NORTH SEA FLOW MEASUREMENT WORKSHOP 2004 In. St Andrews, Scotland

Transcription

1 NORTH SEA FLOW MEASUREMENT WORKSHOP 2004 In St Andrews, Scotland From the 26 th to 28 th October, 2004 Tests of the V-Cone Flow Meter at Southwest Research Institute and Utah State University in Accordance with the New API Chapter 5.7 Test Protocol Authors: Dr. Darin L. George Senior Research Engineer, Southwest Research Institute Mr. Edgar B. Bowles Fluid Systems Engineering Manager, Southwest Research Institute Ms. Marybeth Nored Research Engineer, Southwest Research Institute Dr. R.J.W. Peters Flow Measurement Technology Manager, McCrometer Dr. Richard Steven Multiphase Development Manager, McCrometer Abstract The American Petroleum Institute Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, Chapter 5.7 (API 5.7) specifies a testing protocol for differential pressure flow measurement devices. The protocol was written to apply to all flow measurement devices that measure single-phase fluid flow based on the detection of a differential pressure created in the fluid flow stream. This standard was published in January 2003 to supply industry with a comparable description of the capabilities of these devices for the measurement of single-phase fluid flow when they are used under similar operating conditions. This paper will show how API 5.7 was applied to the McCrometer V-Cone Flow Meter in gas and liquid testing. The results indicated that the V-Cone Flow Meter could be used with similar accuracy in both gas and liquid applications. Furthermore, in the non-standard gas tests, the V- Cone Flow Meter demonstrated a difference in the measured discharge coefficient of less than ± 0.50% compared to the baseline test. Through the use of the test protocol, the authors have identified areas of the standard that may require more detail or possible revision. One of the issues of concern is the adequacy of the testing required for the non-standard installations. At present, API 5.7 requires testing of the differential pressure device in non-standard installations using one beta ratio, but tests at additional beta ratios and pipe diameters may be desirable to assess the performance of some meters. For the half moon orifice test, the orientation of the plate relative to any asymmetry within the meter is not defined. Additional issues that are addressed in the paper include the method required to decide the acceptability of the test laboratory and the specific requirements of the swirl generator test. These issues and possible solutions are addressed in the paper. Page 1 of 13

2 Introduction The American Petroleum Institute Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards, Chapter 5.7 (API 5.7) specifies a testing protocol for differential pressure flow measurement devices. The protocol was written to apply to all flow measurement devices that measure single-phase fluid flow based on the detection of a differential pressure created in the fluid flow stream. This standard was published in January 2003 to supply industry with a comparable description of the capabilities of these devices for the measurement of single-phase fluid flow when they are used under similar operating conditions. In order to test a differential pressure device, the test laboratory must be traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or to another National standard. McCrometer chose to undertake the gas flow tests of their Standard V-Cone flow meter, in accordance with API 5.7, at the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI ) Metering Research Facility (MRF). This facility is traceable to NIST standards for mass, time, temperature and pressure. Flow rates are determined through the MRF transfer standard, bank of critical flow Venturi nozzles (sonic nozzles) calibrated against an on-site weigh tank system. The gas flow tests included standard and non-standard tests of the V-Cone Flow Meters. In the standard test, the test protocol specifies that three meters with varying area ratios be tested. In this case, three 4-inch diameter meters with beta ratios of 0.45, 0.60 and 0.75 were tested. The 4- inch meter with a beta ratio of 0.60 was also tested at a higher line pressure of 1000 psia, approximately five times greater than the baseline test pressure of 200 psia. In addition, a larger diameter (8-inch or larger) meter baseline test is required by the test protocol, to verify the accuracy of the meter in different line sizes. The liquid testing of the V-Cone Flow Meter was performed by Utah State University in the Water Research Laboratory. The testing met the requirements of API 5.7 for liquid tests. A comparison of the V-Cone Flow Meter performance in the two test fluids and the agreement between the two test facilities is included in the summary of test results. The agreement in V- Cone Flow Meter performance over the large pressure range and in the two test facilities confirms the value of the expansion factor used in the V-Cone Flow Meter Equation. In addition to the V-Cone Flow Meter tests, the paper includes data on facility verification tests at both test facilities. The facility verification tests were used to establish the veracity of the MRF High Pressure Loop and the Utah Water Research Laboratory. The tests confirmed the facilities abilities to reproduce values of the orifice meter discharge coefficient within the 95% confidence interval of the R-G Equation, as stated in API MPMS Chapter 14.3, and as required by the API 5.7 test protocol. Finally, an acoustic noise test was performed to estimate the meter noise emission during the gas flow testing. The results of the acoustic test are included in the discussion to follow. Facility Verification of the MRF High Pressure Loop The traceability of the Metering Research Facility is based in its primary weigh tank system, which is calibrated using NIST standards for mass and time. The weigh tank system is used to calibrate individual sonic nozzles, which are used in combination to provide the transfer flow standard for MRF testing and calibration. The High Pressure Loop sonic nozzle bank was used Page 2 of 13

