NAT'L INST. OF STAND & TECH

A 111 Ob 4bS7b1

NIST

PUBLICATIONS

NBSIR 75-930

The National Measurement

System for Fluid Flow

William C. Haight, Coordinator

P. S. Klebanoff

Fillmer W. Ruegg

Gershon Kulin

Institute for Basic Standards

Finnl

December 1975

Issued August 1 976

3

/oo

* 75- </ $Q ,0NAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NBSIR 75-930

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT

SYSTEM FOR FLUID FLOW

William C. Haight, Coordinator

P. S. Klebanoff '

'

Fillmer W. Ruegg

Gershon Kulin

Institute for Basic Standards

Final

December 1975

Issued August 1 976

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary

Edward O. Vetter, Under Secretary

Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Acting Director

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. STRUCTURE OF THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM 3 2.1 Conceptual System 3 2.1.1 Definition of Fluid Flow 3 2.1.2 The Science of Fluid Mechanics 3 2.1.3 Classification of Fluid Flows 4 2.1.4 Measurement of Fluid Flows 4 2.1.5 Structure of the Fluid Flow Measurement System 5 2.2 Basic Technical Infrastructure 7 2.2.1 Documentary Specification System 7 2.2.1.1 Standardization Institutions 7 2.2.1.2 Survey of Documentary Standards 10 2.2.2 Instrumentation System 10 2.2.2.1 Measurement Tools and Techniques 10 2.2.2.2 The Instrumentation Industry 14 2.2.2.2.1 U.S. Domestic Business in Fluid Flow Meters,

Status and Trends 15 2.2.2.2.2 Export-Import Business in Fluid Flow Meters,

Status and Trends 17 2.2.3 Reference Data 18 2.2.4 Reference Materials 18 2.2.5 Science and People 19 2.3 Realized Measurement Capabilities 19 2.4 Dissemination and Enforcement Network 19 2.4.1 Central Standards Authorities 19 2.4.2 State and Local Offices of Weights and Measures 19 2.4.3 Standards and Testing Laboratories and Services 22 2.4.4 Regulatory Agencies ".. 22 2.5 Direct Measurements Transactions Matrix 22 2.5.1 Analysis of Suppliers and Users 22 2.5.2 Highlights re Major Users 27

3. IMPACT, STATUS AND TRENDS OF MEASUREMENT SYSTEM 28

3.1 Impact of Measurements 28 3.1.1 Functional, Technological and Scientific Applications 28 3.1.2 Economic Impacts -- Costs and Benefits 28 3.1.3 Social, Human, Man-on-the-Street Impacts 28 3.2 Status and Trends of the System 29 3.2.1 Status of the System 29 3.2.1.1 General Status 29 3.2.1.2 Air Flow Measurement Needs 29 3.2.1.3 Gas and Liquid Metering Needs 30 3.2.1.4 Water Supply and Waste Water Measurement Needs 31 3.2.1.5 Impact of Metrication 31 3.2.1.6 Impact of Automation 31 3.2.2 Trends of Measurement Capability in the System 32

4. SURVEY OF NBS SERVICES 33 4.1 The Past 33 4.1.1 History of Aerodynamics 33 4.1.2 History of Fluid Metering 34 4.1.3 History of Hydraulics 35 4.2 The Present -- Scope of NBS Services 36 4.2.1 Description of NBS Services 36 4.2.1.1 Fluid Flow Measurement Capabilities 36 4.2.1.2 Fluid Flow Work Areas 36 4.2.2 Users of NBS Services 38 4.2.2.1 Users of NBS Air Flow Measurement Services 38 4.2.2.2 Users of NBS Gas and Liquid Metering Services 40 4.2.2.3 Users of NBS Water Flow Measurement Services 40

i
4.2.3 Alternate Sources 40

4.2.4 Funding Sources for NBS Services 40 4.2.5 Mechanism for Supplying Services 40 4.3 Impact of NBS Services 40 4.3.1 Economic Impact of Major User Classes 40

