You are on page 1of 11

Uncertainty Analysis of an Ultrasonic Meter Calibration Process THOMAS KEGEL, Director of Engineering, Colorado Engineering Experiment Station, Inc.

, Nunn, CO

Abstract In March of 1999 CEESI completed construction of a natural gas flow calibration facility located in Clear Lake, Iowa. The uncertainty associated with the process of calibrating a meter in that facility has recently been estimated to be 0.23% at a 95% level of confidence. This paper describes the two part analysis leading to that value. The first part is based on manufacturers specifications while the second part is based on results from a Measurement Assurance Program. Uncertainty Analysis Methodology This paper presents an uncertainty analysis methodology that includes components associated with the calibration process as well as the calibration facility. Components of both types are important in estimating the overall uncertainty. Manufacturers specifications and certificates of calibration are typical of facility based components. An analysis based on these components would be appropriate for a user of instruments. The calibration environment, on the other hand, needs to operate at a higher level of performance. Manufacturers specifications are used in the initial analysis of a new process. As the process matures, operating experience and data accumulate and process based components are integrated into the uncertainty analysis. Process based components include calibration histories, control charts and the results from custom test programs. Calibration Facility The volume flow is measured by a parallel array of 12 Daniel turbine meters that are used as transfer standards. The turbine meters were calibrated

in the CEESI Colorado facility and are traceable to NIST via that facility. Pressure and temperature at each turbine meter are measured using Rosemount 3051 (pressure) and Rosemount 3144 (temperature) transducers. The gas composition is determined using a Daniel gas chromatograph. Daniel 2500 flow computers are used for data acquisition. Methods for estimating the uncertainty for each component, as well as tabulated values, are included in this paper. Calibration Process The calibration process components are determined from elements of the CEESI Iowa Measurement Assurance Program (MAP). A MAP is defined as1: A quality assurance program for a measurement process that quantifies the total uncertainty of the measurements (both random and systematic components of error) with respect to national or designated standards and demonstrates that the total uncertainty is sufficiently small to meet the users requirements. Details of the Iowa facility MAP are described later in this paper. There are several important benefits to including MAP results in the uncertainty analysis. The first benefit results from obtaining uncertainty estimates based on data rather than other methods. Data based estimates improve credibility and the likelihood of inadvertently excluding any components is reduced. The second benefit is the general improvement in uncertainty resulting from using historical calibration data instead of manufacturers specifications. A manufacturer may includes operating constraints not present in a particular application. A set of specifications may reflect the performance for an entire production batch, the performance of a single unit may be

better. Finally, the use of historical data allows for the continuous maintenance of traceability, an important part of measurement uncertainty. The recognition that traceability is an ongoing process has been accepted at the national level2. Operating Equation The test section volumetric flowrate, qvt is given by:

called relative standard uncertainty. Unless otherwise noted, percent means percent of reading not percent of full scale. Pressure Measurement The manufacturers specifications include uncertainty components for: reference accuracy ambient temperature effect stability mounting position An additional component that accounts for the data acquisition system is discussed in a separate section. The manufacturers uncertainty is assumes the transducer is installed as received and kept in service for five years. The manufacturers uncertainty specifications are reduced in the present application several reasons. First, the transducers have been calibrated in the CEESI Colorado facility, this calibration included quantifying the ambient temperature effects. Second, a transfer standard (Ametek EPC 2000) is used to calibrate the transducers on a daily basis. Finally, a statistical process control (SPC) program has been initiated to monitor the performance of the pressure transducers. The resulting analysis quantifies the long and short term random effects. The details of SPC are discussed in later section of this paper. After reevaluating the measurement process, the following components are selected to account for pressure measurement uncertainty: long and short term random effects calibration standard data acquisition Temperature Measurement The manufacturers specifications include uncertainty components for: digital accuracy ambient temperature effect stability An additional component accounts for the data

