API TECHNICAL REPORT 2577

Transcription

1 API TECHNICAL REPORT 2577 Performance of Full Bore Vortex Meters for Measurement of Liquid Flows Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 1

2 Foreword Add API boiler plate Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 2

3 Table of Contents Table of Contents Introduction Scope Definitions accuracy bias calibration compensation flowing density metering or measurement system performance range of uncertainty verification uncertainty Field of Application Test Matrix for Full Bore Vortex Meter Baseline Calibration at the Calibration Facility Field Testing of Vortex meter with hydrocarbon fluids Test Results inch (100 mm) Vortex Meter Performance at Coastal Flow Facility inch (100 mm) Vortex Meter Performance in the Field with Hydrocarbon inch (50 mm) Vortex meter performance at Coastal Flow Facility Additional Test Results from other standards: Conclusion Acknowledgement ANNEX A Plots of Baseline Proving Data of 4 inch (100 mm) Vortex Meters ANNEX B FROM: OIML D Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 3

4 Introduction This Technical Report documents performance characteristics of several commercially available Vortex Meters for liquid flows. Although vortex meters are available in full bore and reduced bore designs, performance verification and characterization were limited to full bore liquid vortex meters only, because available test data in the public domain for performance of reduced bore vortex meter was inadequate and available funding to develop field test database for hydrocarbon liquids limited the field tests to full bore vortex meters only. Vortex meter test results reported in this document are of nominal 2 inch (50 mm) and 4 inch (100 mm) meter sizes. Five (5) vortex meter vendors participated in the laboratory and field testing with hydrocarbon liquid of 4 inch (100 mm) meters, while only three (3) manufacturers participated in 2 inch (50 mm) tests. Since flow rate through 2 inch (50 mm) vortex meters is relatively low, their use in field trials with hydrocarbon fluids was not possible as it would delay and limit the normal operation of the field meter. Hence, 2 inch (50 mm) vortex meter tests were limited to performance verification at the laboratory test facility with water only. The baseline performance of each meter was established under controlled flowing conditions of the laboratory test facility, where the test fluid was water. Commercially available 4 inch (100 mm) vortex meter output may have a manufactured pulse, the pulse output is used during proving of the meter to establish the meter factor and repeatability of the meter factor. Also because of time variations of shed vortices that result from hydrodynamic instability and current limitations of the available sensor technology, the raw pulse signal of the vortex meters require time averaging. The reference flow rate at the proving facility was established by a Small Volume Prover (SVP) also referred to as Captive Displacement Prover (CDP), because proving of field meters for hydrocarbon fluids was performed by portable proving systems that used SVP. The time of the proving run of SVP normally used to calibrate 4 inch (100 mm) meters was inadequate for time averaged proving run required for the flow rate range of the liquid vortex meters. The laboratory proving setup duplicated the portable field proving system. In order to achieve repeatable Meter Factors (MF) for the vortex meters, laboratory and field proving of vortex meters, MF of the meter under test was established by utilizing transfer proving method. The master meter (MM) for the transfer proving was liquid turbine meter, whose meter factor was established by the SVP. At the proving facility, the MM, meter under test, and SVP were installed in series. In the field, performance of the vortex meter for hydrocarbon flows were established against the field flow meter as the master meter, after the field meter was flow calibrated by the portable proving system. So, variations in flow rate and properties of hydrocarbon fluids for vortex meter were limited as vortex meter could only be tested for the flow rates and properties of the hydrocarbon fluids for which the field meter were being calibrated. Vortex meter proving and performance data for hydrocarbon liquids presented in this Technical Report are limited. At the time of development of this report, practically no significant test data available in the literature or public domain for vortex meter that characterized the performance of vortex meters with hydrocarbon liquid flows indicating Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 4

5 the precision and uncertainty. Members of the API Working Group were assigned to evaluate the performance characteristics of liquid vortex meters, document response of vortex meters for hydrocarbon liquids, and develop this Technical Report to capture the current state of the art of liquid vortex meter. So, users of flowmeters can make informed decision before selecting liquid vortex meter whether performance characteristics of the vortex meter can adequately meet the required measurement uncertainty of their application. 1 Scope This Technical Report provides: documentation of performance characteristics of full bore liquid vortex meter for measuring liquid hydrocarbon flows of different API gravity under the field operating conditions and under controlled environment of laboratory test facility with water as the proving fluid. limited laboratory proving facility test results, using water as the calibration fluid, of several full bore 4 inch (100 mm) and 2 inch (50 mm) commercially available full bore vortex meters that are typically installed for non custody transfer liquid installations. typical performance of full bore 4 inch (100 mm) liquid vortex meters for liquid hydrocarbon measurement and to provide guidance in selecting liquid vortex meter for custody transfer measurement. 2 Definitions For the purposes of this document, the following definitions apply. 2.1 accuracy The extent to which the results of a calculation or the readings of an instrument approach the true value. 2.2 bias Any influence on a result that produces an incorrect approximation of the true value of the variable being measured. Bias is the result of a predictable systematic error. 2.3 calibration A set of operations which establish, under specified conditions, the relationship between the values indicated by a measuring device and the corresponding known values indicated when using a suitable measuring standard. 2.4 compensation The adjustment of the measured value to reference conditions (e.g., pressure compensation). Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 5

6 2.5 flowing density The density of the fluid at actual flowing temperature and pressure. 2.6 metering or measurement system A combination of primary, secondary and/or tertiary measurement components necessary to determine the flow rate. 2.7 performance The response of a measurement device to influence parameters such as operating conditions, installation effects, and fluid properties. 2.8 range of uncertainty The range or interval within which the true value is expected to lie with a stated degree of confidence. 2.9 verification The process or procedure of comparing an instrument to a reference standard to ensure its indication or registration is in satisfactorily close agreement, without making an adjustment uncertainty The amount by which an observed or calculated value may depart from the true value. 3 Field of Application Vortex meters are commonly used in the petroleum industry for different applications including and limited to measurement of upstream and downstream liquids, steam, measurement in midstream applications, and chemical and other fluids in process plants Vortex meters are used in some allocation measurement applications and are in use to measure produced water. Vortex meters essentially have no moving parts with relatively more relaxed mechanical tolerance for the primary element (vortex shedder) and require relatively low maintenance compared to other alternative flow measurement devices for similar application. 4 Test Matrix for Full Bore Vortex Meter It was decided by the members of the API Working Group (WG) for liquid vortex meter standard to conduct field tests of 4 inch (100 mm) ANSI 600 vortex meters to document their performance for hydrocarbon fluids. Experimental study to document performance of liquid vortex meters were conducted in two phases; (a) baseline performance characteristics of each vortex meter were Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 6

