70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
(OP)
This is the interesting statement in an article in Control Engineering:
htt p://www.co ntroleng.c om/index.p hp?id=483& amp;cHash= 081010& ;tx_ttnews[tt_news]=6047
I was initially surprised by this figure and then, once I realised that it was not about meters that simply didn't work but about not choosing the optimal meter (and I'd suggest this is probably true of most instruments) it made sense.
I like these big numbers... 70% sounds really alarming. I remember a presentation on Condition Based Maintenance that quoted someone like Boeing saying that 80% (or some similar high number, I don't recall the exact figure now) of all failures were due to maintenance.....
They get your attention.
My suggestion is that 70% being not the optimum choice is simply the cost of doing business the way we now do.
Any other thoughts?
htt
I was initially surprised by this figure and then, once I realised that it was not about meters that simply didn't work but about not choosing the optimal meter (and I'd suggest this is probably true of most instruments) it made sense.
I like these big numbers... 70% sounds really alarming. I remember a presentation on Condition Based Maintenance that quoted someone like Boeing saying that 80% (or some similar high number, I don't recall the exact figure now) of all failures were due to maintenance.....
They get your attention.
My suggestion is that 70% being not the optimum choice is simply the cost of doing business the way we now do.
Any other thoughts?





RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
Your link didn't work, it got me to Control Engineering page, but has the message "no news_id given". A search of their site for "Flowmeter selection: Right size, right design" got me to the article (the url is exactly what you posted). The article is limited to flow measurement within plants. I would contend that the problem extends far outside of plant fences.
Thinking about Natural Gas, a single molecule tends to be measured when produced, when transferred from a gatherer to a mid-stream transporter, when transferred into a plant, several times inside the plant, when transferred to a transporter, when transferred to a utility, and when transferred to a consumer. Each of those categories would have a different number. I can buy that well over 70% of the production meters are wrong in so many ways. The count of bad meters into midstream should be lower, but not a lot lower. Bad meters into plants should be a bit lower than into mid-stream. Bad meters inside the plant was the topic of the article. Bad meters into transport should be pretty rare. Bad meters into utilities should be rare. Bad meters into final consumers could easily be back to above the 70%. The article is talking about a simple count, 70% bad is plausible. If they had been talking about the measured volume being bad, the number is much lower.
In my measurement classes, I emphasize that all meter technologies always give us numbers but the numbers may not really have much to do with flow and you can't tell the difference from the office. I recently evaluated a meter station for a customer and found that the volume numbers reported were no better than +/-40% and that the decisions they were making based on these random-number generators were only slightly better than a blind guess. That station was designed by someone at a huge engineering firm with world-wide scope, and no particular measurement expertise.
Thanks for posting that.
David
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
htt
... "When people are sizing flowmeters in general, they tend to use some legacy information and not the most up-to-date data for making decisions," he notes. "You might end up with the wrong size meter because you haven't looked at the latest innovations."
Using legacy information may assure that something actually works without the newest and neatest devices.
These [Control Engineering] articles lack any real information beyond suggesting that more flow measurement technologies exist. The points raised have been published numerous times over the last few decades.
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
How much is due to single source contracts, strategic alliances etc.
Once upon a time lots of "single product" companies had sales engineers who would compete with other sales engineers and all would talk to the plant engineer.
Today we have the majors with just about every product in their portfolio.
So today the few plant engineers left can write a spec and submit to purchasing and purchasing will send it to their strategic alliances partner who will source within their own product range.
The supplier now has a set of sales engineers responsible for thousands of products and reliant on selection software and sizing programs to do the grunt work.
This is today's business model and I am not surprised that 70% is the figure.
Of course, that isn't to say that 70% of meters are a disaster. It may mean that if it is the right technology it may not be the best nor the cheapest, in fact it may be both inferior to and more expensive than a competitor product.
This is before we even ask if it is the right technology or the right size.
But while this may be the case, I suspect the system works, and this is the cost of that system, because few of these "choices" are actually totally useless.
If this is the case and this is why, will it get better or worse or stay the same?
Is there a major catastrophe in waiting somewhere? Or is it no more of a problem than the conventional/historical approach?
I guess part of the reason it works is the influence of modern smart technologies and the more forgiving instruments.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
When I talk to the big engineering firms about this, they don't seem to have any measurement engineers at all any more (we've all retired). It just isn't a priority with anyone.