P T Z qvt = qvs s t t + mtv [1] P T Z t s s where: qvs= volumetric flowrate at array of turbine meter standards P, T = pressure and temperature Z = compressibility factor t, s = subscripts referring to test section and turbine meter standards locations
The term mtv accounts for the storage of gas in the trapped volume. The trapped volume, approximately 2000 cubic feet in size, consists of the pipe and fixtures that connect the test section with the turbine meter standards. A meter factor, K, can be defined as the ratio of flowrate indicated by a meter under the, qvm, to actual flowrate:

K=

qvm qvt

[2]

The objective of this uncertainty analysis is an estimate of the uncertainty in K. Uncertainty Components The uncertainty analysis components are summarized in Table 1. The determination of each component is described in this section. This uncertainty analysis is consistent with the standards identified as References 3 and 4. The symbol u refers to a standard uncertainty which is similar to the standard deviation, values obtained from manufacturers specifications are symbolized by U. Most uncertainty values are expressed in terms of percent or parts per million which are symbolized by % and ppm respectively. This is

acquisition system. A second component accounts for heat transfer between the probe, the flowing gas and the ambient environment5. Gas Chromatograph The uncertainty is made up of four components: repeatability calibration standard calibration process sampling process The manufacturers repeatability specification associated with the determination of heating value is U = 0.05%. It is assumed that the uncertainty associated with compressibility determination is similar. The chromatograph is calibrated using a gravimetric gas standard. The uncertainty (by mass) in a typical calibration standard is U = 0.02% (for components that make up between 2% and 49% of the mixture) and U = 1.0% (for components that make less than 2% of the mixture). Data Acquisition The data acquisition measures voltage based on a dual slope integrating a/d converter6. The uncertainty is assumed to be based on the following six components: quantization (a/d resolution) a/d linearity time base voltage standard ambient temperature effects production batch The first five components are estimated based on manufacturers specifications. The sixth component represents the difference in performance between an individual unit and an entire production batch. The manufacturers uncertainty specifications are reduced in the present application several reasons. First, the ambient temperature variation is very small because the flow computers are installed in an air conditioned environment. The manufacturers uncertainty is based on a 32 - 120F

ambient temperature range. Another reduction in uncertainty is justified based on end-to-end calibration of pressure, temperature and flowrate measurement processes. The end-to-end calibration process includes the data acquisition system. Finally, the uncertainty is reduced because various MAP activities, discussed below, monitor the system performance on a daily basis. Equation of State The equation of state provides a value of compressibility given inputs of pressure, temperature and gas composition. The basic equation of state is described in Reference 7. A total uncertainty of U = 0.1% (u = 580 ppm) has been estimated for calculations required for the current calibration process. Trapped Volume Adjustment The trapped volume, approximately 2000 cubic feet in size, connects the turbine standards to the test section. The temperature within the trapped volume will change due to heat transfer between the gas and pipe wall. The change in temperature results in a storage or discharge of mass. While the heat transfer cannot be prevented, no mass is stored if the heat transfer rate is constant. The heat transfer is assumed to be constant if the trapped volume inlet and outlet temperatures remain constant. A mathematical model of the trapped volume has been developed to better understand the thermodynamic behavior The model divides the trapped volume into 20 smaller volumes, each assumed to be at constant pressure and temperature. Initial distributions of temperature and pressure are assumed, new values are then calculated at each of 20 time steps. The total mass contained within the trapped volume is then calculated for each timestep. The worst case condition ocurrs with an inlet temperature of 80F, an initial outlet temperature of 70 and a 0.2F change in outlet temperature after 120 seconds of flow. The terms inlet and outlet refer to the trapped volume. The 120 sec-

