Second Meeting for FRWG held on June 21, 2017
held our second meeting of the Flow Recalibration Working Group (FRWG) at the CEESI North American Custody
Transfer Conference in San Antonio, Texas that was held from June 19-21,
We met on June 21 at the conclusion of the
main focus of this meeting was the end-user survey that we decided to
conduct at our initial meeting. Flow
Research has created a draft of the end-user survey that has been circulated to
working group members.
At this meeting we agreed to finalize the end-user survey, and then begin to
administer it. Members agreed to provide the names of five end-users who
could potentially complete the survey.
The subject of providing funding for our efforts
was discussed, but we agreed to wait until completing the end-user survey to
pursue this idea.
We aim to get the end-user survey underway at the
beginning of 2018. Flow Research will be circulating the draft survey
towards the end of 2017 so that we can begin the survey early in 2018. Our
hope is to have some solid results by the time of our third meeting at the CEESI
Custody Transfer conference in June 2018.
In the meantime, we have had some new members join
our working group. The list of FRWG members appears below. I
would especially like to welcome Pankaj Gupta (Gail), Tom Ballard (Circor), Tom
Stonehouse (Baker Hughes-GE), and Aguko Willis (Kenya Bureau of Standards). Our
Working Group has a truly international reach.
Flow Recalibration Working Group (FRWG)
The purpose of this group is to arrive at a group of criteria that end-users can
employ to determine if their flowmeters need to be recalibrated. This does
not necessarily equate to a specific time interval. Instead, the goal is
to have some tests, programs, or criteria that can be run to determine when a
flowmeter needs to be recalibrated.
The idea for this group came
out of a series of in-person interviews I did with end-users of flowmeters in
in 2009. I interviewed 15 companies from
, and the UAE about their use of flowmeters. Many of them expressed
frustration that there was no generally agreed upon interval when their
ultrasonic flowmeters need to be recalibrated. There was also the fact
that at that time there was no recalibration facility in the
. These people asked me if I could help them arrive at a standard. I
said that I would do what I could.
Since that time I have spoken
to the AGA, which seems to have no interest in taking on this subject. One
positive development is that Emerson Process has built a flow calibration
, but it is currently limited to four inch liquid recalibrations. Some
countries have instituted their own rules about calibration frequency, but these
periods vary and seem to differ on a country by country basis.
The series of six studies that
Flow Research did in 2012 on gas flow measurement grew out of the
interviews. We are now researching a new edition of this series. Currently,
Flow Research is conducting a worldwide study of the calibration facilities for
liquid and gas recalibration. So far we have identified 125 such
facilities. We have completed a questionnaire that we plan to send to
them. The study will include a description of the capabilities of the
various facilities worldwide. We also plan to cover flowmeter
manufacturers that recalibrate flowmeters, and also mobile calibration
facilities. We are doing separate studies on liquid and gas recalibration.
I think that these studies should be a valuable database of information for our
committee work. You can find a description of these studies at www.flowcalibration.org.
This committee is strictly a
volunteer effort, and so far has no official sanction. However, my hope is
that if we do succeed in coming up with a usable set of recalibration
guidelines, we can approach some of the organizations like AGA and API for
approval of the guidelines. Short of this, we can publish our report and
circulate it among interested manufacturers and end-users. Since no one
has to my knowledge attempted this before, I think the results will be met with
quite a lot of interest.
So far, the following people
have volunteered to be on this committee:
Dr. Jesse Yoder (Flow Research) (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tom Ballard (Circor
Peter Brand (Avans Hogeschool
Dr. Gregor Brown (Cameron) (email@example.com)
Bob Carrell (Hoffer Flow
Clancy (CEESI) (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Terry Cousins (CEESI
Measurement Solutions) (email@example.com)
Gupta (GAIL India Limited) (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Boy Jacobsen (FORCE Technology) (email@example.com)
Dr. Aaron Johnson (NIST) (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Dr. Tom Kegel (CEESI) (email@example.com)
Tom Kemme (Magnetrol) (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Dick Laan (Krohne Altometer) (email@example.com)
John Lansing (Lansing
Measurement Services LLC) (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Phil Mark (TUV SUD Ltd.) (email@example.com)
Tom O’Banion (Micro Motion) (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Pabois (Faure Herman, Groupe IDEX) (email@example.com)
Dean Standiford (Emerson
Process Management) (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wilhelm Staudt (Endress+Hauser
Flowtec AG) (Wilhelm.Staudt@flowtec.endress.com)
Stewart (Oil & Gas Process Solutions) (Steve.email@example.com)
Stonehouse (Baker Hughes, a GE Compny) (firstname.lastname@example.org)
van den Berg (VSL b.v.) (RvdBerg@vsl.nl)
van Doorn (ODS Metering Systems BV) (Eric.email@example.com)
Willis (Kenya Bureau of Standards) (firstname.lastname@example.org)
first task of the committee was to formulate criteria for determining when
an inline multipath ultrasonic custody transfer needs to be recalibrated.
This included running a software program, using a check meter, running
diagnostics, doing dry calibration, or any other method that may be effective.
We then addressed other types of ultrasonic flowmeters, as well as
other flowmeter types such as turbine, differential pressure with different
primary elements, vortex, magnetic, and thermal.
President, Flow Research
Articles About Calibration Topics