1. Progress Report of APMP.M.FF-K2b
Takashi Shimada
National Metrology Institute of Japan, AIST

2. Participants and Timetable
Nov Draft protocol ready
Dec Protocol agreed between participants
Nov Draft A Report ready
NMI (Economy)
Date of measurements
NMIJ (Japan) #1
January 2013
CMS (Chinese Taipei)
February 2013
NMIJ #2
March to April 2013
NMIA (Australia)
June 2013
NMIJ #3
July 2013

3. Transfer Standard Positive Displacement meter(6” Kral meter)
Max. flow rate : 300 m3/h(450 m3/h)
6” ANSI 150lb
Length : 645 mm, Diameter : 267 mm, Weight : 180 kg
Upstream pipe with filter
Not so fine mesh
Flow meter
As picture shows, the transfer standard is a screw type positive displacement flow meter, that is 6” KRAL meter .
This flow meter is the same type as used in the first round of the CIPM key comparison.
And the flow meter was used as a transfer standard in the second round of the APMP key comparison.
The maximum flow rate is 300 m3/h and the flange size is 6 inch.
The pipe with filter is set upstream of the flow meter.
But the filter is not so fine mesh.
Total length including the upstream pipe is 800 mm.
Upstream pipe with filter

4. Test Condition
Liquid : Clean hydrocarbons (Kerosene, light fuel oil etc.)
Flowrate : 60 ~ 300 m3/h
Viscosity range : 1.5 to 7.0 test condition
Liquid temperature : 20 ºC to 30 ºC
Pressure : 1 to 6 bar
> 1 bar downstream of the package
Cardinal point
Flow rate at Re=70,000, 100,000 and 300,000 (D=0.15 m)
Participants should calibrate the TS at Re of 100,000 at least.
This shows the test condition for the APMP key comparison.
The required test liquid is clean hydrocarbons such as kerosene and light fuel oil and so on.
The volumetric flow rate should be within 60 m3/h to 300 m3/h
and the kinematic viscosity should be between 1.5 and 7 mm2/s(cSt) at test condition.
Liquid temperature is between 20 and 30 degree.
The back pressure downstream of the transfer standard should be higher than 1 bar at gauge pressure.
The three cardinal points are the flow rates at Reynolds numbers of 70,000, 100,000 and 300,000.
And the participants should calibrate the transfer standard at Re of 100,000 at least.
1.5 cSt
7.0 cSt
Re =70,000 -
208 m3/h
100,000
64 m3/h
297 m3/h
300,000
191 m3/h

5. Uncertainty due to transfer standard
Reproducibility due to transport
Deviation at the pilot lab before and after transport
Temperature and viscosity effect
Linearity
Pressure effect
Effect due to upstream condition
Evaluated by pre-test
Next I will show the uncertainty due to the transfer standard.
The uncertainty of the transfer standard has some sources.
One is the reproducibility due to transport and it will be estimated by the deviation at the pilot lab before and after transport.
The others are the temperature and viscosity effect, the linearity of the TS, pressure effect and the effect due to the strainer.
These effects have evaluated by pre-tests.

6. Reproducibility of transfer standard due to transport
Liquid
Flow rare
Marker
Standard deviation (%)
Kerosene
Re=300,000
0.0038
Re=100,000
0.0027
Re=70,000
0.0023
300m3/h
0.0043
240m3/h
180m3/h
0.0007
120m3/h
0.0015
60m3/h
0.0021
Light oil
0.0022
0.0017
0.0024
0.0026
0.0010
0.0016
Transfer standard
20 ºC
0.02
APMP.M.FF-K2.a
Jan. ~ Aug. 2013
0.01
+/ %
(Kf20 – Kf20avg)/Kf20avg (%)
0.00
This figure show the deviation of the transfer standard against the calibration date.
And all results were obtained at NMIJ.
As this figure shows, the deviation due to reproducibility is very small,
and almost results are less than %.
The largest standard deviation is % in the all calibration points.
So, the damage due to transport was very small and the transfer standard was very stable during the APMP key comparison.
-0.01
NMIJ
-0.02
01-Jan-11
02-Jan-12
02-Jan-13
03-Jan-14
Date

7. Temperature and viscosity effect
Cardinal point,
Re = 70,000, 100,000, 300,000
KE35ºC, 1.5 cSt
KE30ºC, 1.6 cSt
KE25ºC, 1.8 cSt
KE20ºC, 2.0 cSt
KE15ºC, 2.1 cSt
LO35ºC, 4.6 cSt
LO30ºC, 5.2 cSt
LO25ºC, 6.0 cSt
LO20ºC, 7.0 cSt
LO15ºC, 8.2 cSt
(Kf20-Kfnom)/Kfnom (%)
0.02 %
I will show the temperature and viscosity effect of the transfer standard.
This figure shows that the K factors at the light oil and kerosene and at different temperatures, that is, different viscosity.
As figure shows, the deviation at the same Reynolds number, that is, cardinal point, is less than ±0.01 %.
So that the effect of temperature and viscosity is estimated to be % from the largest standard deviation at Re of 70,000.
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
Re (-) Re
Maximum
Viscosity
(mm2/s)
Minimum
Standard deviation of K
(%)
300,000
2.13
1.52
0.0025
100,000
6.95
0.0057
70,000
8.18
2.14
0.0058