David
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
Where custody transfer is involved, the error rate is much lower, and most of the disagreements are contractual in nature.
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
Do you have any data to support the number you are putting forth? I work with upstream gas producers (custody transfer) and find that more meters are wrong than are right.
David
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
the article link should work, but it doesn't for some reason; it's the fourth hit on my search for it:
wrong meter
It may also be that you need to have the website already open
TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
Given that the supplier will offer the best match from their range and that the client may not have the option, these days, to canvas the market even if he had the time and skills, it is not at all surprising the figure is large but in a significant number of such cases I am not sure how critical or concerning it is.
It has to depend on what is meant by "wrong".
Some of us might think wrong is if the meter fails in a short time or is grossly inaccurate.
Others may decide a meter should be sized in a particular area of the flow rate range and that to do otherwise is poor practise. They may think one meter is better than another because of its cost of ownership rather than its cost of sale.
I would be much more interested to know the proportion of meters where it is a serious issue and not to be shrugged off with a "so what?"
Maybe not quite in the "supply a mag meter for a non-conductive fluid" bracket maybe but a step further away.
What really concerns me is where I suspect a company's offerings are biased toward promoting its flagship technology over other better and more appropriate technologies in its range for that application.
Again, the meter may do the job or measuring so is not "wrong" in that sense, but it may not be the best choice for the client if all the clients considerations were taken into account.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
zdas, there had better be better measurement on the wellheads today, the lawsuits over mismeasurement by the royality owners is running rapid.
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
David
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
API 14.3 (AGA 3) part 1 (section 1.2.2) says
It also says (section 1.9.1)
(I cut an pasted the above from the standard, the misspellings are theirs) Seems to be pretty decisive proof that the database includes 2-inch.
David
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
I've seen vortex flow meters used to cover way too wide a range, and much of the operating time, the actual flow is below the minimum so that no flow is actually indicated. Some of these have been in custody transfer service with a very happy customer, and a supplier trying to understand where the missing product has gone.
I've seen several cases where orifice plates have been installed backward. From the outside, all seemed to be in order since the orifice "pan-handles" were all stamped on the same side. After being in service for many years, it was found that some of the orifice plates had been stamped on the wrong side of the pan-handle. This revelation then explained why operating data from some process trains made no sense by comparison. Process trains that were thought to be performing poorly had, in fact, been performing very well, but their flows had been drastically understated from the time of original installation.
The great improvement in the availability of computing equipment to better compensate for orifice meter performance characteristics over wider flow condition ranges has been most helpful for accuracy of these well-documented (and relatively inexpensive) devices. I've seen many cases where the application of more elegant computation capabilities to long-serving orifice meter installations has resulted in far more accurate measurments over very wide flow rate ranges with results that have startled operating personnel--especially during periods of reduced flow where the older, simpler instruments greatly understated the actual flow rates.
Valuable advice from a professor many years ago: First, design for graceful failure. Everything we build will eventually fail, so we must strive to avoid injuries or secondary damage when that failure occurs. Only then can practicality and economics be properly considered.
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
The engineer in charge of speccing the flowmeter may have a feeling for the likely range, and will comment on this at some meeting, check the minutes the following week to make sure it was written down, and then spec the max conceivable limit to cover his or her derriere.
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
2-inch is very well represented in the statistical analysis.
David
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
http
What counts is beta ratio and unless you have less than a .625 inch orifice, the 4" meter is fine at 50 mcfd at 100 psig.
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
I haven't looked at the graph in a while, but I seem to recall that a 0.625 plate in a 4-inch meter (0.155 beta) would have an uncertainty greater than 4%.
David
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
no precise records were kept from the field surveys, paper mill (steam,chemical,water, nat. gas), chemical plants, refineries, water plants, waste water treatment.
generally where the meter and the installaton was an engineeering design, errors in the meter selection and the installation were low, in the 1-2% range. Having said that, in many process designs (non-custody) available piping runs are simply less than ideal, but in those cases acceptible measurement errors were always hashed out with the process designed before hand.
One of the most common flow measurment errors involved transmitter replacements where the transmitter setting were not entered correctly, e.g in the case of d/p meas. using square root extraction in the transmitter when it was already being done remotely.