7 documented by testing vortex meters at the Coastal Flow Liquid Calibration Facility in Pasadena, Texas with water as the calibration fluid, and (b) field testing of the vortex meter with hydrocarbon fluids of different API gravities was conducted in the field with portable prover systems of Coastal Flow that are used to calibrate customer s flow meters that are installed for fiscal measurement of different API Gravity hydrocarbon liquids. To achieve adequate statistical accuracy for meter factor, vortex meters require a certain number of shedding cycles. Since shedding cycles are directly tied to total flow volume through the vortex meter, a flow volume that is greater than the volume between the detector switches of a Small Volume Prover (SVP) was needed. As output of 4 inch (100 mm) liquid vortex meters generally apply time averaging technique to achieve repeatable vortex shedding frequency, which defines the flow rate output, the run time of a SVP used to calibrate 4 inch (100 mm) flow meters, especially at high flow rates was deemed inadequate. So, transfer proving technique was utilized to document the vortex meter performance. The minimum averaging time of the vortex meter proving run by the master meter was defined as 60 seconds, which was mutually agreed upon by the vendors participating at the API sponsored vortex meter performance documentation tests. For a detailed discussion of the relationship between calibration and vortex shedding cycles is discussed in ASME MFC Appendix A. All major vortex meter vendors, who have vortex meter installed in the Petroleum and Petro Chemical Industries in North America, were invited to participate in the API sponsored Field Performance Experimental Study of liquid vortex meters and five (5) vendors participated in the study. One vendor declined to participate in the study, stating that their vortex meters are offered as a flow/process control device for the Process Industry and performance of their current version of the vortex meters would not meet the precision and repeatability required for fiscal measurement. Following the study of the 4 inch (100 mm) vortex meters, several of the vortex meter manufactures, who were WG member of the API liquid vortex meter Standard, requested that the performance testing of the liquid vortex meters be extended to 2 inch (50 mm) vortex meters. Only three (3) vendors participated in 2 (50 mm) liquid vortex meter tests and the tests were limited to the baseline testing of the meters at the Coastal Flow calibration facility. Field testing of 2 inch (50 mm) vortex meters was not possible, because the time required to calibrate 2 inch (50 mm) by available portable SVP utilized to calibrate meters in the field meters would be significantly long. Also, the time averaging technique required for the 2 inch (50 mm) vortex meters further extended the calibration time of field proving of 2 inch (50 mm) of liquid vortex meter with hydrocarbon fluids. 4.1 Baseline Calibration at the Calibration Facility At the Coastal Flow calibration facility, vortex meter under test was installed in series with a 4 inch (100 mm) liquid turbine meter and a 25 gallon small volume prover (SVP). The prover was designed, constructed, and calibrated in compliance with API MPMS Chapter 4. The turbine meter was proved, with the SVP at different flow rates within the range of performance of the meter under test and the Turbine meter. At each flow rate, the master meter (Turbine meter) was flow calibrated by SVP and Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 7

8 immediately following the calibration of the Master Meter (MM) the vortex meter under test was flow calibrated against the MM utilizing the time averaging technique for proving of the meter under test. Flow conditioning elements were installed upstream of the test meter (vortex meter) and turbine meter. PUMP Figure 1: Schematic Setup at the Calibration Facility A proving by the SVP consisted of three (3) sets of ten (10) passes for the turbine meter and vortex meter. The run time for the 4 inch (100 mm) vortex meter with the SVP ranged from 2.2 to 11 seconds and for the 2 inch (500 mm) vortex meter the SVP runs ranged from 5 to 22 seconds. Flow conditioning elements were used for both the turbine and vortex meter proving runs. The master meter proving consisted of three (3) runs of one minute or greater averaging time, while most being close to two minutes. The SVP proving of the vortex meter was the same as the turbine meter with three (3) sets of ten (10) passes. The turbine meter prover run of the vortex meter was for a time period required to obtain at least ten thousand (10,000) collected pulses of the meter with the smallest k factor, or a run time of one (1) minute. To observe the effect of run time of longer than one (1) minute, limited tests were performed, but no significant improvement of performance was observed. Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 8

9 Figure 2: Calibration Facility Test Setup at Coastal Flow 4.2 Field Testing of Vortex meter with hydrocarbon fluids For the field testing of the vortex meter with hydrocarbon fluids, the meter under test was installed on the portable prover skid of Coastal Flow that is used to calibrate the flow meter of their customers. So, at each field test location, the field installed meter of the customer was proved first by the portable SVP and following which the vortex meter was flow calibrated by utilizing the transfer meter proving technique where the field meter was used as the master meter. Since field meters were for fiscal measurement, only when the field meter performance complied with the acceptance criteria of precision and repeatability required for fiscal measurement, the meter under test was flow calibrated against the field meter as the master meter. Figure 3: Coastal Flow Portable Proving operation in the Field Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 9