8. Linearity
Uncertainty due to the differences of Re at the cardinal points between each pair of the participants
Corrected K factor is described by the second function equation
Sensitivity coefficient of the corrected K factors against Re
Uncertainty of Re
Relative standard uncertainty due to Re
Relative standard uncertainty due to the differences of Re is estimated to be the largest value of % at Re of 300,000
Flow rate > 60 m3/h
Re > 50,000 9 10 11 12 13 14
Kf20 (P/L)
LN Re
The linearity effect is the Relative standard uncertainty due to the differences of Re at the cardinal points between each pair of the participants.
The Corrected K factor was described by the second function equation as figure shows.
And then the Sensitivity coefficient of the corrected K factors against Re is obtained by this equation.
The uncertainty of Re is estimated to be 5 %, because the deviations of Reynolds number at the cardinal points are less than ±5 %
So, The relative standard uncertainty of the K factors due to the uncertainty of Re is obtained by this equation.
Finally, the relative standard uncertainty due to the differences of Re at the cardinal points between each pair of the participants is estimated to be the largest value of % at Re of 300,000 -

9. Pressure effect Pressure effect
< %/MPa
Difference of liquid pressure between each pair of the participants
< ±0.25 MPa
Standard uncertainty due to the difference of the pressure between each pair of the participants %
Light oil, 35 ºC
Re = 70,000
Re = 100,000
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Pressure (MPa)
(Kf20-Kfnom)/Kfnom [ % ]
0.01 %
The transfer standard was calibrated at the different pressure in order to investigate the pressure effect on the transfer standard.
This figure shows the results at the different pressure.
We can see the pressure effect is quite small,
And the pressure effect is estimated to be less than %/MPa.
The difference of liquid pressure between each pair of the participants is estimated to be less than ±0.025 MPa.
So, the standard uncertainty due to the difference of the pressure between each pair of the participants is estimated to be %.

10. Effect due to upstream condition
Strainer was set upstream the transfer standard at calibration in the comparison.
PD meter was used as the transfer standard, indicating that the transfer package is hardly affected by the upstream condition in the test rig of the participants.
Effect due to the upstream condition was estimated from the difference of the K factors with the strainer from those without the strainer.
Flow
to TS
The strainer was set upstream the transfer standard at calibration in the comparison.
The PD meter was used as the transfer standard, indicating that the transfer package is hardly affected by the upstream condition in the test rig of the participants.
The effect due to the upstream condition was estimated by the difference of the K factors with the strainer from those without the strainer.
Strainer
(Not so fine mesh)

11. Effect due to upstream condition
-0.01
0.00
0.01
100
200
300
400
(Kf20FS- Kf20nonFS)/Kfnom (%)
Flow rate (m3/h)
0.004 %
Light oil, 20 ºC
Transfer standard
PD meter TS
PD meter
Test line
FLOW
This figure shows the difference of the K factors with the strainer from those without the strainer.
A PD meter was calibrated with the transfer standard simultaneously.
This PD meter is 6” KRAL meter and the same type as the transfer standard.
As figure shows, the averaged difference of the PD meter is quite small,
But we can see the deviation of the transfer standard due to the strainer, like a systematic error.
So, the relative standard uncertainty due to the difference of the upstream condition between each pair of the participants is estimated to be %
Relative standard uncertainty due to the difference of the upstream condition between each pair of the participants %
PD meter
6” Kral meter
Same type as TS

12. Uncertainty budget due to transfer standard
Source
Relative standard uncertainty (%)
Reproducibility
0.0043
Temperature and viscosity effect
0.0058
Linearity
0.0028
Pressure effect
0.0009
Effect due to upstream condition
0.0031
Standard uncertainty due to TS
0.0084
This shows a uncertainty budget due to the transfer standard.
The uncertainty of the transfer standard has some sources.
As I mentioned, all sources are evaluated,
At the APMP comparison, the uncertainty due to transfer standard was estimated to be %.
This value is less than the uncertainties due to the calibration facility of the participants.
This is important for the comparison.
Uncertainty due to TS,uTS
< Uncertainty due to calibration facility, uf

13. CIPM key comparison for hydrocarbon flow (CCM.FF-K2.2 2011)
Transfer standard
Positive Displacement meter(6” Kral meter)
Test condition
Same as APMP key comparison
Timetable
Protocol ready soon

14. Participating candidate
Participating candidates
APMP
NMIA (Australia)
CMS (Chinese Taipei)
NMIJ (Japan)
EURAMET
BEV (Austria)
LNE-TRAPIL (France)
VSL (The Netherlands)
NEL (UK)
SIM
CENAM (México)
I will show the participating candidates.
The candidates are three NMIs from APMP, Four NMIs from EURAMET and one NMI from SIM.
The transfer standard was very stable at the APMP comparison.
So we will accept all candidates for the CCM comparison.