3 as the reference flow rate for the McCrometer V-Cone Flow Meter gas tests, as well as the facility verification tests. A schematic of the MRF High Pressure Loop is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Schematic of MRF High Pressure Loop Confirmation of the veracity of the test facility was performed using an orifice meter, as required by the standard. For orifice flow meters, the measured discharge coefficient, C d, is determined according to the orifice flow meter equation (Equation 1.0) and the facility reference flow rate: C d qm = 2 2 π D β ( 2gc ρt, P ) P Y β (1.0) where q m = facility reference flow rate in lb m /sec, g c = dimensional conversion constant, ρ t,p = density of the fluid at the test temperature and pressure, in units of lb m /ft 3, D = meter tube bore diameter; β = diameter ratio of the meter, P = orifice differential pressure, in units of lb f /ft 2, Y = expansion factor. The MRF performed two facility verification tests, before and after the McCrometer V-Cone Flow Meter testing. The first test used a 12-inch diameter orifice meter run. The meter run met the requirements of API MPMS Chapter 14.3, utilizing a 19-tube bundle at nine pipe diameters upstream of the orifice plate. The test included seven flow points, spanning a flow rate range of 332 to 1324 acfm. The maximum to minimum flow rate ratio was The results of the test Page 3 of 13

4 are shown in Figure 2, as a function of Reynolds number. Two differential pressure (DP) transmitters were used with two sets of pressure taps on opposite sides of the orifice run. The average difference between the measured C d and the calculated C d, using the R-G equation, was 0.196% using the top DP transmitter and 0.107% using the bottom DP transmitter. The second facility verification test was performed using an 8-inch diameter orifice meter. The 8-inch diameter run contained a 19-tube bundle at 17 pipe diameters upstream. The test included eight flow points, spanning a flow rate range of 350 to 1039 acfm. The ratio of maximum to minimum flow rate was The results of this test are shown in Figure 3. The average difference between the measured C d and the calculated C d was %. Test Setup for Standard Tests The API Chapter 5.7 Test Protocol requires gas flow testing of the differential pressure device in standard and non-standard configurations. The standard tests are to be performed with straight pipe upstream and any flow conditioner recommended by the manufacturer. As described in the next section, the three non-standard test configurations utilize different upstream disturbances to generate asymmetric and high-swirl flows at the entrance to the meter being tested. The manufacturer specifies the distance between the test meter and the upstream disturbances, as well as the use (if any) of a flow-conditioning device. As specified by McCrometer, no flow conditioner was used at any point in the testing of the V- Cone Flow Meter. The standard tests were performed with a minimum of thirty pipe diameters (30D) of straight pipe upstream of the meter. The exact upstream lengths for the 4-inch and 8- inch meters are shown in the installation drawings in the Appendix Figures A-1 and A-3. Photographs of the standard test configuration for both meter sizes are shown in Figures A-2 and A-4. The test conditions for each of the standard tests are shown in Table MRF Facility Verification: 12-inch Diameter Orifice Meter Beta Ratio = 0.617, 19-tube bundle at 9D upstream Test Performed Sept. 23, 2003 Cd-RG Cd-RG Upper 95% Confidence Level Orifice Discharge Coefficient, Cd Cd-RG Lower 95% Confidence Level Cd Measured - Top DP Transmitter Cd Measured - Bottom DP Transmitter E E E E E E E E+07 Pipe Reynolds Number, ReD Figure 2. Facility verification test using a 12-inch diameter orifice meter. Page 4 of 13

5 0.611 MRF Facility Verification: 8-inch Diameter Orifice Meter Beta Ratio = 0.624, 19-tube bundle at 17D upstream Test Performed Dec. 23, Discharge Coefficient, Cd Cd Measured, 90-sec Runs Cd Measured Average Cd RG Equation Cd-RG Upper 95% Confidence Level Cd-RG Lower 95% Confidence Level E E E E E E+06 Reynolds Number Figure 3. Facility verification test using an 8-inch diameter orifice meter. Test Type Test Pressure Meter Size, Beta Ratio Standard Test psia 4-inch, Beta = 0.60 Standard Test psia 4-inch, Beta = 0.60 Standard Test psia 4-inch, Beta = 0.75 Standard Test psia 4-inch, Beta = 0.45 Standard Test psia 8-inch, Beta = 0.60 Non-Standard Test 1: Half-Moon Orifice Plate 165 psia 4-inch, Beta = 0.60 Piping Configuration Straight Pipe Upstream, No Flow Conditioner Half-Moon Orifice Plate in Up Position at 5D upstream, No Flow Conditioner Non-Standard Test 2: Double Elbows Out-of-Plane Non-Standard Test 3: Swirl Generator 165 psia 4-inch, Beta = psia 4-inch, Beta = 0.60 Double Elbows Out-Of-Plane at 0D upstream, No Flow Conditioner Swirl Generator at 18D Upstream, Swirl Angle = 27-30º No Flow Conditioner Table 1. Test conditions for the Standard and Non-Standard Tests of the V-Cone Meters. Page 5 of 13

6 Non-standard Tests In the non-standard tests, the meter location varied with each test. The non-standard tests were performed using the 4-inch diameter V-Cone Flow Meter with a Beta ratio of The installation diagrams and photographs of the non-standard test configurations are shown in Appendix Figures A-5 through A-10. Non-Standard Test 1 requires a half-moon orifice plate to be installed upstream of the 4-inch diameter test meter to generate an asymmetric flow profile. For the initial test, the V-Cone Flow Meter was placed at five diameters downstream of the plate, as specified by McCrometer (see Appendix Figure A-5). The half-moon orifice plate was turned so that the open area was positioned in the upper half of the flow stream. Non-Standard Test 2 requires installation of two out-of-plane long radius 90º elbows upstream of the meter. The two out-of-plane elbows create both swirl and profile asymmetry in the flow entering the meter run. For this test, the V-Cone Flow Meter was positioned immediately downstream of the last elbow, as specified by McCrometer (see Figure A-7). Non-Standard Test 3 calls for a swirl-generating device that produces high swirl conditions in the flow. The maximum swirl angle across the pipe is to be no less than 24º at 18 pipe diameters downstream of the swirl generator (see Figure A-9). The swirl angle must be measured at this location using a generally recognized method. For this test, a Chevron swirl generator was used. This device (shown in Figure A-11) contains vanes with adjustable blade angles. The swirl generator was installed 18 pipe diameters upstream of a multi-hole Pitot tube, which was used to measure the swirl angle. The Pitot tube was positioned in the upper one-third of the pipe (i.e., at 1/3 of the diameter from the top of the pipe). The swirl angle was measured to be approximately 27 to 30º. Confirmation measurements were performed at one-third of a diameter from the bottom of the pipe. The multi-hole Pitot tube is shown in Figure A-12 as it was installed at the MRF. Following the measurements of swirl angle, the multi-hole Pitot tube was removed and replaced with the V-Cone Flow Meter, at the same location, for the gas flow test. In all of the protocol tests, the differential pressure was measured using three stacked Rosemount differential pressure transmitters of varying ranges: 0-25, 0-250, and of water column. The stacked transmitters allowed for a precise measurement of the differential pressure over the entire flow range available at the MRF. The temperature was measured downstream of the V- Cone Flow Meter, as specified in the installation configurations shown in the Appendix. The temperature measurement was made using a direct-insert resistance temperature device (RTD) connected to a Rosemount temperature transmitter. Data from six, consecutive 90-second runs were recorded at each flow rate. Determination of Measured Discharge Coefficient In the Chapter 5.7 testing, the measured V-Cone Flow Meter discharge coefficient was determined using the MRF reference flow rate provided by the High Pressure Loop critical flow Venturi nozzles (sonic nozzles). The McCrometer equation for flow rate through a V-Cone can be solved for the discharge coefficient, C d, as: Page 6 of 13

7 C d Qlb/ s = 2 2 D β π 2g 4 c ρ P Y 4 1 β where Q lb/s = MRF reference mass flow rate, in lbm/sec g c = dimensional conversion constant = lbm-ft/lbf-sec 2 ρ = gas density, in lbm/ft 3 D = pipe diameter of V-Cone spool piece, in ft β = Beta ratio of the V-Cone Flow Meter P = differential pressure measured across the V-Cone Flow Meter, in lbf/ft 2 Y = expansion factor, as calculated by McCrometer, shown below (2.0) The measured discharge coefficient was determined according to Equation 2.0. In the graphs that follow, the measured discharge coefficient is shown as a function of the pipe Reynolds number, similar to an orifice flow meter. The measured values of C d represent the calibrated values of the discharge coefficient for gas flow applications. The equation for the V-Cone meter expansion factor is as follows: 4 P Y = 1 ( β ) (3.0) k P where k = isentropic factor of the gas, P = line pressure of the flowing gas, in lbf/ft 2 The expansion factor compensates for the variations in density in different test fluids and pressures. The accuracy of the expansion factor equation is tested by comparing the value of the discharge coefficient for different fluids, such as gas and water, and for different test pressures. The variation in the discharge coefficient during the gas and liquid Chapter 5.7 tests is discussed in the summary below. Acoustic Noise Test The V-Cone meter did not emit a significant level of noise during any of the gas tests. The noise level in the area near the V-Cone meter installation was measured with a standard acoustic noise meter to be approximately 85 db. This measurement was skewed by the noise from the High Pressure Loop SOLAR centrifugal compressor and related machinery. As such, it was difficult to measure the noise contribution from the V-Cone meter directly. By comparison, the noise level in the area closer to the HPL compressor was measured to be between db. The noise level emitted by the test environment was significantly greater than any noise contribution from the V-Cone test meter. Page 7 of 13

8 Summary of Test Results Standard Test Results The average C d value for each flow rate (from the six individual test runs at a given Reynolds number) is provided in the data tables shown in the Appendix Figures A-21 through A-28. The linear curve-fits to the average C d values, for the MRF gas testing and the Utah State University liquid testing, are shown in the Appendix Figures A-13 through A-20. These curves are discussed below. It should be noted that the uncertainty in the measured discharge coefficient increases for the lower Reynolds numbers. This is due to the increased precision error associated with the low differential pressure measurement at these points. The data tables shown in the Appendix provide the uncertainty in the measured discharge coefficient (as shown in the graphs) and in the reference mass flow rate. This uncertainty estimate includes both bias and precision uncertainties. The uncertainty estimations provided by the MRF meet the requirements for uncertainty calculations as outlined in ASME PTC , Test Uncertainty. In addition, it should be noted that the V-Cone Flow Meter testing at Southwest Research Institute was limited to the flow range available in the MRF High Pressure Loop. The maximum flow rate available in this loop is 1380 acfm, while the minimum flow rate available is 60 acfm. As such, some of the standard tests did not test the V-Cone Flow Meter over a 10:1 turndown because of the laboratory flow rate constraints. Since the discharge coefficient was measured using three stacked differential pressure transmitters, the test generated multiple sets of discharge coefficient data. Southwest Research Institute has chosen to present the information shown in the graphs, using the discharge coefficient measured by the most appropriate differential pressure transmitter. The most appropriate differential pressure transmitter is defined as the transmitter with the lowest measurement uncertainty for the differential pressure being measured. A linear curve-fit has been used to fit the measured values of the discharge coefficient to a continuous curve, over the measured Reynolds number range. The linear curve-fit for the MRF gas testing can be compared to the curve-fit from the liquid testing conducted by Utah State University, in the case of two of the 4-inch diameter meters and the 8-inch diameter meter. This comparison shows the overlap in the two test facilities and the similar performance of the V-Cone meter in the two test fluids, at the same Reynolds numbers. Figures 4 and 5 (shown below) compare the average data from the two test facilities. For the 4-inch diameter meter with a Beta ratio of 0.75, the C d values from the two facilities agree to within 1%, and for the other two meters, the C d values agree to within better than 0.4%. In addition, Figures 6-8 compare the three Vcone Flow Meters performance during water calibrations at the Utah State University laboratory and the McCrometer water test facility. V-Cone Expansion Factor (Y Factor) Results Based on the good agreement between the curve-fits for the liquid and gas testing, the data shows that the V-Cone meter expansion factor equation takes into account the change in the density of the gas flow. The V-Cone meter can be expected to perform similarly in gas and liquid applications over a large Reynolds number range, based on these results. Page 8 of 13

9 Non Standard Test Results The standard test of the 4-inch diameter, 0.60 Beta V-Cone can also be compared to the C d values generated for the non-standard tests of the same meter. This comparison allows the user to estimate the probable meter deviation in non-standard installations, typically characterized by high-swirl or asymmetric velocity profiles. For this reason, the graph of the non-standard test results includes the data for the standard, baseline test of the Beta 0.60 meter, as well as the nonstandard test of the same meter. The non-standard test results indicate that the probable deviation in the discharge coefficient, as compared to the baseline test, is within ±0.50% for the three nonstandard installations. In the case of Non-Standard Tests 2 and 3, the average discharge coefficient under non-standard conditions was within ± 0.15% of the baseline C d curve-fit Standard Test 3, 4-inch V-Cone Meter Serial No Beta Ratio = Enlarged to show overlap region between test facilities MRF Gas Testing: Stand. Test 3 Utah State Liquid Testing Cd, Discharge Coefficient E E E E E E E E+06 Reynolds Number Figure 4. Comparison of 4-inch diameter Beta V-Cone meter performance in liquid and gas testing using standard test configuration. Page 9 of 13

10 1.000 Standard Test 5, 8-inch V-Cone Meter Serial No Beta Ratio = Enlarged to show overlap region between test facilities MRF Gas Testing: Stand. Test Utah State Liquid Testing, Beta = Cd, Discharge Coefficient E E E E E E E E+06 Reynolds Number Figure 5. Comparison of 8-inch diameter Beta V-Cone meter performance in liquid and gas testing using standard test configuration. 4" 0.75 Beta Ratio V-Cone Cd McCrometer Utah Uni Re Figure 6. Comparison of 4-inch diameter 0.75 Beta V-Cone meter performance in water testing in Utah and at McCrometer s Lab. Page 10 of 13