10 5 Test Results During testing of the vortex meter at the calibration facility and in the field, each participating vendor was invited to be present during the testing of their meter. Vendors of each meter was requested to ensure that all the entries to the configuration file, tests setup, and wiring connection met their approval and the meter was ready for the test. Once the test commenced, vendor were allowed to observe the test and test results, but was not allowed to readjust or reconfigure any setting of the meter being tested. Vendors were provided with the performance results and meter calibration data sheets but were not allowed to observe tests or have access to test results of vortex meters of other vendors. Test data presented to the API WG members were blinded, i.e. identifying five (5) meters that were tested as A, B, C, D, and E meter. Data presented in this Technical Report are blinded to protect identification of vortex meter performance of each participating vendor for this API sponsored test. Similarly, the test results of 2 inch vortex meters are identified as F, G, and H so that the 2 inch meter data are not correlated to 4 inch meter manufacturers inch (100 mm) Vortex Meter Performance at Coastal Flow Facility Comprehensive Summary test results are presented in this report. The details of the test and the raw data are preserved as API database for future reference, if required. The K factor of the vortex meter is the ratio of the meter output in number of pulses to the corresponding volume of fluid passing through the meter. Typically the value of the K factor is determined at manufacturer s flow facility over the flow rate range of individual meter or through type testing of flow meters. The value of the K factor for the meter is stamped on the meter tag. For the same size meter for similar operating range, the K factor value of meter from different vendors can often be different. The calibration liquid for factory calibration, may not match the actual operating Reynolds number for liquid being measured in the field under the actual operating conditions. Hence, the meter performance is determined for the flowing liquid under the actual operating conditions by comparing the output of the meter against a reference volume, which is established by proving the meter in the field. The ratio of the reference volume during proving to the volume displayed by the meter using the K factor value of the meter is the Meter Factor (MF) for the flow rate at which the meter is proved. The variations in the Meter Factor may be presented as a function of either pipe Reynolds number or flow rate (refer to Fig. 4). The mean MF of the vortex meter is commonly defined as, where, MF mean MFmax MFmin Equation 1 2 MF max = maximum MF over a designated linear range MF min = minimum MF over the specified linear range Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 10

11 The MF may change with pressure and thermal effects on the body of the meter. The manufacturer of the meter should be consulted regarding changes in MF that may occur between liquid and gas or between one pipe schedule (inside pipe diameter) and another. The ideal performance curve of a volume meter is a straight line denoting a constant K factor. Meter linearity is expressed as the total range of deviation of the performance curve from such a straight line between the minimum and maximum recommended flow rates. The linearity of the meter is often defined as, Linearity MF MF max min Equation 2 max MF MF min Figure 4 Typical shape of a Meter Factor curve The linearity of the meter using meter factor is often defined as, Linearity M M max min Equation 3 max M M min Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 11

12 Table 1 is summary of laboratory proving runs using water for 5 different vortex manufacturers. TABLE 1: Summary Data of all Master Meter Proves at the Calibration Facility Master Meter Min. Max. Avg. Lin. A % B % C % D % E % PLOT 1: Composite Plot of Meter Factors (MF) of Five Vortex Meters for Master Meter Proves. Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 12

13 PLOT 2: Composite Plot of Vortex Meter Repeatability for Master Meter Proves Plot 3 shows the difference between the meter factor established for the meter under test by the SVP Proving and proving performed with Master Meter. Summary data of each vortex meter calibrated at the Coastal Flow facility are below and the calibration data plots are in Annex A. PLOT 3: Composite Plot of Difference in Meter Factor for Five Vortex Meter Data Calibrated by Master Meter and Small Volume Prover. Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 13

14 TABLE 2: Summary Data of Meter A TABLE 3: Summary Data of Meter B Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 14

15 TABLE 4: Summary Data of Meter C TABLE 5: Summary Data of Meter D Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 15

16 TABLE 6: Summary Data of Meter E Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 16

17 6 4 inch (100 mm) Vortex Meter Performance in the Field with Hydrocarbon To document performance of vortex meter with hydrocarbon fluids, meters were initially proved in the field against the field meter as the master meter, after the meter factor for the field meter was established by the portable SVP calibration system of Coastal Flow. Plot 4 is field performance of vortex Meter A & Meter D that were available at the time of the initial field tests. Coastal Flow received meters from different vendors at different time, hence all meters were not available for preliminary field tests performed at different flow rates and with different Degree API fluids. Plot 4 is the meter factor of the meter under test at different flow rates and the numerical value next to each data is the percentage repeatability of that data point. PLOT 4: Performance of Meter A & Meter D (Meter Factor vs Flow Rate) for Hydrocarbon Flows FLOW RATE IN BPH To document performance of the vortex meter for different Degree API fluids, MF for vortex meters, were established for NGL, Propylene, crude oil of different Degree API, Butane, LPG, and Fuel Oil. Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 17

18 Plot 5 displays performance of Meter A & Meter D for different API Gravity (degree API) hydrocarbon fluids. The numerical value next to each data point is the repeatability of that data point. PLOT 5: Performance of Meter A & Meter D (Meter Factor vs API Gravity Hydrocarbon Fluid) DEGREE API Plot 6 is performance of Meter D at different flow rates of hydrocarbon and numerical value against each data is the repeatability of the vortex meter at that point. PLOT 6: Performance of Meter D (Meter Factor vs Flow Rate) for Hydrocarbon Fluids FLOW RATE IN BPH Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 18

19 Plot 7 is the Meter Factor of Meter D for different Degree API fluids. The numerical value next to each data point is the repeatability value of the meter for that point of proving. PLOT 7: Performance of Meter D (Meter Factor vs Degree API of Hydrocarbon Fluids) DEGREE API Plot 8 is performance of Meter A at different flow rates. The numerical value next to each data point is the repeatability value of the meter for that point of proving. Plot 8: Meter A Performance at Different Flow Rates Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 19

20 Plot 9 is performance of Meter A for different Degree API hydrocarbon fluid. The numerical value next to each data point is the repeatability value of the meter for that point of proving. PLOT 9: Performance of Meter A (Meter Factor vs Degree API of Hydrocarbon Fluids) %.584%.029 %.330 %.208 % % Degree API Plots 10 and 11 are limited performance data (Meter Factor) of Meter E as a function flow rate and Degree API, respectively. Similar to other plots the repeatability of the meter factor is given by the numerical value given next to the data. PLOT 10: Performance of Meter E (Meter Factor vs Flow Rate) for Hydrocarbon Fluids % % Flow Rate in BPH Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 20

21 PLOT 11: Performance of Meter E (Repeatability on Points vs Degree API of the Hydrocarbon Fluid) 7 2 inch (50 mm) Vortex meter performance at Coastal Flow Facility Limited tests were performed with 2 inch (50 mm) vortex meter, since only three vendors participated in that phase of the test. Also as API funding was limited and no field location to test the meter with hydrocarbon could be found, data for 2 inch (50 mm) vortex meters for hydrocarbon fluids could be collected. Plots 12 through 14 are meter factor data obtained by calibrating three individual 2 inch (50 mm) vortex meters against SVP and turbine meter as the master meter. Plot 15 is the composite plot of all three 2 inch (50 mm) vortex meters SVP proved to display the performance of each meter relative to other two meters. Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 21

22 PLOT 12: Meter Factor vs Flow Rate for 2 inch (50 mm) Meter F at Coastal Flow Facility % SVP % 0.271% MM % Flow Rate in BPH PLOT 13: Meter Factor vs Flow Rate for 2 inch (50 mm) Meter G at Coastal Flow Facility % 0.540% 0.408% 0.463% 0.253% Flow Rate in BPH SVP MM Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 22

23 PLOT 14: Meter Factor vs Flow Rate for 2 inch (50 mm) Meter H at Coastal Flow Facility % % 0.249% % 0.211% SVP MM Flow Rate in BPH PLOT 15: Composite Calibration Data of 2 inch (50 mm) Meter F, Meter G, and Mater H at Coastal Flow Facility Calibrated by Small Volume Prover Meters F, G, and H Meter Factor Chart of SVP Proving F Meter G Meter H Meter Comparing the repeatability of the 4 inch (100 mm) and 2 inch (50 mm) meters against the SVP, the 2 inch (50 mm) meters repeatability was about 3 times better than repeatability of 4 inch (100 mm) liquid vortex meters. Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 23