ond interval is the time required to obtain samples for a single data point. The 0.2F temperature change is the maximum allowable value for stable flow. With the thermal conditions and time interval fixed, the flowrate is the only remaining variable. The maximum system flowrate is 25000 acfm which corresponds to each turbine meter operating at full capacity. At this flowrate the stored mass corresponds to 6 ppm of the total gas that passes through the system in 120 seconds. Reducing the flowrate to 2500 acfm increases the mass storage effect to 60 ppm. Further reducing the flowrate to 500 acfm increases the mass storage effect to 300 ppm. The last of these three values has been confirmed based on operating experience. Random Effects The random effects present in the meter under test are determined from the MAP results described in a later section of this paper. The present uncertainty analysis is only valid for meters that exhibit performance that is comparable to or better than the meters included in the MAP. Uncertainty Components -Turbine Meter Standards The uncertainty components of qvs are described in this section. The turbine meter standards were initially calibrated using air in the Colorado facility. In addition, three of the rotors were calibrated at the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI). The uncertainty associated with the calibration process arises from the following components: air mass flowrate air density turbine meter random effects pressure and temperature measurement When the calibrated turbine meters are used to make a measurement, the following additional uncertainty components are required: turbine meter random effects rotor/body effect correlating flow parameter The random effects are included twice because two measurement processes are involved.

Air Mass Flowrate The uncertainty in air mass flowrate in the Colorado calibration process has been quantified by a hybrid calibration process8. For the traditional commercial calibrations performed by CEESI a hybrid calibration technique has been developed that offers lower cost than a primary calibration and lower uncertainty than a secondary calibration. The hybrid philosophy has been adapted to meet the needs of the current calibration process. The objective of the model is to determine the uncertainty over a flowrate range for a particular set of primary and secondary points. The approach is to simulate the uncertainty of individual data points by sets of computer generated random numbers. Air Density The air density is calculated from pressure and temperature measurements using an equation of state9. The standard uncertainty is u = 125 ppm, the determination of this value is described in Reference 10. Random Effects The random effects present in the initial calibration are determined from the MAP results described in a later section of this paper. These effects include those associated with the measurement of pressure and temperature as well as the turbine meters. The initial uncertainty analysis4 was based on the worst case scenario that random effects observed during the calibration process in Colorado would also be present in Iowa. As data and operating experience have accumulated it has been found that the random effects present in the Iowa facility are much smaller than those which were observed in Colorado. Body/Rotor Effects The turbine meters are designed so that a rotor assembly can be removed from the body casting. This feature eliminates the need to remove the heavy body casting from the piping layout to perform various maintenance tasks.

Standard Deviation [s]

Correlating Parameter Gas turbine meter K Factors correlate with either Reynolds Number or volumetric flowrate. The important physical phenomena are the rotor surface boundary layer, the blade lift and drag coefficients and the bearing drag. While developing an analytical turbine meter model is a daunting task, years of calibration experience has identified two basic relationships. First, larger meters tend to correlate best with volumetric flowrate while smaller meters tend to exhibit Reynolds Number effects. Second, the K Factor tends to exhibit greater variation at lower flowrates and at lower pressure. It is common practice to completely quantify the performance of a process critical turbine meter by calibrating over a range of pressure and flowrate values. This approach was used in the initial calibration in Colorado. Those results, as well as the SwRI results and subsequent turbine swap test results confirm volumetric flowrate as the proper correlating parameter. Measurement Assurance Program This section describes three components of the CEESI Iowa Measurement Assurance Program. Statistical Control of the Complete Measurement Process Two ultrasonic flowmeters, 20 and 24 in size, have been permanently installed in two of the three Iowa facility test sections. More recently, a 12 turbine meter has been installed in the third test section. Data are obtained from one of these meters during every calibration performed on client meters. The purpose of these meters is to serve as check standards that confirm consistent performance of the calibration facility. In other words, the consistency of a particular set of check standard calibration data is strong evidence for the validity of the corresponding client meter calibration data. The statistical technique applied to quantify the consistency of the check standard meter data is called statistical process control (SPC)12. The

1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.0 Jun-00 Aug-00 Oct-00 Dec-00