11 4" 0.45 Beta V-Cone Meter Cd Re McCrometer Utah Uni Figure 7. Comparison of 4-inch diameter 0.45 Beta V-Cone meter performance in water testing in Utah and at McCrometer s Lab. 8" 0.75 Beta Ratio V-Cone Meter Cd Re McCrometer Utah Uni Figure 8. Comparison of 8-inch diameter 0.75 Beta V-Cone meter performance in water testing in Utah and at McCrometer s Lab. Conclusions The tests of the V-Cone Flow Meter according to API Chapter 5.7 demonstrated the V- Cone Flow Meter performance high-pressure gas at the MRF and in water at Utah State University. The test results showed good meter repeatability, resulting in a small measurement uncertainty in the calibrated discharge coefficient. In addition, the tests showed the excellent agreement between the MRF, the Utah State University Water Research Laboratory and the McCrometer water laboratory. Page 11 of 13

12 The V-cone Flow Meter met the claims of the manufacturer as a ±0.5% device over a large Reynolds number range. The expansibility equation supplied for the meter was effective over the full range of test pressures, differential pressures and meter line sizes. Non-standard Test 2 demonstrated that two, 90º out-of-plane elbows could be placed on the inlet of the meter with a maximum shift in the discharge coefficient of no more than ±0.15%. A flow with a swirl angle up to 30º at the inlet to the V-cone flow meter will produce similar results, with a minimal change (±0.15%) in the calibrated discharge coefficient. When a half moon orifice plate is placed at 5D upstream of the meter, the shift in the discharge coefficient can be expected to be no more than ±0.5%, within the tolerance claimed by the manufacturer. The Acoustic Noise Test indicated that there was no significant noise from the meter, but no conclusive noise level could be determined for the meter due to the background noise of the test facility. Discussion on the API 5.7 Standard, Testing Protocol for Differential Pressure Flow Measurement Devices Based on the testing of the V-Cone Flow Meter in accordance with the API Chapter 5.7 Test Protocol, the authors have identified some of the areas of the standard that may be considered for revision, in order to provide a more effective test protocol: The authors found that Chapter 5.7 provides a comprehensive series of tests for a differential pressure flow measurement device and subjects the meter to onerous flow regimes. The standard specifies the use of an orifice plate to determine the laboratory s ability to test differential pressure meters in a manner that is traceable to NIST. However, the flow laboratory is required to provide the orifice meter runs and the test data (i.e. test time) to prove its own veracity. This presents a difficult requirement for a flow laboratory because the exact orifice meter sizes may not be available on-hand at the laboratory and the additional test time and materials add to the cost of performing the Chapter 5.7 tests. This requirement for traceability or laboratory veracity may be met through other means, and the next revision should consider other ways of proving traceability. If this requirement remains within the standard, a clearer and more practical definition of the orifice size needed for the test is required. The present standard requires certain uncertainty calculations and a specific presentation of laboratory uncertainty. Flow laboratories may present the uncertainty in a different manner than the standard specifies. The standard should be as specific as possible about the how the uncertainty is specified, without restricting the laboratory to a certain presentation format, which may add additional cost to the test. In the present testing of the V-Cone Flow Meter, the expansibility equation was proved over a range of fluid densities. However, if the expansibility equation had not proven to provide consistent and continuous values, the standard would not have provided sufficient guidance to this end. The next revision should offer a method of evaluating or changing the expansion factor equation, if this proves to be necessary, based on the test results. Page 12 of 13

13 In a flow laboratory, it may be difficult to separate any noise from a meter from the noise generated by the facility s pumps, valves, etc. Consequently, there is no real value in testing the meter for noise under these conditions. The Chapter 5.7 Standard should be revised to require reporting of the noise level, only if the noise emitted from the meter proves to be unacceptable during testing. Acknowledgement The authors wish to thank the engineering and management staff at McCrometer for their support of the Chapter 5.7 Testing. In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge Mr. Michael Robertson, Mr. John Sullenger and Mr. Roland Martinez at the Southwest Research Institute Metering Research Facility who installed the various test configurations and performed the high pressure gas testing. Finally, the authors would like to acknowledge the testing services provided by the researchers at the Utah State University Water Research Laboratory. The attention to detail and high quality work by the contributors stated above resulted in a successful research project that can be used to guide and direct future research efforts in the area of flow measurement. Page 13 of 13

14 Tests of the V-Cone Flow Meter at Southwest Research Institute and Utah State University in Accordance Page A-1 of A-20

15 Figure A-1. Standard Test Configuration of 4-inch V-Cone Flow Meter in MRF High Pressure Loop East Header Figure A-2. Standard Tests 1-4: Installation of 4-inch Test Meter in MRF High Pressure Loop East Header Page A-2 of A-20

16 Figure A-3. Standard Test Configuration of 8-inch V-Cone Flow Meter in MRF High Pressure Loop East Header Figure A-4. Standard Test 5: Installation of 8-inch Test Meter in MRF High Pressure Loop East Header Page A-3 of A-20

17 Figure A-5. Non-Standard Test 1: 4-inch V-Cone Flow Meter Downstream of Half-Moon Orifice Plate at 0D, 3D and 5D Figure A-6. Non-Standard Test 1: Installation of 4-inch Test Meter Downstream of Half- Moon Orifice Plate Page A-4 of A-20

18 Figure A-7. Non-Standard Test 2: 4-inch V-Cone Flow Meter Immediately Downstream of Double 90º Out-of-Plane Long-Radius Elbows Figure A-8. Non-Standard Test 2: Installation of 4-inch Test Meter Immediately Downstream of Double 90º Out-of-Plane Long-Radius Elbows. The entire installation is shown at left and the V-Cone meter up-close is shown at right. Page A-5 of A-20

19 Figure A-9. Non-Standard Test 3: 4-inch V-Cone Flow Meter at 18 Pipe Diameters Downstream of Chevron Swirl Generator. Figure A-10. Non-Standard Test 3: Installation of 4-inch Test Meter at 18 Pipe Diameters Downstream of Chevron Swirl Generator. Entire installation is shown at left and V-Cone test meter up-close is shown at right. Page A-6 of A-20

20 Figure A-11. Chevron Adjustable Vane-Angle Swirl Generator Figure A-12. Multi-hole Pitot tube used to confirm swirl angle in Non-Standard Test 3, shown up close, at left, and downstream of swirl generator device, at right. Page A-7 of A-20

21 Standard Test 1, 4-inch V-Cone Meter Serial No Beta Ratio = Average Cd Measured Linear (Average Cd Measured) Cd, Discharge Coefficient y = 2E-10x E E E E E E E+06 Reynolds Number Figure A-13. Average measured discharge coefficient and linear curve-fit to Standard Test 1 data Standard Test 2, 4-inch V-Cone Meter Serial No Beta Ratio = Stand. Test 1 (P=165 psia) Stand. Test 2 (P=815 psia) Linear (Stand. Test 1 (P=165 psia)) Cd, Discharge Coefficient y = 2E-10x Linear (Stand. Test 2 (P=815 psia)) y = 8E-10x E E E E E E E+07 Reynolds Number Figure A-14. Average measured discharge coefficient and linear curve-fit to Standard Test 1 and Test 2 data. Page A-8 of A-20

22 1.000 Standard Test 3, 4-inch V-Cone Meter Serial No Beta Ratio = MRF Gas Testing: Stand. Test 3 Utah State Liquid Testing, Beta= Cd, Discharge Coefficient Linear (MRF Gas Testing: Stand. Test 3) Linear (Utah State Liquid Testing, Beta=0.7501) y = 2E-09x y = 2E-08x E E E E E E E+06 Reynolds Number Figure A-15. Average measured discharge coefficient and linear curve-fit to Standard Test 3 performed at the MRF and liquid testing of the same meter at Utah State University. Standard Test 4, 4-inch V-Cone Meter Serial No Beta Ratio = MRF Gas Testing: Stand. Test 4 Utah State Liquid Testing, Beta = Linear (MRF Gas Testing: Stand. Test 4) Linear (Utah State Liquid Testing, Beta = ) Cd, Discharge Coefficient y = 4E-08x y = 2E-09x E E E E E E E E E E E+06 Reynolds Number Figure A-16. Average measured discharge coefficient and linear curve-fit to Standard Test 4 performed at the MRF and liquid testing of the same meter at Utah State University. Page A-9 of A-20

23 Standard Test 5, 8-inch V-Cone Meter Serial No Beta Ratio = MRF Gas Testing: Stand. Test 5 Utah State Liquid Testing, Beta = Linear (MRF Gas Testing: Stand. Test 5) Linear (Utah State Liquid Testing, Beta =0.7494) Cd, Discharge Coefficient y = 8E-09x y = 2E-09x E E E E E E E E+06 Reynolds Number Figure A-17. Average measured discharge coefficient and linear curve-fit to Standard Test 5 performed at the MRF and liquid testing of the same meter at Utah State University Non-Standard Test 1 Half-Moon Orifice Plate in Up Position at 5D upstream 4-inch V-Cone Meter Serial No , Beta Ratio = Standard Test 1 - Straight Pipe Upstream Cd, Discharge Coefficient Non-Standard Test 1 - Half-Moon Orifice Plate, Avg. Cd Diff = 0.317% Linear (Standard Test 1 - Straight Pipe Upstream) y = 2E-10x E E E E E E E+06 Reynolds Number Figure A-18. Average measured discharge coefficient for Non-Standard Test 1 and Standard Test 1 with linear curve-fit to Standard Test 1 data. Page A-10 of A-20

24 Cd, Discharge Coefficient Non-Standard Test 2 Double Elbows Out-of-Plane at 0D upstream of meter 4-inch V-Cone Meter Serial No , Beta Ratio = Standard Test 1 - Straight Pipe Upstream Non-Standard Test 2 - Double Elbows Upstream, Avg Cd Diff = % Linear (Standard Test 1 - Straight Pipe Upstream) y = 2E-10x E E E E E E E+06 Reynolds Number Figure A-19. Average measured discharge coefficient for Non-Standard Test 2 and Standard Test 1 with linear curve-fit to Standard Test 1 data. Cd, Discharge Coefficient Non-Standard Test 3 Swirl Generator at 18D upstream of meter 4-inch V-Cone Meter Serial No , Beta Ratio = Standard Test 1 - Straight Pipe Upstream Non-Standard Test 3 - Swirl Generator, Avg Cd Diff = % Linear (Standard Test 1 - Straight Pipe Upstream) y = 2E-10x E E E E E E E+06 Reynolds Number Figure A-20. Average measured discharge coefficient for Non-Standard Test 3 and Standard Test 1 with linear curve-fit to Standard Test 1 data. Page A-11 of A-20

25 File Date Time Pdn(psia) T(F) rho(lb/ft3) DP(psid) ReD Cd UCd(%) Y1 Beta V(ft/s) md(lb/s) Umd(%) F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = Figure A-21. Standard Test 1 Data: 4-inch V-Cone Flow Meter, Beta = 0.60, Low Pressure Test. Page A-12 of A-20

26 File Date Time Pdn(psia) T(F) rho(lb/ft3) DP(psid) ReD Cd UCd(%) Y1 Beta V(ft/s) md(lb/s) Umd(lb/s) F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = Figure A-22. Standard Test 2 Data: 4-inch V-Cone Flow Meter, Beta = 0.60, High Pressure Test. Page A-13 of A-20

27 File Date Time Pdn(psia) T(F) rho(lb/ft3) DP(psid) ReD Cd UCd%) Y1 Beta V(ft/s) md(lb/s) Umd(%) F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = Figure A-23. Standard Test 3 Data: 4-inch V-Cone Flow Meter, Beta = Page A-14 of A-20

28 File Date Time Pdn(psia) T(F) rho(lb/ft3) DP(psid) ReD Cd UCd(%) Y1 Beta V(ft/s) md(lb/s) Umd(%) F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F Average = Average = F F F F F F F Average = Average = Figure A-24. Standard Test 4 Data: 4-inch V-Cone Flow Meter, Beta = Page A-15 of A-20