On the other hand one of the greatest sources or error was in the meter sizing offered by sales organizations as opposed to manufacturers, but in those cases where errors were discovered, it generally involved assumptions of the reference basis (standard T&P conditions for the fluid properties).
Where the meter installations were not engineered, the error rates were much higher since the meters seemd to be purchased on the basis of catalog cuts rather than engineered design. Usually gross mis-application of a meter-such as due to low flow cut-out of vortex meters.
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
David
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
if 70% of the meters were incorrectly installed, operating plants would not function anywhere near design
The installation error rate is more like a 0.1% in engineered plants.
After the plant has operated for more than 20 years you acquire increasing errors, due to process changes, lack of data, meter degradation, transmitter changeouts, etc. These are errors, but not due to incorrect installation,; there again depending on the definition of installation error.
At the time, a 70% installation error across all industries would have been a finacial boom.
As a sales definition, of course all meters are incorrectly installed and need urgent replacement ...
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
Looking at a specific application, I wrote an article that explores a possible instance of this where the selection looks like becoming a standard solution instead of one of several options:
http://worldbunkering.com/ click on the winter 2010 edition and visit page 43......
the Coriolis manufacturers probably have a price on my head now
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
David
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
But with an excuse (albeit an "after the event" rationalisation).
First of all, when it comes to going off topic, and waffling for too long, I'm the prime candidate and in fact the article as published is about revision three, the final version didn't make it in time.
The focus here wasn't really about accuracy except as a parameter by which to compare meters.
If I used terms like uncertainty I would have to explain myself.
When most of the readers (and most readers might find any dissertation on what constitutes "accuracy" misplaced or confusing) get a leaflet from the manufacturers they see "accuracy" statements. They won't actually make this distinction nor think about uncertainty, repeatability or reproducibility nor any other niceties.
What the manufacturers really quote is the performance under factory/laboratory conditions and with some technologies the big differences come when you move away from factory/laboratory conditions.
But again, this would lead way off topic.
There are also a lot of ways to evaluate accuracy many of which may actually not be so technically precise as we'd like.
That is why I referred to different transaction metering examples because I'm quite sure that once away from clearly defined applications, this is something people tend not to consider.
But, far be it from me to suggest I thought consciously too much about this when writing this article. I hope there was some unconscious reviewer at work that did consider these aspects.
I might in other cases make the same choice but without that justification; except that your comment means I will now remember to think about it consciously.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
The link is all of the following, not just the bit that got underlined before:
htt
But to be safe the article is:
But maybe something wrong with Firefox (or me)... sometimes pasting the link works and sometimes not.....
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
Also, if you think about it even for a second before you write the word "accuracy", you'll be way ahead of the game even if you go ahead an used.
David
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
let's try this:
=1782]Flowmeter Challenge: Right Size, Right Design because somehow, the link doesn't want to include the "=1782". Perhaps because of the [tt_news] in there?
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
Try This
Nope, it looks right, but it doesn't take you to the article.
I did {link http://w
}Try This{/link}
David
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
Interesting article, indeed. I've always been fascinated at the great interest in "saving" money by skimping on adequate metering equipment in custody transfer situations. The frugal seller is usually dedicated to a marginally to poorly configured orifice meter that has everything stacked in favor of the customer getting a tremendous gift of "free" product. The lost revenue could easily have paid for a far better metering system over and over and over ...! Pay no mind, tangible funds were saved on the installation.
Valuable advice from a professor many years ago: First, design for graceful failure. Everything we build will eventually fail, so we must strive to avoid injuries or secondary damage when that failure occurs. Only then can practicality and economics be properly considered.
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
Valuable advice from a professor many years ago: First, design for graceful failure. Everything we build will eventually fail, so we must strive to avoid injuries or secondary damage when that failure occurs. Only then can practicality and economics be properly considered.
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
Sad but true, purchasing cost benefits always win out even if the cost of ownership is significantly higher.
Any tome the bean counters get involved things go wrong.
JMW
www.ViscoAnalyser.com
RE: 70% of installed meters arethe wrong technology or the wrong size.
While $99 is relatively cheap, the Samsung was listed for only $49...
There are a few instances in consumer products where products with stellar reputations can and will survive a large number of onslaughts of cheaper products. Of course, once their reputations get sullied, all bets are off.
TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies