Final report on the key comparison of hydrocarbon liquid flow: CCM.FF-K2.2015

Abstract

Seven laboratories: BEV (Austria), CENAM (Mexico), CMS (Chinese-Taipei), LNE-TRAPIL (France), NEL (United Kingdom), NMIA (Australia), and the pilot lab NMIJ (Japan), participated in the key comparison CCM.FF-K2.2015 for hydrocarbon flow measurement. A screw type positive displacement flow meter was selected as a transfer standard. The calibration stability of the transfer standard was evaluated from repeated measurements by NMIJ and showed standard reproducibility of 0.0035 %. The transfer standard was also thoroughly tested for sensitivity to temperature, viscosity, pressure, and other effects. The uncertainty due to the transfer standard of 0.0080 % was less than the quoted uncertainties of the participants. The key comparison reference values (KCRVs) at Reynolds number of 70 000 and 300 000 were obtained as the weighted mean from the calibration results, and the KCRV at Reynolds number of 100 000 was obtained as the median by using the Monte Carlo method according to Cox's procedure B, since the consistency check at Reynolds number of 100 000 failed at the 95 % confidence level. All participant results selected to determine the KCRVs have En values which show consistency with the evaluated KCRVs. Main text To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/. The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).

Primary standard for traceability in low liquid hydrocarbon fuel flow rates

“…To validate the CMC of the facility discussed in this study, intra-facility comparison between the gravimetric systems within the facility as well as inter-facility comparisons with other calibration facilities in NMIJ (of which 2 primary standards [4,25] are linked to the international key comparisons of CCM.FF.K1 [26,27] and CCM.FF.K2 [21][22][23][24]) were performed. All the comparisons conducted through a total of six different transfer meters show a good agreement between the facilities, hence providing supporting evidence for the CMC claimed by the facility.…”

“…(a) Inter-facility comparison between the small oil flow facility and the medium oil flow facility [4], which is linked to CCM.FF-K2 international key comparisons [21][22][23][24]. (b) Inter-facility comparison between the small oil flow facility and the small water flow facility [25], which is linked to CCM.FF-K1 international key comparisons [26,27].…”

Evaluation of hydrocarbon flow standard facility equipped with double-wing diverter using four types of working liquids

“…To confirm the agreement between the calibration values obtained in the present facility and in the large hydrocarbon flow facility of NMIJ, a screw type PD flowmeter was calibrated in both facilities as a transfer standard. The expanded uncertainty ( = k 2) for the large hydrocarbon flow facility was estimated to be 0.030% for volumetric flow [6] and is documented in the related CMC entry of NMIJ for hydrocarbon flow in the KCDB of the Bureau International des Poids et Measures (BIPM) [16], and the large hydrocarbon facility has participated in an international key comparisons of liquid hydrocarbon flow facilities (CCM-FF-K2 [17] and CCM.FF-K2.2015 [18]). The calibration results of the internal comparison are shown in figure 17.…”