be carefully considered. Between 40 and
80°C, the gap observed between the measured values in a "not in direct contact
with water" probe and the temperature measured by a temperature intruding
probe is non-significant or negligible if the system is well adapted and if a well
adapted conducting substance is used.
In some cases, instead of using the two water temperatures in the calculation, only one is used in
combination with the temperature difference. The advantage of such a system is that the global
uncertainty on the heat output of the boiler can be quite low if the laboratory proceeds with a
“verification” of the temperature difference. This is done by verifying the temperature difference
when having the two probes merged in the same bath.
Random drift
The random drift is supposed to be much smaller than the calibration drift and can, therefore, be
neglected.
Resolution
59
Hysteresis
The hysteresis is supposed to be very small within the range of utilisation of Pt100 (< 400°C in
any case.
Repeatability
No other uncertainty to add at this stage.
Other
The water temperature probe response time and the sampling time are adding errors [7].
A model has been developed in order to make the calculation of this error possible (U = f (re-
sponse time, sampling time, load, etc.)). See ANNEX 6.
Probe type Pt 6 mm Pt 3 mm TC 1 mm
U1: Offset error 0.05 0 0
U2 Max error 10s sampling 0.05 0.04 0.03
(U 1 ) (U 2 / st)
2 2
U (total ) =
with
st = sampling time
Hardware
In case of temperature metering, the hardware can have a rather important influence. When tem-
perature difference is concerned, the error might be lower than the one for the absolute tempera-
ture. As the electronics is the same, if there is an influence of e.g. the ambient temperature etc.,
the error will be similar and the effect on dT not seen. However, a number of errors linked to
hardware are random and, therefore, the uncertainty due to hardware is not 0. It is suggested to
start with half of the value proposed for the absolute temperature:
Uncertainty on corrections
Not relevant.
We suggest to use a "standard value" equal to half of the value used for absolute temperature
until this effect is clarified.
u = 0.05°C
6.4.1 Temperature
6.4.2 Humidity
Psychrometer, capacitive sensors, semi-conductors or cooled mirrors are used. This is not a very
important measurement as the result is only used for correction in some situations with condens-
ing boilers. As a result it is not treated here.
6.4.3 Pressure
Barometer, capacitive or piezoresistive meters are used. The appliances used are the same as for
gas absolute pressure (see above).
As the standards are today, the flue gas losses are not used in the calculation of the efficiency,
but this may change in the future and it is, therefore, also taken into consideration here. (see also
ANNEX 8).
6.5.1 Temperature
6.5.2 CO2
6.5.3 Oxygen, O2
When measuring on an indirect test rig, the losses of the test rig (between the boiler output and
the measurement place) are to be determined for correction of the heat output measured. The
measurement of those losses is done with an electric method as for the standby losses (see next
section).
Some laboratories measure the standby losses for the calculation of the part load efficiency.
6.7.1 Temperature
But the sensible point is really the measurement in the air. Where is the point best representing
the temperature around the boiler, and how to measure this point without getting an influence of
the boiler cases? The GLP is not giving any requirement on this point and this has been investi-
gated [8].
Both when the rig losses are determined and when the boiler standby losses are determined we
have this uncertainty. We expect, however, that the rig losses are measured with more attention
(they are measured once and, in principle, are not measured again).
The measurements realised show that large differences in air temperature can be expected be-
cause of the lack of instruction on where to measure this temperature.
Supposing a laboratory will do the measurements at about the middle height of the boiler and
approximately 15 to 75 cm from the rig, we may expect variations up to 2° or even more. Note
that this could be strongly reduced by appropriate guideline, on where to measure ambient tem-
perature.
For this example we suggest a global uncertainty on temperature of about 1° for the rig losses
determination and 2° for the boiler standby losses.
62
For the water we suggest 0,25 and 0,5°C, respectively. The figures given include the uncertainty
of measurement.
The effect of this uncertainty on the losses measured is given by the following expression:
Where k is a coefficient proportional to the losses and n a coefficient taking into account the
radiative-convective character of those (n= 1.25).
The above confirms CETIAT data mentioning that the relative uncertainty associated with the
wattmeter is about 10-3 (0,1% on reading and 0,1% scale).
63
The pump of the rig has in principle no influence in case the conditions for measuring the test rig
losses are the same as the ones used to measure the boiler losses. However, the water tempera-
ture - but especially the water flow - can be rather different and an effect up to 10 W can be ex-
pected.
Below we have developed a simplified method for the determination of the standby losses
measurement. As some factors seem to be determinant, it is not necessary at this stage to carry out a
more detailed analysis.
64
CALCULATION
7 UNCERTAINTY CALCULATION
The formulae for the uncertainty variance for full and part load are given in the following tables.
V( ) V( Qin ) V( Qout )
= +
2 2
Qin Q2out
V ( )
u 2
2
Table 1
8 REFERENCES
[1] ISO 5725 : (Precision of test methods - Determination of repeatability and reproducibility
by inter-laboratory tests)
The background for the calculation of the uncertainties is from:
[2] Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in measurement (ISO)
[3] ISO 3534 : (Statistics - Vocabulary and symbols).
[4] Good Laboratory Practice for Full and Part Load Efficiency Measurement for Boilers Re-
vision of the document 1998-2000 Version 07
[5] Improvement of Interlaboratory Reproducibility for NOx and CO Measurements. Contract
SMT 4 – CT 95 1606.
[6] CETIAT document Wobbe index
[7] TEST OF THERMOMETERS FOR WATER TEMPERATURE ON TEST RIG Response
on temperature change Lars Jacobsen DGC, 2001
[8] Uncertainty estimation when measuring ”Stand By Loss”. Henrik Andersen. DGC, 2001
69
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 1.24 %
Abs. 12.33 mbar
GAS FLOW or GAS
VOLUME (*)
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 200 DO NOT FILL IN U (2k) % of
Distribution Distribution factor factor (2k) U (2k) U (2k) total
(%)
1. Error of the calib. Method A Normal 1.00 1 0.2400 0.0000 0.24 1.2 -
Repeatability A Normal 1.00 1 0.1000 0.0000 0.10 0.2 -
Calibr curve B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.2425 0.0000 0.24 1.2 -
2. Drift between calib. B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.2309 0.0000 0.23 1.1 -
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0006 0.00 0.0 -
5. Influence param. Temperature B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0001 0.00 0.0 -
Pression B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 1.1524 0.0000 1.15 27.2 (Worst case used)
Humidity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 1.1524 0.0000 1.15 27.2 (Worst case used)
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
6. Linearity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.2309 0.0000 0.23 1.1 -
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
8. Instrument A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
9. Other Time (*) A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (*) Not relevant
10. Meth. and proc. A Normal 1.00 1 0.9980 0.0000 1.00 20.4 (Worst case used)
11. Hardware A Normal 1.00 1 0.0025 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
12. Unc. on corrections A Normal 1.00 1 0.9980 0.0000 1.00 20.4 (Worst case used)
13. Representativity A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
(*) Case the flow is not measured directly, but where UNCERTAINTY
the volume
and time are measured separately. The Uncertainty Rel. 2.21 %
calculated
here is on the FLOW Abs. 4.42
GAS PRESSURE
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 1018.07 mbar U (2k) % of
Distribution Distribution factor factor (2k) U (2k) U (2k) total
(%)
1. Error of the calib. Method A Normal 1.00 1 0.0500 0.0000 0.05 0.3 -
Repeatability A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Calibr curve B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
2. Drift between calib. B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.9238 0.0000 0.92 99.7 -
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0577 0.01 0.0 -
5. Influence param. Temperature B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0113 0.0000 0.01 0.0 (Worst case used)
Pression B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Humidity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
6. Linearity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0028 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
8. Instrument A Normal 1.00 1 0.0049 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
10. Meth. and proc. A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
11. Hardware A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
12. Unc. on corrections A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
13. Representativity A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.93 %
Abs. 9.42 mbar
Gas Temperatu-
re
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 22.96 deg. C U (2k) % of
Distribution Distribution factor factor (2k) U (2k) U (2k) total
(%)
1. Error of the calib. Method A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0560 0.24 16.4 -
Repeatability A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Calibr curve B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
2. Drift between calib. B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0577 0.25 17.4 -
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0058 0.03 0.2 -
5. Influence param. Temperature B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Pression B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Humidity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
6. Linearity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
8. Instrument A Normal 1.00 1 0.0218 0.0000 0.02 0.1 (Worst case used)
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0436 0.0000 0.04 0.5 (Worst case used)
10. Meth. and proc. A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
11. Hardware A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.1000 0.44 52.3 -
12. Unc. on corrections A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
13. Representativity A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0500 0.22 13.1 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.60 %
Abs. 0.14 deg. C
TIME (Case of gas volume or fuel 235.17 J/kg
oil)
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 3000.00 U (2k) % of
Distribution Distribution factor factor (2k) U (2k) U (2k) total
(%)
1. Error of the calib. Method A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.1000 0.00 20.0 -
Repeatability A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Calibr curve B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
2. Drift between calib. B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
5. Influence param. Temperature B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Pression B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Humidity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
6. Linearity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
8. Instrument A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.2000 0.01 80.0 -
10. Meth. and proc. A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
11. Hardware A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
12. Unc. on corrections A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
13. Representativity A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.01 %
Abs. 0.22
T water2
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 80.32 deg. C U (2k) % of
Distribution Distribution factor factor (2k) U (2k) U (2k) total
(%)
1. Error of the calib. Method A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0560 0.07 16.4 -
Repeatability A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Calibr curve B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
2. Drift between calib. B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0577 0.07 17.4 -
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0058 0.01 0.2 -
5. Influence param. Temperature B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Pression B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Humidity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
6. Linearity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
8. Instrument A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0125 0.0000 0.01 0.5 (Worst case used)
10. Meth. and proc. A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
11. Hardware A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.1000 0.12 52.3 -
12. Unc. on corrections A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
13. Representativity A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0500 0.06 13.1 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.17 %
Abs. 0.14 deg. C
T water1
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 60.4 deg. C U (2k) % of
Distribution Distribution factor factor (2k) U (2k) U (2k) total
(%)
1. Error of the calib. Method A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0560 0.09 16.4 -