2.0 1.0 Mean [s] 0.0 -1.0 -2.0 Jun-00 Aug-00 Date Oct-00 Dec-00

Figure 1: 20 USM Control Charts

SPC tool used in the Iowa facility is control charting. Control charts based on the 20 meter are contained in Figure 1, each symbol represents a single calibration. A control chart contains the history of mean and standard deviation values determined from a curve fit of check standard meter performance. The charts shown in Figure 1 contain dimensionless values of mean and standard deviation, additional information is available in Reference 13. The solid lines on the control charts are statistically determined limits that represent the maximum reasonable excursions of mean and standard deviation values. If the mean or standard deviation values remain within the control chart limits, the process is judged to be operating in a state of control. If points begin to appear outside the limits, this is an indication that there may be a problem. While the control charts of Figure 1 indicate the occasional data point outside the limits, there are not enough outliers to indicate a problem with the process.

Std. Dev. [ppm]

The analysis used to determine the control limits is based on calculation of two values of standard deviation. The between value, sb , is a measure of the long term random effects. The within value, sw, is a measure of the short term random effects. The reported standard deviation:
2 2 sr = sb + s w

250 200 150 100 50 17-Apr 8-May 29-May 19-Jun

[3]

accounts for all random effects present during the process of calibrating the check standard. Statistical Control of Pressure and Temperature Measurement Processes Redundant pressure and temperature transducers installed on each turbine meter standard allows for a novel application of SPC. When two transducers are used to measure the same measureand, the random effects associated with the transducers can be determined. If the measureand varies randomly, the transducer output signals will react equally. Variations in the meaureand will cancel out when the difference between the two transducer outputs is calculated, this behavior is called common mode rejection. The control charting process begins with the calculation of the difference between transducer outputs. The mean and standard deviation for one days worth of data are used to form control charts. Typical charts are contained in Figure 2, they cover a 50 day time interval in 2000. The long and short term random effects calculated from these charts represent components of uncertainty associated with the pressure measurement process. In addition to extending the timeframe of the pressure control charts, efforts are underway to expand the scope of SPC in the Iowa facility. Temperature data from transducer pairs have been organized into control charts. Data are being accumulated from the gas chromatograph calibration history to develop control charts for the gas analysis process. Turbine Swap Testing A typical control chart involves several flow standards, particularly at the higher flowrates. A slight
Mean [ppm]

600 300 0 -300 -600 17-Apr 8-May Date 29-May 19-Jun

Figure 2: Pressure Measurement Control Charts

shift in the performance of one standard can therefore go undetected; the effect of the shift is reduced in proportion to the number of flow standards in use. The turbine swap test (TST) has been developed to complement the SPC data by comparing the turbines, albeit indirectly, to each other8. A turbine swap test is implemented as follows. One of the turbine standards is connected in series with a test artifact and stable flow is established. A minimum of three data points are obtained. Control valves divert the flow through a different turbine standard. This process is implemented carefully to avoid changing the flowrate. After the flow transients have dissipated a second set of data points are obtained. A third turbine meter is substituted for the second and additional data are obtained. This process continues with different standards until a complete set of data have been obtained. The process of switching standards in and out is the second of two parts of that make up a TST. The first part involves characterizing the performance of a test artifact. Three types of test artifact have been used. The first is the unit under test present in nearly all TST. A calibration will have just been completed, these data are used to deter-