24 8 Additional Test Results from other standards: OIML D 25 report is a reference document which documents some attainable results on vortex meter performance and includes an alternative way to present data using a Reynolds number versus meter accuracy plot instead of using flowrate. For some of the conditions shown in this report, the repeatability obtained using the Reynolds number plots were within +/ 0.2%. Since most of the field data did not have the viscosity data of the fluid at the operating conditions, no technically meaningful plot could be generated for field performance of vortex meters as a function of the operating Reynolds number. Annex B presents sample results from the OIML report for vortex meters. 9 Conclusion Experimental data from the Coastal Flow Calibration facility using water as the calibration fluid and from field tests using hydrocarbon fluids with different API gravities demonstrated that currently available 4 inch (100 mm) full bore vortex meters did not meet the linearity and repeatability typically expected for custody transfer measurement. The three 2 meters tested at Coastal Flow Calibration performed better than the 4 meters, but also did not meet the linearity and repeatability expectations. At present, vortex meters should not be considered for liquid custody transfer measurement applications. The results of this study confirm the importance of meter repeatability when used in custody transfer applications. Increasing the proving duration may improve repeatability but from a practical perspective, it is recommended that the meter manufacturers improve the repeatability of the vortex meter over the specified flow rate or Reynolds number ranges of the meter. The non linearity of the meter can be addressed through the use of multi point linearization or best fit polynomial meter factor correction techniques as a function of Reynolds number or for flowing conditions of the fluid, whose physical properties (density and viscosity) are known as a function of the operating pressure and temperature. Although this report recommends that liquid vortex meters not be used for API defined custody transfer, they may be used for other fiscal type applications (e. g., allocation, internal accounting, and process control). Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 24

25 10 Acknowledgement API acknowledges contributions of Coastal Flow Liquid Measurement, Inc. for their voluntary support and contributions in conducting this experimental study. API funding for conducting this study was limited and inadequate to conduct performance tests of all meters for hydrocarbon flows. Coastal Flow volunteered to perform the baseline tests in their flow facility without any reimbursement from API. The API Working Group for this Technical Report is thankful to Coastal Flow for their generous contributions to this experiment study, documentation and analysis of the test facility and field data, blinding the test results, their hospitality for the participating vendors, and their support in developing this Technical Report. The API Working Group members appreciate the voluntary support of participating vendors of Vortex meters and allowing the Working Group to conduct this test with meters donated for the test at no charge to API or Coastal Flow. Vortex meter vendors participating in this study, subsidized expenses for baseline tests conducted at the Coastal Flow Calibration Facility and assisting Coastal Flow with the setup of their meters when meters were tested in the field. Vendor s contributions to this study by providing their meters for testing at no charge to the Working Group or API are truly appreciated. Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 25

26 ANNEX A Plots of Baseline Proving Data of 4 inch (100 mm) Vortex Meters Baseline calibration data plot of individual 4 (100 mm) vortex meters are presented in this Annex. Each plot shows the meter factor of vortex meter established by the SPV and by utilizing Master Meter transfer proving technique. On PLOT A 1, Meter factor of Master Meter (turbine meter) is plotted to demonstrate the performance difference in linearity of vortex meter and turbine meter PLOT A 1: Meter Factor of Vortex Meter A by SVP and Turbine as the Master Meter SVP MM Turbine Flow Rate in BHP PLOT A 2: Meter Factor of Vortex Meter B by SVP and Turbine as the Master Meter SVP MM Flow Rate in BHP Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 26

27 PLOT A 3: Meter Factor vs Flow rate of Vortex Meter C by SVP and Turbine as the Master Meter SVP MM FLOW RATE in BHP PLOT A 4: Meter Factor of Vortex Meter D by SVP and Turbine as the Master Meter SVP MM Flow Rate in BPH Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 27

28 PLOT A 5: Meter Factor of Vortex Meter E by SVP and Turbine as the Master Meter SVP MM Flow Rate in BPH Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 28

29 ANNEX B FROM: OIML D 25 Liquid Vortex Meter Technical Report Ballot Draft: October 18, 2016 Page 29