Repeatability A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Calibr curve B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
2. Drift between calib. B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0577 0.10 17.4 -
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0058 0.01 0.2 -
5. Influence param. Temperature B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Pression B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Humidity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
6. Linearity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
8. Instrument A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0166 0.0000 0.02 0.5 (Worst case used)
10. Meth. and proc. A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
11. Hardware A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.1000 0.17 52.3 -
12. Unc. on corrections A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
13. Representativity A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0500 0.08 13.1 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.23 %
Abs. 0.14 deg. C
dT
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 19.92 deg. C U (2k) % of
Distribution Distribution factor factor (2k) U (2k) U (2k) total
(%)
1. Error of the calib. Method A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0500 0.25 30.9 -
Repeatability A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0040 0.02 0.2 -
Calibr curve B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
2. Drift between calib. B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0231 0.12 6.6 -
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0058 0.03 0.4 -
5. Influence param. Temperature B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Pression B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Humidity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
6. Linearity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
8. Instrument A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
10. Meth. and proc. A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
11. Hardware A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0500 0.25 30.9 -
12. Unc. on corrections A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
13. Representativity A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0500 0.25 30.9 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.45 %
Abs. 0.09 deg. C
WATER FLOW
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 735.76 kg/h U (2k) % of
Distribution Distribution factor factor (2k) U (2k) U (2k) total
(%)
1. Error of the calib. Method A Normal 1.00 1 0.0900 0.0000 0.09 1.7 -
Repeatability A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Calibr curve B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0173 0.0000 0.02 0.1 -
2. Drift between calib. B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 4.0415 0.55 63.2 -
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0392 0.0000 0.04 0.3 (Worst case used)
5. Influence param. Temperature B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0092 0.0000 0.01 0.0 -
Pression B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Humidity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
6. Linearity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
8. Instrument A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
10. Meth. and proc. A Normal 1.00 1 0.2713 0.0000 0.27 15.4 (Worst case used)
11. Hardware A Normal 1.00 1 0.1356 0.0000 0.14 3.9 (Worst case used)
12. Unc. on corrections A Normal 1.00 1 0.2713 0.0000 0.27 15.4 (Worst case used)
13. Representativity A Normal 1.00 1 0.0004 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.69 %
Abs. 5.08 kg/h
WATER
DENSITY
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 983.02 kg/m3 U (2k) % of
Distribution Distribution factor factor (2k) U (2k) U (2k) total
(%)
1. Error of the calib. Method A Normal 1.00 1 0.0200 0.0000 0.02 100.0 -
Repeatability A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Calibr curve B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
2. Drift between calib. B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
5. Influence param. Temperature B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Pression B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Humidity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
6. Linearity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
8. Instrument A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
10. Meth. and proc. A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
11. Hardware A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
12. Unc. on corrections A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
13. Representativity A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.02 %
Abs. 0.20 kg/m3
WATER ENTHALPY
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 252676.75 335950.90 J/kg U (2k) % of
Distribution Distribution factor factor (2k) U (2k) U (2k) total
(%)
1. Error of the calib. Method A Normal 1.00 1 0.0700 0.0000 0.07 100.0 -
Repeatability A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Calibr curve B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
2. Drift between calib. B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
5. Influence param. Temperature B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Pression B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Humidity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
6. Linearity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
8. Instrument A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
10. Meth. and proc. A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
11. Hardware A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
12. Unc. on corrections A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
13. Representativity A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.07 %
Abs. 176.87 J/kg
BALANCE (fuel oil)
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 45.00 kg U (2k) % of
Distribution Distribution factor factor (2k) U (2k) U (2k) total
(%)
1. Error of the calib. Method A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0025 0.01 0.2 -
Repeatability A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0010 0.00 0.0 -
Calibr curve B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
2. Drift between calib. B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0002 0.00 0.0 -
5. Influence param. Temperature B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Pression B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Humidity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
6. Linearity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
8. Instrument A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
10. Meth. and proc. A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
11. Hardware A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
12. Unc. on corrections A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
13. Representativity A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0500 0.11 99.7 (Worst case used)
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.11 %
Abs. 0.05 kg
82
Drift
0.6
0.5
0.4
Value
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Calibration Nr
In both cases, we suppose a rectangular distribution (see example in Section 6.1.3 Gas Volume) of
the drift.
(*) A value is obtained during one calibration. The next value is obtained after the calibration carried
out at the "normal" calibration frequency of the meter. (e.g. the drift obtained during 5 calibrations
carried out the same day are NOT valid in this case).
83
Note: In this Annex (prepared by CETIAT) we have deliberately kept some French words in
brackets, as the translation was not clear at this stage. The document will be updated in
the future (e.g. in the framework of LABNET activities).
Each component will, therefore, escape from the column at its characteristic time. Detectors such
as thermal conductivity sensing elements or a catalytic combustion cell are installed downstream
of the column in the carrier gas stream. The presence of each component is detected as it leaves
the column with the carrier gas.
The composition of the mixture is represented by a chromatogram, which is a strip chart record
of the detector output. The time of appearance of each peak is a characteristic of a particular
component, and each peak’s height and area are proportional to the quantity of that component in
the mixture.
New chromatographs use advanced technological innovations. They can be connected to com-
puters and can directly print out the composition of the gas to be analysed.
From the gas composition one can calculate directly the calorific value of the gas and its specific
gravity. The calorific value and the specific gravity of the gas give the WOBBE index.
ASTM D 900-55 requires a reproducibility of 0,5% and a repeatability of 0,3% on such calorim-
eters.
84
Flow rates of gas and combustion air, and heat absorbed by cooling air, are regulated through
electrically driven metering devices that are geared together so that a constant air/gas ratio is
maintained. The combustion products from a specially developed burner are kept separate from
the cooling air and are cooled almost to initial temperature of the combustion air.
Two resistance thermometers forming part of a Wheatstone bridge circuit measure the increase
in temperature of the air. It is automatically recorded in terms of calorific value of the gas.
The accuracy of such calorimeters given by the manufacturer is 0,5% from half to full scale.
The influence parameters are the ambient temperature, the humidity.
WOBBE meters
The WOBBE meters are air-cooled recording calorimeters.
These instruments are used to measure the calorific value of the gas if the specific gravity is
known (usually measured as well).
A WOBBE METER consists of a small burner supplied by a combustible (the gas to be ana-
lysed) and combustion air at constant pressure. Dilution air is used to absorb all the heat of com-
bustion. The heat released by the combustion is equal then to the increase in enthalpy or temper-
ature of the dilution air.
This increase in temperature is represented by an electrical signal, which is proportional to the
volumetric WOBBE INDEX at the normal conditions of pressure and temperature.
admission, respectively, into two separate identical chambers. The difference between the torque
causes a limited movement of the system that is transmitted to a pointer indicating the ratio of
the torque produced by the gas flow to the torque produced by the air flow which are proportion-
al to the specific gravity.
The manufacturers claim 0,5% accuracy.
Turbine meters
These meters use a wheel. The axis of the wheel either coincides with the axis of the flow (axial
turbines) or is perpendicular to the flow axis (tangential turbines). The wheel is made to move by
the action of the fluid flow. The measurement of the spinning speed of the wheel gives the vol-
ume flow rate.
Vortex meters
86
A streamlined obstacle installed in the flow produces a vortex with a frequency proportional to
the flow velocity allowing the measurement of the flow rate.
They are installed in the pipe and produce a small pressure drop. They can be used for water, gas
or steam.
The following table gives the main characteristics of the different flow meters.
P maximum (bar)
T maximum (°C)
Comments and
Pressure drop
Liquid usage
Flow meters
Gas usage
remarks
Indirect or derived from fundamental systems or based on the variation certain properties
of the sensing material under pressure action.
Inclined columns
U-tube manometers allowing an enlargement of the range of pressure measurement (length of the
column). This is very well adapted for low-pressure measurement. The uncertainties vary from
2% to 12% depending on the scale used.
The shape changing is transformed into an indication of the pressure using a transducer.
Metallic manometers
Commonly used with in a range of 5 to 10000 bars.
The uncertainties vary from 0,01 to few percents.
Pressure probes
The force developed by the pressure to be measured and applied to bellows is balanced by an
electrodynamics return force created by an electrical current crossing an induction coil installed
inside a permanent magnet. The pressure is read as an electrical signal.
The range of utilisation is 0 to 5 bars. The outlet signal is from 0 to 5 V. The response time is
low and the repeatability and reproducibility are very good.
Piezoresistive probes
These probes use a sensible material which specific resistance (résistivité) varies with the pres-
sure change. The sensible element is installed on the membrane to which the pressure is applied
or spread on the membrane itself.
The pressure gage is installed as a Wheatstone bridge so that one can measure the unbalance as a
function of the pressure. The signal is either in mA or in mV.
These probes measure the unbalance of the inductance between two inductive coils, caused by
the displacement of a membrane. They are used for low-pressure measurements and the output
signal varies from 4 to 20 mA or from 0 to 5 V.
Piezoelectric probes
These probes are systems based on the variation of the physical properties of the material. The
system uses a crystalline material, which electrically polarise under the effect of the pressure.
The outlet signal is a linear function of the pressure.
Are used for measurement of rapidly changing pressures.
The resistance measurement of the sensible element is performed with a an ohmmeter or meas-
urement bridge. In all cases, the simple connection (use of 2 wires) introduces an error on the
value of the resistance. This is because the resistance of the connection cables is installed in se-
ries with sensible element.
In practice, it is preferable to use 3 or 4 wires to get rid of the connection resistance which intro-
duces an error on the measurement.
Long-term deterioration can be caused by the humidity, the temperature and vibrations.
89
Thermocouples
Any circuit composed by different electrical conducting metals, and with the presence of tem-
perature differences, gives rise to an electromotive force which depends only on the material and
the temperature distribution in the circuit. Many physical applications are deduced.
PELTIER effect: the connection of two different metals A and B at the same temperature T
generates an electromotive force proportional to the temperature T.
THOMSON effect: The connection of 2 point on the same metal at different temperatures
generates an electromotive force which depends on the metal and the temperatures of the 2
points.
SEEBECK effect: is a combination of PELTIER and THOMSON effects and is the principle
of the thermocouple.
A thermocouple is then an electrical closed circuit composed of two junctions of two different
metals at different temperatures. The hot junction is the measurement junction and the cold junc-
tion is the reference junction. The generated electromotive force is measured by a millivoltmeter.
The electromotive force generated is independent of conductor size and its resistance.
Psychrometry
A psychrometer is composed of two thermometers. The first one measures the ambient dry tem-
perature while the second one is covered by a wet clothing and is cooled by the evaporation of
the water contained in the clothing and measures the temperature of the wet bulb. The evapora-
90
tion is high when the water content of the ambient air is small. The difference between the two
thermometer readings gives an indication about the air humidity.
The wet and dry temperatures are used to determine the relative humidity of the air from 0°C to
100°C.
The uncertainty is around few percent and depends mainly on the accuracy of the thermometers
used.
Psychrometry is always considered the reference method for humidity determination.
Electrolytic hygrometers
The water vapour in the ambient air is absorbed by a phosphoric anhydride solution where are
placed two electrodes, then separated by electrolysis. The intensity of the electrical current pass-
ing in the film depends on the amount of water absorbed in accordance with FARADAY law.
This type of instrument measures the concentration of water vapour in the air in g/cm3 expressed
later as a volumetric ratio.
The uncertainty is in the order of 5% of the value expressed in a concentration form in the
range of 1 to 30 000 ppm volume, equivalent to a dew point temperature of -75°C to +25°C.
Therefore, this instrument is more adapted to the measurement of low humidity values.
Condensing Hygrometers
Condensing Hygrometers measure the dew point temperature of air. It is the temperature at
which water contained in air starts to condense.
The mirror reflects the ray or beam transmitted to the receiver. An instrument usually operating
on PELTIER effect cools the mirror. When the mirror temperature is equal to the dew point tem-
perature of the air, water condenses on the surface of the mirror. The condensed water attenuates
the reflected beam and the optical receiver detects the reduction of the reflected signal.
The temperature at which the condensation appears is then equal to the dew point temperature of
the air.
The cooling of the mirror is controlled by the optical detection in such a way that it conserves a
constant layer of condensed water.
91
These meters can operate over a very wide range of temperature –90°C to +90°C with an uncertainty of
0,2°C to 0,5°C.
This meter is very sensitive and presents a good reproducibility (0,05°C) as given by the manu-
facturers. This is why it is used for intercomparison between reference laboratories.
Density
Only relevant with use of volume flow meters. It is also given by an external laboratory with the
calorific value and the composition of the fuel oil.
Time
Chronometers are used.
CO2
Infra red meters are used exclusively for CO2 concentration measurement.
The infra red radiation emitted by a filament heated to a high temperature is divided into two
beams which cross two chambers.
The first chamber is filled with the gas to be analysed and the second one with a reference gas
(N2). At the outlet of these chambers the two beams reach a receiver composed of two other
chambers filled with the gas to be analysed.
If the component is present in the compartment or the chamber, the infra red radiation entering
the detector is attenuated with respect to that coming from the reference chamber or compart-
ment. The equilibrium established in the receiver is then perturbed. This perturbation is recorded
and depends on the concentration of the component to be measured.
O2
Paramagnetic meters are used exclusively for O2 concentration measurement.
92
The principle of paramagnetic meters is based on the fact that a gas installed in a non-
homogeneous magnetic field is subjected to a force which is parallel to the magnetic field and is
the increasing direction of the fields if the gas is paramagnetic. This force is proportional to the
magnetic susceptibility of the gas.
Oxygen has a very high magnetic susceptibility compared to the other gases. The following fig-
ures give an indication of the magnetic susceptibility of the common gases.
O2: 100- CO2: -0,27-N2: 0- CO: 0,01- NO: 43- NO2: 28.
93
The information on hardware gathered during this project shows large differences and sometimes
contradictions.
From GdF data for Pt100 (techn. characteristics 3535), the uncertainties given for a platinum
RTD measurement is less than 0,2°C for a temperature range between –200 and 300°C in com-
pliance with IEC 751.
The value given i is a maximum value of the uncertainty, including all elements, from the hard-
ware acquisition system to the probe, It includes contributions such as, drift, linearisation, reso-
lution etc. If the calibration correction is not known, it is recommended to use this value.
But if the calibration certificates as well as the certificates for the hardware are available, and if
we apply the calibration corrections and not the linearisation of the standard, it is important to
evaluate the uncertainties of calibration, drift, resolution and others of the Pt100 as well as the
hardware.
The error due to the hardware must be evaluated from the specifications of resistance measure-
ment of the 100 Ohm reference.
In case hardware like HP 3852A (as for CETIAT) is used, the uncertainties of the resistance
measuring instruments are very small compared to the Pt100 uncertainties.
In the case of the system used by GDF (3535), a quick estimation gives a non negligible uncer-
tainty due to resistance measurement.
94
The natural gas is analysed every 45 minutes by chromatography. An average calorific value is
used during the test and the real value is calculated as soon as the data are available (a few days
later).
A unique value is taken over the whole testing period (typically a few days) and the calorific
value max.-min. deviation is calculated over the testing period. This standard deviation is based
on the 45 minutes samplings.
If the deviation is too large, the test will be divided into several periods so that the calorific value
standard deviation for each period is below an acceptable value.
The possible short variations within a sampling period are considered to be much smaller than
the variation from sampling period to sampling period. Therefore the standard deviation as de-
fined above is also supposed to integrate those short time variations.
95
The work of this ANNEX is the result of investigations by DGC in March 2001. The results of the
test and measurements shown in this paper are corrected from the systematic error after calibra-
tion (the probes have been checked in an oil bath before the tests).
During on/off drift for light wall-hung boiler the forward temperature will change rapidly. When
using temperature probes with a certain time constant the measured temperature will only to
some extent show the real water temperature. For actual temperature probes following time con-
stants are measured:
As a result of this, temperatures measured during an on/off period are shown in the 2 following
diagrams for measurements with 1 mm + 3 mm probes and 1 mm + 6 mm probes. The results are
compared with TC probes.
FLOW TEMPERATURE FROM LIGHT WALL-HUNG BOILER
Boiler: 11 kW, water flow 320 kg/h, on: 48 s, off: 552 s, output: 0.96 kW
55
45
Flow temperature [°C]
40
35
30
25
50 100 150 200 250 300
Time [sec]
96
Note that the results are measured for about the same conditions (flow a bit different).
As seen from these diagrams the measured temperature rise and the highest temperature are quite
different for measurements with different temperature probes.
FLOW TEMPERATURE FROM LIGHT WALL-HUNG BOILER
Boiler: 11 kW, water flow: 350 kg/h, on: 48 s, off: 552 s, output: 0.96 kW
55
3 mm Pt 100 [°C]
50
1 mm TC type K [°C]
45
Flow temperature [°C]
40
35
30
25
650 700 750 800 850 900
Time [sec]
To analyse the stability (from cycle to cycle) of temperature profiles the measurements are nor-
malised in this way:
Temperature measured with 1 mm TC type K just before start of boiler is called 0% (we con-
sider that the TC is the reference: it is the probe which has the smaller time constant)
Highest temperature measured with 1 mm TC type K is called 100%
Temperature profile is recalculated to percent of this range
Temperature measured with other temperature probe is calculated in percent of temperature
range for 1 mm TC type K
Temperature profiles for 1 mm TC type K are synchronised to reach highest temperature at
the same time
Corresponding temperatures measured with other probe are not changed in time
In this way the temperature rise and fall can be compared in development from start of boiler
until the next start.
97
100
90
80
70
Temperature change [%]
60
50
40
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time [sec]
Even though measured temperature profiles are different due to the time constant for the differ-
ent temperature probes, the calculated mean temperature for flow temperature should theoretical-
ly be the same.
Measurements shown are based on measurements every 1 sec., but many laboratories are unable
to do this, and want to carry out measurements with a lower frequency, e.g. every 5 sec. or even
lower.
A comparison can be made by picking out measured values for other intervals from the file for
measurements every 1 sec.
Before comparing measurements the two probes are calibrated and corrected for systematic er-
ror, so they will show the same temperature when they have been kept at the same water temper-
ature for several minutes.
98
The comparison is made on a boiler running in on/off mode with an on period of 48 sec. and an
off period of 552 sec. That is close to "worst case" during testing of a boiler (this is about 10%
load; in DK tests are carried out down to 1kW part load, which is 5% load).
The next two diagrams are showing consequence of difference in probe and in sampling fre-
quency.
INFLUENCE FROM SAMPLING FREQUENCY
Effect: 11 kW, water flow: 370 kg/h, on: 48 sec, off: 552 sec
Reference: sampling interval 1 sec with 1mm type K probe
0,5
0,3
1mm TC type K [°C]
0,2
0,1
0,0
-0,1
-0,2
-0,3
-0,4
-0,5
1 10 100
Sampling interval for temperature [sec]
99
0,4
0,3
Mean temperature difference measured [°C]
0,2
0,1
0,0
-0,1
-0,2
6mm Pt100 [°C]
-0,3 1mm TC type K [°C]
6mm Pt100 [°C]
-0,4 1mm TC type K [°C]
-0,5
1 10 100
Sampling interval for temperature [sec]
These diagrams show that sampling interval in this case can be up to 10 sec. without having an
error on mean temperature difference of more than ±0.05°C. As we cannot be sure this error is
systematic, we can consider it as a maximum uncertainty.
The question is whether we can accept such an error. It is indeed about 0.8% of efficiency for the
30% part load test and is as a result among one of the largest uncertainty sources. Therefore,
special attention shall be given to that point (see below).
The following tables show the values of measurement (for two sets of results with different
flows), as they would be with different sampling intervals.
100
Conclusion
The conclusion of these results is that influence from time constant and different types of tem-
perature probes can be a determining source of error, especially for part load tests. The sam-
pling frequency shall not be too low compared to the on period for the boiler and the response
time of the probe shall not be too large.
The calibration of the temperature probes is important, and especially the systematic difference
between probes for forward and return temperature must be corrected before calculation of mean
temperature difference during a running cycle for the boiler under test.
Probe type Pt 6 mm Pt 3 mm TC 1 mm
U1: Offset error 0.05 0 0
U2 Max error 10s sampling 0.05 0.04 0.03
Application:
Scope
A number of tests carried out at the laboratory facilities at Danish Gas Technology Centre during
2001 have established the influence of measurement of ”Air temperature” in different positions
around the Test Rig.
Conclusion
At the DGC laboratory there seems to be a relatively stable temperature gradient from floor
(measured 20 cm above floor) to app. 2 m above floor on app. 3°C. Placing the Pt100 probes
with 2,5 or 5 m to the ceiling does not affect the temperature gradient.
Placing the Pt100 probes too close to the hot parts of the Test Rig causes some problems. But
placing the Pt100 probes 1,5 m or less above the Test Rig could cause the same problems:
Gradients up to 6°C due to warm up-streaming air have been measured.
Air Temperatures - Position 2
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
cm above Floor
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Temperature, °C
The figure above shows an example of the results from tests, where the Pt100-probes were
placed 15 cm, 25 cm and 75 cm from the Test Rig.
The results show that the measurement point for temperature significantly influences the meas-
urements carried out and that there is a need for standardisation.
When last calibrated in august 2000 the deviations measured between 25 and 1000 Watt output
were less than 0,1%.
105
Work Package 5 of the project above deals with the influence of the NOx, CO, O2, CO2
analyser, and characteristics on measured NOx and CO emissions
Note: Analyses of NOx and CO are not relevant for the issue of this project, but O2 and CO2 are.
A. INTRODUCTION
Objective of the package
The overall objective of the package is to develop a uniform method of error determination so
that a limit for maximum uncertainty can be set for all European countries.
GASTEC has studied the characteristics of analysers for NOx, CO, CO2 and O2 measurements,
including:
interferences of CO2 and H2O in the measurement
linearity
drift with time and with temperature
GASTEC has also developed a protocol on measurement of the individual errors as part of the
uncertainty determination. The protocol contains the determination of interference, linearity,
converter efficiency, repeatability, effect of sampling flow variations and drift of analysers with
time, temperature, and pressure.
The drift (with time, temperature and pressure), the interferences (of CO2, O2, H2O, NO, NO2,
CO), and the linearity are the main characteristics which have been controlled on the CO, NOx,
O2 and CO2 analysers.
106
The literature and existing test results from GASTEC have also been used in order to propose the
most appropriate values of worst case.
The method developed in the framework of the project has been implemented in the document
"UNCERTAINTY CALCULATION OF NOx AND CO MEASUREMENTS Version 06, Sep-
tember 1998" as part of the main document: “Determination of emissions from appliances burn-
ing oil and gaseous fuels during type-testing” which is best known as the “GLP NOx CO” docu-
ment.
The document explains in detail how to calculate the individual and overall uncertainties.
In some cases, when the uncertainty of an individual source is unknown, it is acceptable to cal-
cu-late with an assumed worst case uncertainty (Uwc) or worst case error (Ewc) as given in this
document.
sampling;
transfer and treatment;
analysers;
calibration;
measurement;
conversion calculations.
Uncertainty in reproducibility of the sources of emission
A correction of a systematic error leads to random uncertainty (the correction is never perfect
and is based on models or measurements which have their own inaccuracies .
In principle each correction method has its own accuracy. As not very much is known about this
accuracy, it is suggested in a first stage to state that for any correction of systematic error, a ran-
dom uncertainty of 25% (of the correction) is remaining. This also applies when the correction is
used. We, therefore, suppose in the following that the factor for remaining random error of cor-
rected systematic error is RRE = 4.
The errors are known when the laboratory has made the corresponding measurement. Analyzers
certificate from neutral test institute can also be used.
Systematic error sign is important (when this error is known). Some systematic errors could
counterbalance themselves. Therefore they are added. The remaining systematic error at the end
is converted in a random error.
The following errors are minimized when having a good homogeneity of the sample.
a) The sample probe design is according to the standards, but there are errors due to construction
tolerances
b) The sample probe used is not of the same design as given in the standards
U = U sample [%mv]
Uwc = 2% mv
E = 0
1.2 Influence of the position of the sampling probe (influence of repre-sentative sample)
Hypothesis:
E = 0
U = abs (Ewc) [% mv]
E = 0
U = Eleak [% mv]
E = 0
U = abs(Ewc)
E_wc is the worst case error in [% of fs or mv] per [% or ppm] of interfering component (CO2,
O2, H2O, CO, NO, NO2, SO2, H2)
E = E_interi
E_interi is the known error in [% of fs or mv] per [% or ppm] of interfering component (CO2, O2,
H2O, CO, NO, NO2, SO2, H2)
E = 0
Correction
CO22 cal is the content of CO2 in the bottle of calibration gas used for NO2 analyzer.
Reminder: after correction, es and eo have in general an effect leading to larger values (es and eo
< 0)
Valuable reduction of the interference can be achieved, when the manufacturer takes account of
the composition of the flue gas.
E = 0 [%fs]
E = E_lin
In order for the error to be corrected, detailed results from linearity check shall be available.
The linearity error for a given concentration measured is obtained by linear interpolation of the
error between the two spans (immediately below and over the concentration considered.)
a and b are determined from the experimental values of error measured (Errori)
E=O
U = U fs · fs / mv [%mv]
U fs = U z_drift_t x [%fs]
111
U = U fs · fs / mv4 [%mv]
E = 0
E = Edrif_T [%mv]
E = 0 [%mv]
Correction
mv cor = mv + E drift · (Tuse - Tcal) · (fs / 100 )
E = 0
E = Edri_T [%mv]
E = 0 [%mv]
Correction
mv cor = mv + E drift_T · mv / 100 E drift is the measured drift in [% mv]
E = 0
E = Edri_P [%mv]
E = 0 [%mv]
Correction
mv cor = mv + E drift_P · mv / 100
Remarks
For accurate measurement the analyzer can been provided with an automatic pressure com-
pensation
(Rwc = 0,5%mv and ewc = 0);
for NOx-analyzers with low absolute pressure in the reaction chamber pressure effect can be
ignored
3.9 Repeatability
E = 0
U = U repeat [%mv]
4. Calibration
The following applies for CO, NO, NO2, O2 and CO2.
4.1 Uncertainty of the calibration gases (NO, CO, CO2 and O2)
The effect of the uncertainty of the calibration gas should be expressed as a percentage of the
measured value.
U = U calib [%mv]
U = U repeat_cal [%fs]
U = U fs · fs / mv [%mv]
114
5. Measurement
5.1 Reproducibility
U = Ur [%fs]
U = U fs · fs / mv [%mv]
6. Conversion calculation
The following applies for CO, NO, NO2, O2 and CO2
F. LIST OF SYMBOLS
NOx concentration of NOx in [ppm]
NO2 concentration of NO2 in [ppm]
CO2 concentration of CO2 in % CO2
H2O concentration of CO2 in % H2O
O2 concentration of O2 in % O2
r random uncertainty (value)
R random uncertainty
Re random uncertainty of the systematic error
Rwc worst case random uncertainty
e systematic error (value)
E systematic error
Ewc worst case systematic error
mv measured value
fs full scale
dT temperature difference
dp pressure difference
N efficiency converter
Tcal temperature during calibration
Tuse temperature during use
pcal pressure during calibration
puse pressure during use
CO2cal CO2 concentration in NOx-calibration gas
O2cal O2 concentration in NOx-calibration gas
H2Ocal H2O concentration in NOx-calibration gas
U Uncertainty
116
Analyzer CO2
Principle IR Unit
Value U U U U
Repeatability [%fs]
Linearity [%fs]
Value e e e e unit
Analyzer O2
Principle EC PM Unit
Value U U U U U
Repeatability [%fs]
Value e e e e unit
Data of O2 analyzers
119
Partner: C D E G G2 RU
Analyzer: O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2
Value U U U U U U unit
Value e e e e e e unit
Partner: D DT G G2 RE
Value U U U U U unit
Value e e e e e unit
Error determination of the partners for the infrared based CO2 analyzers
121
Analyzer O2
Principle Paramagnetic
Zero drift with time 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 [%fs]
(8 hours)
Span drift with time 2 6.3 6.3 023 0.5 3.3 6.3 [%mv]
(8 hours)
Zero drift with temperature 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 [%fs/*C]
Span drift with temperature 0.4 -0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 [%mv/*C]
Span drift with pressure 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 [%mv/mbar]
Sample flow in sample line - 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.7 [%mv/l/h]
Analyzer CO2
Principle Infrared
Zero drift with time 2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 [%fs]
(8 hours)
Span drift with time 2 0.1 0.1 0.8 1.4 0.5 1.4 [%mv]
(8 hours)
Zero drift with temperature 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 [%fs/*C]
Span drift with temperature 0.4 0.2 0.2 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.2 [%mv/*C]
Span drift with pressure 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 [%mv/mbar]
Zero interference H2O 0.9 0.9 -0.1 -0.1 0.4 0.9 [%fs/%H2O]