mine the UUT performance at the flowrate of interest. The second artifact type is the SPC check standard. These meters have long calibration histories, the performance at the flowrate of interest is determined from the historical data. The third meter is a check standard that has a short calibration history. The available calibration data are used to determine the performance. Most of the TST artifacts are turbine or ultrasonic type meters, several TSTs were performed using orifice meters as artifacts. The current hardware have been obtained from four different manufacturers, a greater variety will become available as the relatively new market develops. In many cases two artifacts are installed, in some cases there are three. The TST database currently contains 3834 data points from 43 tests. Tests have been performed on a regular basis since July 1999. The discussion of Reference 14 includes an analytical technique to determine the uncertainty of the TST process. This analysis is based on Youden plots created when multiple test artifacts are available. An estimate for the standard uncertainty of u = 0.075% has been calculated from 21 plots that have been created thus far. The results of a TST consist of a series of data points, K Factor and flowrate, that are collected for each turbine standard. The accumulated results for each turbine standard have been used to determine the best possible relationship (curve fit) between K Factor and flowrate. The curve fit residuals, plotted against flowrate, are shown in Figure 3. The plot represent the TST results obtained between January 2000 and October 2001. The solid lines represent an interval that attempts to contain 95% of the data points. The open circles represent 1520 data points that fall within the interval. The plus symbols represent 67 data points that fall outside the interval. The interval width is defined by: (170/Q + 0.04)% [4]

0.4 Residual [%] 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 600 1000 1400 1800 2200 2600 Flowrate [acfm]

Figure 3: Turbine Swap Test Results

Propagating Uncertainty Components The uncertainty in the meter factor of a typical ultrasonic or turbine meter when calibrated in the Iowa facility is 0.23% at a 95% level of confidence. The process of combining (propagating) uncertainty components to arrive at that value is discussed in the three parts of this section. First, the propagation model is presented. Second, a method to include random effects from MAP results is proposed. Finally, the effect of correlated systematic uncertainty components is discussed. Propagation Model The propagation model of Reference 3 is used in the present analysis. For a measurement process with result y and N inputs xi:

y = y(x1, x2, ... , xN)

[5]

the general equation for combined standard uncertainty is:


2 uc

where Q is the flowrate in acfm. Equation 4 represents all the random effects present during a typical turbine swap test.

y 2 = x ui i =1 i

[6]

where uc is the combined standard uncertainty of the result y and ui is standard uncertainty of a variable xi. An alternative form of Equation 6 is used in the present analysis:

2 uc

y2

i =1

ci2

ui2 xi2

[7]

where ci, called a sensitivity coefficient, represents the relative variation in y due to a variation in xi. It is defined as:

y xi ci = x y i

[8]

Combining the following eleven values according to Equation 6: pressure (twice) temperature (twice) gas composition (twice) equation of state (twice) trapped volume adjustment test meter random effects turbine meter array volumetric flowrate results in a combined standard uncertainty of u = 1549 ppm which corresponds to an uncertainty of 0.31% at a 95% level of confidence. The analysis of correlated systematic effects, discussed later in this section to is used reduce the estimated uncertainty. Random Effects Similar values of uncertainty are observed from five semi-independent sources. The random effects present in the 20 check standard of Figure are less than 2u = 0.15% for meter velocities over the 20 - 80 ft/s range. Similar results are observed from the 24 check standard used during a different time interval. Preliminary results indicate the 12 turbine check standard exhibits 2u = 0.15% over the 2100 - 4800 acfm flowrate range. The turbine swap test results represent a second source of data used to identify random effects. Youden plots indicate an average value for random effects of 2u = 0.15% when results from individual tests are analyzed. The uncertainty associated with the results contained in Figure 3 are quantified by 2u = 0.22% over the 1000 - 2500 acfm flowrate range. This value is somewhat larger in magnitude because it is the result of a two step process. The turbine meters are calibrated against an artifact that has itself been calibrated, the second step contributes the additional uncertainty. Dividing Equation 3 by 2 results in an uncertainty estimate is made of either step. It is assumes that both steps contribute the same uncertainty. Dividing Equation 3 by 2 results in 2u = 0.15% over the 1000 - 2500 acfm flowrate range. This value represents all the random effects present during either step of a typical turbine swap test.

In the present analysis the sensitivity coefficients are calculated using Equation 9 to allow for the expression of uncertainty in dimensionless form. This simplifies the process of organizing the components of uncertainty and allows for the direct comparison of the effect of different uncertainty components. If there is correlation between an xi and an xj then a different form of Equation 6 must be used:
2 uc

y2

c
i =1

2 2 ui

xi2
N

+
ui ui ri , j [for i j ] xi x j

c c
i =1 j =1

i j

[9]

where ri,j, the correlation coefficient, takes on values between -1 and 1 depending on the degree of correlation between xi and xj.. In general, systematic uncertainty component will have r 0 while random components will have r = 0. The effect of correlation between components can increase or decrease the uncertainty depending on the sign of r.
The propagation of uncertainty components in the present analysis is described based on Table 1. The uncertainty in pressure measurement, for example, is made up of four components. The numerical values are combined according to Equation 6: 1602 + 1002 + 2902 + 2052 = 4022 [10]

The sensitivity coefficients in the present analysis are all unity hence the simplicity of Equation 11.

The data of Figure 3 indicate the presence of both percent of reading and percent of full scale effects. This behavior is typical of both turbine and ultrasonic flowmeters, it is not the result of random effects present in the Iowa calibration facility. The data in Table 1 contains values in a column labelled Global Random Effect. The components indicated by a Yes in this column will contribute random effects in the final analysis of a control chart or turbine swap test. Those components identified as Some are comprised in part of systematic effects that will not contribute random effects. Combining the Yes values according to Equation results in a combined standard uncertainty of u = 923 ppm. Agreement between this value and the 750 ppm value would indicate that the applicable random effects are accounted for in the uncertainty analysis. Two reasons are proposed as to why it is slightly larger. First, the gas chromatograph and temperature measurement uncertainty values are based on manufacturers specifications. A reduction of these components should accompany the implementation of control charts. Second, the components accounting for random effects present in the turbine meter and meter under test may be overestimated. Systematic Effects The sensitivity coefficients associated with the two values of pressure are calculated from Equation 1:

sure and temperature measurement are the same for all instruments because they are all calibrated with the same processes at the same time. The associated uncertainty components are therefore fully correlated. The uncertainty in gas composition is associated with the gas chromatograph and the sampling process. The potential exists for changes in composition, and therefore compressibility, due to the volume between the turbine standards and the test section. As the flowrate decreases the transit time through the system increases. The greatest observed change in compressibility was 0.1% in 30 minutes, this was determined from historical data. That rate of compressibility change corresponds to a 0.01% difference in compressibility at a flowrate of 675 acfm. The slight potential change in compressibility will result in a correlation coefficient slightly less than one, a value of 0.95 is used. While the equation of state doesnt change, the values of Zs and Zt will differ slightly due to differences in pressure, temperature and composition. Once again the correlation coefficient will be slightly less than one, a value of 0.95 is used. The correlation coefficients for the various components are contained in Table 1. When the results are propagated according to Equation 9, the standard uncertainty of u = 1152 ppm results. This corresponds to an uncertainty of 0.23% at a 95% level of confidence. Effect of Multiple Parallel Meters The effect of multiple parallel meters has been studied extensively by CEESI15,16. The research has included a model based on Monte Carlo simulation as well as experimental data. There is a tendency to combine uncertainty components in quadrature which results in the uncertainty being diminished by n where n is the number of flowing turbine meters. This logic fails in the limit, the uncertainty cannot approach zero as more tubine meters are installed in parallel. In reality the reduction in uncertainty is balanced by an increase in uncertainty due to correlated effects. The CEESI research has shown that if the multiple meters are

qvt P t

Pt q vt

= 1.0

[11]

qvt Ps [12] P q = 1.0 s vt The opposite signs present in Equations11 and 12 mean that fully correlated (r =1) uncertainty components associated with the measurement of pressure contribute no uncertainty. Similar results are obtained in association with the measurement of temperature and determination of compressibility. The systematic effects associated with the pres-

each flowing at the same rate, the uncertainty values are combined as a linear, rather than quadrature sum (RSS). The present analysis is based on that approach. Summary The uncertainty analysis of the CEESI Iowa calibration facility and process has been described in detail. The analysis begins with instrumentation used in the calibration of a client meter. Next, the conditions present during the calibration of the turbine meter transfer standards are described. The discussion moves on to the inclusion random effects from Measurement Assurance Program test results. Finally, correlated components are identified and the uncertainty reduced as a result. References 1. Belanger, Brian, Measurement Assurance Programs: Part 1, NBS Special Publication 676, 1985. 2. Erlich, C.D. and Raspberry, S. D., Metrological Timelines in Traceability, Measurement Science Conference, 1997. 3. International Organization for Standardization, Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, 1995. 4. ASME PTC 19.1-1998, Test Uncertainty, ASME, 1998. 5. Kegel, Thomas, Estimates of Temperature Measurement Errors in Flowing Gases - Conduction and Radiation, CEESI Engineering Report ER-9306, 1993. 6. Holman, J. P., Experimental Methods for Engineers, McGraw-Hill, 1994. 7. Starling, K. E., and Savidge, J. L., Compressibility Factors of Natural Gas and Other Related Hydrocarbon Gases, Transmission Measurement Committee Report No. 8, AGA, 1992. 8. Kegel, Thomas, A Hybrid Technique for Calibrating Flowmeters with Compressible Fluids, Measurement Science Conference, Anaheim, California, January 2122, 1999.

9. Lemmon, E. W., et al, Thermodynamic Properties of Air and Mixtures of Nitrogen, Argon, and Oxygen From 60 to 2000 K at Pressures to 2000 MPa, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data, Vol 29, No. 3, 2000. 10. Kegel, Thomas, Uncertainty Analysis of an Equation of State for Dry Air, 48th International Instrumentation Symposium, San Diego, CA, May 8-10, 2002, ISA. 11. Kegel, Thomas, Uncertainty Analysis for the CEESI Ventura High Flow Test Facility, 4th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement, Denver, Colorado, June 2730, 1999. 12. Kegel, Thomas, Statistical Control of the Measurement Process, 6th Pipeline Conference, Merida, Mexico, Nov. 14-16, 2001. 13. Kegel, Thomas., Statistical Control of a Flowmeter Calibration Process, 46th International Instrumentation Symposium, Bellevue, WA, April 30 May 5, 2000. 14. Kegel, Thomas, Maintaining Traceability of Multiple Flow Measurement Standards, Measurement Science Conference, Anaheim, California, January 2325, 2000. 15. Kegel, T. M., and Caron, R. C., Uncertainty Analysis of a Multiple Critical Flow Venturi Chamber, Measurement Science Conference, Jan. 25-28, 1996, Anaheim, CA. 16. Kegel, Thomas, Measurement Uncertainty Considerations When Using an Array of Critical Flow Venturies, Measurement Science Conference, Anaheim, California, January 21 22, 1999.

Table 1: Summary of Uncertainty Components


Global Random Effect

Standard Component Uncertainty [ppm] Pre s s ure M e as ure me nt Short Term Random Long Term Random Calibration Transfer Standard Data Acquisition Te mpe rature M e as ure me nt Digital Accuracy Stability Ambient Temperature Effect Data Acquisition Probe Heat Transfer Efects Gas Compos ition Repeatability Calibration Standard Calibration Process Sampling Process TM Array Volume tric Flowrate Calibration Process Random Effects Reynolds Number Adjustment Rotor/Body Effects Trappe d Volume Adjus tme nt Te s t M e te r Random Effe cts Equation of State 402 160 1 00 290 205 322 200 198 127 76 50 335 287 100 100 100 896 750 400 200 200 100 400 580

Correlation Coefficient

0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00

Yes Yes No Some

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Yes Yes Yes Some No

0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95

Yes No Some Some

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95

No Yes No No No Yes No