4.3.2 Technological Impact of Services 41 4.3.3 Pay-off from Changes in NBS Services 41 4.4 Evaluation of NBS Program 41 4.5 The Future 42 4.5.1 State-of-the-Art Advances 42 4.5.2 Impacts of National Measurement System Study to Date 43

4.5.3 Ongoing and Expected Future Impacts of National Measurement System Study 44

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS : 44

Appendix A. Methodology of the Study 47 Appendix B. Historical Documents 50

B.l. A History of the Aerodynamics Section 50 B.2. Comments on Fluid Metering Events Preceding and Following the

Organization of the ASME Research Committee on Fluid Meters 51 BIBLIOGRAPHY 58

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Relationship of anemometer calibrations to basic quantities 6 Figure 2. Structure of the national fluid flow measurement system 8 Figure 3. Structure of the national gas flow measurement subsystem 8 Figure 4. Structure of the national liquid flow measurement subsystem 9 Figure 5. Examples of orifice metering equipment 11 Figure 6. Examples of wind speed measuring equipment 12 Figure 7. Examples of hydraulics flow measuring equipment 13 Figure Al . Time schedule of fluid flow measurement system study 47

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Definition of fluid properties 5 Table 2. Characterization of fluid flow measurement 5 Table 3. U.S. manufacturers of flow measurement instruments calibrated at NBS 16 Table 4. Relative order of occurrence of various types of measurements

1n the process industries 17 Table 5. Examples of aerodynamics (air velocity measurement)

laboratories facilities 20 Table 6. Examples of fluid meters (gas and liquid flowrate measurements)

laboratories facilities 20

Table 7. Examples of hydraulics (water velocity measurements)

laboratories facilities 21 Table 8. Standards laboratories within system - a summary 21 Table 9. U.S. standards laboratories - gas and liquid flow 23

Table 10. Organizational input-output transactions matrix 26 Table 11. Measurement needs and impacted national concerns 30 Table 12. NBS air flow facilities 37 Table 13. NBS gas and liquid metering facilities 37 Table 14. NBS water flow facilities 38 Table 15. Users of NBS fluid flow services 39 Table 16. NBS air flow measurement areas 40 Table 17. Activity areas identified by 1974 NBS Flow Measurement Conference 42 Table Al . Contacts made in conduct of fluid flow measurement system study 48

ii
THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT SYSTEM FOR FLUID FLOW

William C. Halght, Coordinator

P. S. Klebanoff

Flllmer W. Ruegg

Gershon Kulin

Mechanics Division

December 1975

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fluid flow is a diverse field concerned

with the motion of a wide variety of fluids

encountered both in daily life and in scientific applications. It encompasses movement

of weather systems by. atmospheric winds,

travel and dispersion of air pollutants, flow

around aircraft and spacecraft bodies, oil and gas pipeline flow, irrigation and waste water flow, and many others. The types of

fluid motions encountered in descriptions of

these phenomena include closed-conduit, open channel, supersonic, subsonic, steady,

unsteady, lami"ar, and turbulent flow. Measurements of ^he properties of these flows are Instrumental in the functioning of the nation's industries and the advancement of

scientific technology, and impact the lives

of every consumer. This report presents the concept of the National Measurement System for Fluid Flow as 1t exists today and the activities and mechanisms 1t employs to generate and implement measurement data. The system structure is presented, and data and information gathered

on the interrelationships between the

Identifiable parts are reported. To further

the study, more than 200 contacts were made

with trade associations, government agencies,

private companies and universities.

The basic structural element of this mea- surement system is the combination of the

fundamental units of mass, length, and time

to describe fluid response to external

forces. Such responses are generally ve- locity (m/s), mass flow rate (kg/s), or volume flow rate (m 3 /s), but can include

specialized quantities like Mach number and

frequency of flow fluctuations. Also affecting this response are the inherent fluid

properties, such as viscosity, density,

thermal and electrical conductivity, and bulk

modulus of elasticity.

Documentary standards for fluid flow mea- surement represent international, national,

and commercial viewpoints, and are used voluntarily by all parties. International or- ganizations such as ISO and IEC are active in fluid flow preparing measurement standards, meter performance standards, and recommended

practices for making measurements and analyzing errors. Nationally, ANSI, ASTM, ASME,

API, and AGA prepare standards for flow mea- surements commonly encountered in their

application areas. Measurements are made with a variety of

tools, some of which have been in use for a great many years, and others which are innovatively new. These instruments operate on a variety of principles including differential pressure, force, convective cooling, sound

transmission, electromagnetic effects, vortex shedding, and more recently light scattering.

In particular, vane and cup anemometers, water current meters, and orifice flowmeters

are among the most commonly used meters in meteorology, stream flow measurements, and

pipeline flow measurements, respectively. A rapidly growing area of new instrumentation

includes sonic anemometers, laser velocimeters, and electromagnetic meters, the latter being used in conducting fluids such

as liquid metals, wastewater and water under

certain conditions. Current capabilities, facilities and ranges of services of numerous calibration

and standards laboratories engaged in gas and

liquid flow measurement are identified.

These include:

(1) A1r flow

•80,000 scfm, 2,800 psig at the Colorado Engineering Experiment Station

•3,000 scfm, 125 psig at NBS

•2 to 150 mph at NBS

(2) Water flow

•40,000 gpm, 21 psig at Alden Research

Laboratory

•10,000 gpm, 75 psig at NBS

(3) Liquid hydrocarbon flow

•10,000 gpm, 40 psig at Brooks Instru- ment Division

•2,000 gpm, 50 psig at NBS

Additionally, over 60 flow meter manufacturers have been identified that have

submitted instruments for calibration at NBS over the last seven years. The study indicates a trend of U.S. domestic business in which total sales dollars

have increased for fluid flow measurement equipment from $67.2 million to $123.8

million in the period 1963 to 1973. The

1
annual volume continues to grow with mounting

demands for accuracy ana sophistication of

equipment. In testimony before the Congress,

the manufacturers of scientific instruments

testified that about 25% of the annual value

of flow meters and instrumentation sold by

the industry is sold abroad. They believe

that these export sales exceed imports by more than four to one, and they are the

leverage for export sales of instrumentation

and control systems valued at twice to three

times the flow measurement products.

State-of-the-art changes and technological

advancements in fluid flow include both im- provements in traditional instrument designs

and numerous new designs that are finding increased application. Inflated fluid resource

values and increased operating costs in fluid

transportation are forcing a general rise in the cost to flow a unit of fluid.

Consequently, greater investments are being

made 1n increased measurement reliability and

accuracy and in the managing and controlling

of fluid flow. Primary metering devices are becoming increasingly sophisticated. In general, the applications which impose the most urgent requirements on flow measurements

are those which stem from the imposition of new Federal regulations in fields that

Include environmental air and water quality

control, coal mine health and safety,

occupational safety and health, and clean room and work station requirements. Im- plementation of these regulations will

increase the requirements for consistent and

reliable measurements of many flow quantities

that cannot be measured adequately today.

Specific fluid flow measurement needs are identified that include: providing new flow

standards, preparing and disseminating recom- mended practices, and evaluating and developing Instrumentation for the measurement of

low velocities and unsteady speeds of air;

establishing a rational basis for

demonstrating consistent flow measurements

among laboratories, developing new instrumentation and standards for fluid

metering, and reestablishing the validity of

discharge coefficients for orifice meters; providing new flow standards, preparing

recommended practices for in-place ap- plications, and evaluating and developing

Instrumentation for the measurement of ve- locities and flow rates of supply water and waste water. A general trend has been discerned underlying these needs in which op- portunities to implement measurement assur- ance and the transfer-of-measurement capa- bility are becoming increasingly important.

NBS functions as an integral element of

the fluid flow measurement system, conducting

fluid mechanics research and development,

contributing to flow standards, and generating engineering data on a variety of flows.

Calibrations are offered for instruments to measure velocity and mass flow rate in air,

water, and liquid hydrocarbons. NBS services

impact government agencies concerned with

health, safety, power, fuel resources, water

resources, weather monitoring, pollution con- trol, and military and space programs as well

as major segments of private industry such as the oil and gas industry, power utilities,

heating and ventilating, and transportation.

These user classes share a common concern for

adequacy, accuracy and reliability of the

various aspects of flow measurements.

Fluid flow measurement technology today

represents a constantly changing field, thus

supplyiig the impetus for a number of

improvements within the National Fluid Flow Measurenent System. In particular, a need

for a national fluid flow reference system

was emphasized at the 1974 NBS Flow Mea- surement Conference. This need is underscored by discrepancies in flow calibration

results, duplication of measurement efforts,

the lack of a technical "third party" to arbitrate discrepancies in measurement, and

the lack of facility certification.

New measurement capability 1s also needed

in both the very small and very large rates of flow. For example, the automotive industry is targeting for fuel flow calibrations

at approximately .08 g/s with ±0.2% accuracy. Also, very low velocity measurements are required in air and water flows in order to meet regulatory requirements being established for health, safety, and environmental

quality. The nuclear power industry requires measurement of cooling water flows on the order of 60,000 to 120,000 L/s depending on plant power output. Such plants also must be capable of measuring 150 °C condensate flows

of 1200 L/s with accuracies of 0.1%. Additionally, limited natural resources and

increased competition for fresh water between power generation utilities, industrial users, and agricultural water suppliers requires

improved accuracies of field measurements.

To meet these needs, the NBS fluid flow

program includes extension of measurement

capability with emphasis on flow ranges en- countered in new regulatory acts, error

analysis in field measurements, meter per- formance evaluation for improved accuracies,

and maintenance of contact with users through

conferences and correspondence.

2
1 . INTRODUCTION

Fluids are required by every living thing

for existence. They include the liquids we

drink; the oil and gas we heat our homes

with; the gasoline for our cars; water in rivers, lakes, and oceans; the air we

breathe; even the blood in our veins. Water

covers approximately three-fourths of the

earth's surface; the atmosphere covers our entire planet to a depth of several hundred

miles, 99% of which is confined to within 20 miles of the earth's surface; and the sun and

stars are composed largely of gases. It is readily apparent that the quantities we call fluids constitute a major part of the known

universe.

The motion of these fluids is equally allencompassing. Movement of weather systems

depend on atmospheric wind patterns, as does

travel and dispersion of air pollutants.

Electricity can be generated by the motion of

falling water and by the impact of high- pressure steam on a turbine. Aircraft flight

1s dependent on lift generated by airflow

around the wings. Even human life depends on adequate flow of blood to all areas of the

body.

Fluid flow measurements affect our lives

1n many diverse ways. Each time a water

faucet is opened in the home, the total flow

of supply water and sewage effluent is affected, requiring accurate metering at water reservoirs and sewage treatment plants.

Similarly, natural gas used for home heating

and cooking requires accurate metering at the source for distribution. Interstate oil and

gas transmissions rely on flow meters for assessment of pipeline fees to customers.

Wind speed measurements are fundamental for

weather prediction, and industrial ventilation, and are necessary for monitoring

aircraft flight. One could continue with

many more examples, but it suffices to say that fluid flow measurements are instrumental

1n our daily lives and in the functioning of

the nation's industries.

This study defines the system used to measure fluid flows, and shows the interrelationships that exist within and between the identifiable parts of this system. In particular, the role of NBS in the overall measurement scheme will be presented, as well

as the Interaction of the fluid flow measurement system with other social systems.

The data gathered is helpful in recog- nizing major trends of future applications of

fluid flow measuring devices. This data is

also useful 1n identifying and understanding

major problems of measurement and in developing recommendations of actions to be taken for improving the national fluid flow measurement system.

2. STRUCTURE OF THE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

2.1 Conceptual System

2.1.1 Definition of Fluid Flow

A fluid is defined by Webster to be "a substance that alters its shape in response

to any force however smal 1 , that tends to flow or conform to the outline of its

container, ..." and flow is "to move with a continual change of place among the constituent particles or parts." The concept of a fluid is illustrated by the commonly observed

phenomena of water in an open container

taking on the shape of that container, no matter how irregular it may be; and by a solid object being moved through water at

will provided sufficient force is applied.

More precisely, a fluid does not have a preferred shape, and can change shape without

a change in volume. Unlike a solid, which

under shear forces can undergo a finite

deformation, a fluid deforms continuously.

Deformation here is used to mean changes in shape and orientation as a function of time.

Fluid flow is concerned with the motion of

liquids and gases, and the deformation they

undergo under the action of forces. In the context of this study, the phenomena are considered to be macroscopic, and the fluid

is regarded as continuous medium, i.e., any elemental volume of fluid is always

considered to be sufficiently large that it contains a great number of molecules.

Even more precise mathematical definitions

of fluids and flow exist, in terms of

material symmetries and deformation

functions, but those presented here suffice

to define the class of phenomena covered by

this study.

2.1.2 The Science of Fluid Mechanics

Fluid mechanics is the science dealing

with the static and dynamic behavior of

fluids, including liquids and gases. Its principles are generally applied in efforts

to understand, measure, and control liquids

and gases encountered in nature and industry.

The broad scope of fluid mechanics

encompasses the fields of meteorology,

hydrology, oceanography, aeronautics,

astronautics, fluidics, bio-fluid dynamics,

and many more.

3
Historically, fluid mechanics is rooted in early developments of hydrostatics,

hydraulics, and hydrodynamics. Hydrostatics,

dealing mainly with water at rest, was the

first of these fields to be developed.

Archimedes, the Greek mathematician born

about 287 B.C., discovered the first known

principles of hydrostatics when asked to verify that his king's crown-maker had used

pure gold for a new crown. This had to be

done, of course, without destroying the crown. Archemides suspended the crown in water and measured the subsequent

displacement of water. The weight of the crown divided by the volume of water

displaced yielded the density of the crown, which could be compared to the density of pure gold. The ratio of the density of the crown to the density of water gave the world

the concept of specific gravity.

The science of moving fluids, due to the

complexity of such fluid properties as viscosity, was slower to develop. Two basic

approaches evolved. One approach, called

empirical hydraulics, was based on practical

experience in designing structures to control

and use flowing water. The other approach

was a theoretical one in which an attempt was made to mathematically formulate essential

fluid behavior. This had its beginning in the 18th and 19th centuries with efforts to describe the behavior of "ideal" fluids in which viscous, elastic, and surface tension

effects of real fluids were ignored. Subsequent theories have attempted to include the case of real fluids. These two approaches to fluid mechanics were synthesized in the 19th

and 20th centuries, and developments have

continued to the present time. At present,

aerodynamic, hydraulic, and fluids laboratories of universities, government agencies,

and private research organizations are active

1n the study and further development of the

science of fluid mechanics.

2.1.3 Classification of Fluid Flows

Many types of flows are encompassed by the

fluid flow measurement system. The more common types of geometrical configurations

are closed conduit flows, open-channel flows

with a free surface, wakes, jets, and flows

around bodies. Flows are also classified as to whether they are laminar or turbulent.

Laminar flow, usually observed at low velocities or with fluids of high viscosity, is flow 1n layers moving smoothly relative to one another. Turbulent flow, on the other

hand, 1s an Irregular flow with random,

diffusive, and dispersive motions. Further

classifications of fluid flows include

whether their velocity is less than, equal

to, or greater than the speed of sound, and

whether they are steady or unsteady. The

velocity relative to the speed of sound is generally characterized by the Mach number,

which is a measure of the importance of

compressibility effects in the fluid. A Mach

number of 1 characterizes a flow with a speed

equal to the speed of sound. Incompressible

flows, i.e., low Mach number, in which the fluid density is considered constant in time, cover most liquid and some gas flows. Compressible flows, where fluid density

varies significantly with time, occur in many applications including high-speed aircraft

and spacecraft flight. Steady flow is a flow

pattern that does not vary in time, while

unsteady flows consist of time-dependent

fluid motions, such as a pulsating flow in an automobile exhaust pipe.

2.1.4 Measurement of Fluid Flows

The measurement of fluid flows requires a knowledge of the fluid's physical properties,

those most commonly used in flow measurement

are (1) viscosity, the property of a fluid by

virtue of which it offers resistance to shear stress; (2) density, the fluid mass per unit

volume; (3) thermal conductivity, the measure

of a material's ability to transfer heat; (4)

electrical conductivity, the measure of a material's ability to transfer electrical

charge, and (5) bulk modulus of elasticity,

the measure of a material's compressibility.

In place of viscosity, the kinematic viscosity is sometimes used. This is defined to be viscosity divided by density. In place of density, specific gravity may be used. This

is the density of the fluid divided by the density of water. Other quantities affecting

flow measurement are (6) pressure, the force

per unit area applied normal to the fluid

surface; and (7) temperature. The units used to characterize these quantities are shown in table 1.

The measurement of these fluid properties

is covered under separate studies of the National Measurement System. The purpose of

this study is to discuss measurement of the quantities describing the flow of fluids,

given that the fluids themselves can be adequately characterized in terms of their

fundamental properties.

Recalling the definition of fluid flow, it

is seen that two things are involved. First,

fluids must be subjected to certain forces or stimuli, and then their flow in response to these forces must be characterized. Types of

stimuli include pressure, shear stress, and

temperature; and responses are most fundamentally velocity and flow rate. Note that

4
Table 1. Definition of fluid properties

QUANTITIES

DEFINING A

FLUID

Viscosity

Den i sty

SI UNITS CUSTOMARY

UNITS

Pa«s=kg/m'S poise 7 ltys/fr

kg/nf

Thermal conduc- W/(m*K)

tlvlty

Electrical

conductivity

(fi«m) -1

Bulk modulus of Pa=N/m

elasticity

Pressure

Temperature

Pa=N/m

K

lb/ftJ Ib^/gal

cal/cm-S'°C

2 lb^/in or psi

2 lb^/in or psi

°F and °C

throughout this report, the term "velocity"

1s used to mean either speed or velocity.

Although this is not technically correct, it

conforms to accepted terminology. For certain fluids, other responses may be of in- terest. For example, flows of compressible

fluids are best described in terms of Hach

number instead of velocity. For unsteady

flows, the frequency and amplitude of the

flow fluctuations are generally of interest.

The characterization of these measurements is shown in table 2. Additionally, the

relationship of flow measurements to basic

quantities of mass, length, and time is shown

1n figure 1 for the case of anemometer calibrations .

Table 2.

QUANTITY

MEASURED

Velocity

(speed)

Flow

Rates

Characterization of fluid

flow measurement

DIMENSIONS SI UNITS

L/t

M/t

L

3/t

m/s

kg/s

3nf/s

CUSTOMARY

UNITS

ft/s or

fps

lb /s

IbJJ/h or pph

ft^/min or cfm and scfm

3 ft /sec or

cfs gal/m1n or gpm

mgd or million gal/day

2.1.5 Structure

ment System

of the Fluid Flow Measureor solid-liquid

often of great

importance, such industry or in

The National Fluid Flow Measurement System encompasses the characterization of fluid

flows; the acquisition and standardization of

flow measurements ; the outputs, uses, and users of such measurements; and the benefits

of fluid flow measurements. Its structure is viewed for the purposes of this report as consisting of a basic system with distinct

subsystems for gas and liquid flow. This covers phenomena associated with air, other

gases, water, and liquid hydrocarbon flows.

The structure presented here also encompasses other significant fluid flows, not covered in detail in this report. These

include multi-phase or multi -component flows,

for example, liquid-gas

mixtures. Such flows are industrial and environmental

as in the pulp and paper dredging of waterways. In some cases, the solid component of a solid-liquid mixture is so small that its main effect on flow measurement is to make the use of certain

intrusive devices more difficult, while in other cases slurries are so dense that the very nature of the flow itself is affected.

Another type of flow being encountered with

increasing frequency is that in which minute

amounts of long-chain polymers are added as a drag reducing agent. It has been found that

these polymers severely affect the performance of many of the traditional

measuring instruments, such as Pi tot tubes

and orifice meters.

Flow of cryogenic fluids is covered in a separate National Measurement System study

report and is therefore explicitly excluded

from this document.

Figures 2, 3, and 4 depict the basic sys- tem structure and the gas and liquid flow

subsystems, respectively. The interconnections and interactions occur in various ways

- sometimes strongly and sometimes weakly.

Correspondingly, the involvement of NBS within the system varies widely. These

figures comprise one representation of the infrastructure within which actions and activities of measurement take place.

Reading from top to bottom of each figure,

the system and subsystems are shown in terms of seven major interconnected branches of

fluid flow measurement:

5
Ill

Manometer Fluid:

- Height

- Mass Density

- Temperature

Gravity

Acceleration

Pi tot-Static Tube

in Air Stream

Kinetic Energy

per unit volume

of Air Stream l | | |

Standard Air

Mass Density

Stagnation Air Pressure

Stagnation Air

Temperature

Relative Humidity

Water Vapor

Density

A1r

Velocity

CALIBRATION

Relates Anemometer

Reading

to Air

Velocity

l i | l

J.

Anemometer Reading

in Air Stream

Figure 1. Relationship of anemometer calibrations to basic quantities

6
(1) Fundamental units, types of fluids

and dimensions of measurement.

12)

Reference measurements.

3) Transfer of measurement capability.

4) Measurement outputs.

(5) Measurement uses.

(6) Measurement users.

(7) National concerns influencing and benefiting from measurement.

2.2 Basic Technical Infrastructure

2.2.1 Documentary Specification System

2.2.1.1 Standardization Institutions

Documentary standards are written specifications or agreements reached among the Interacting elements of a given social

system. In fluid flow measurement, most of

these standards. are the consensus of

international, national, and commercial

viewpoints, and are used voluntarily.

Recently, mandatory standards have also

entered the picture.

Internationally, the International Organization for Standardization, ISO, develops

world-wide standards for use by member

countries in world trade. ISO Technical Com- mittee 30 (TC30) on Measurement of Fluid Flow

1n Closed Conduits, is concerned with

standardization of rules and methods for

closed-conduit flow measurement. Specific

activity areas of TC30 include:

•Terminology and definitions;

•Rules for inspection, installation and

operation;

•Construction of instrumentation and

equipment required;

•Flow meter performance;

•Conditions under which measurements are to be made;

•Rules for collection, evaluation and

Interpretation of measurement data,

Including errors.

ISO Technical Committee 113 (TCI 13) also

issues standards on flow measurement techniques and flow meter performance; for

example, on the performance and use of

propeller-type water current meters in connection with velocity-area traverses to determine flowrate, on venturi tubes, and on dilution methods of flowrate determination.

The International Electrotechnical

Commission (IEC) is also active in fluid

flow. IEC codes include procedures for field

acceptance tests of turbines and rec- ommendations for flowrate measurement with

emphasis on the salt-velocity method, a

tracer technique utilizing salt injections

into water flows and measurement of subsequent travel time of the saline slug over

fixed distances.

In a number of foreign countries, standards are published by national standards

organizations. For example, the British

Standards Institution has issued standards

similar to those of ISO for venturi, orifice,

and nozzle meters; for open-channel flow mea- suring devices, such as thin-plate weirs,

broad crested weirs, and triangular weirs;

for dilution methods; for velocity-area

traversing; and for other techniques.

In the U.S., the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) publishes spec- ifications and test methods for materials

,

and undertakes research necessary to formulate these procedures. In fluid flow,

ASTM is currently studying the relationship

between the measurement and effective control

of air pollution through a program aimed at validating methods for measuring contaminants

1n the atmosphere and in source emissions.

This program applies an inter! aboratory

"round-robin" technique to bring together

groups of competent laboratories for concurrent performance of tests under actual field conditions. As results are gathered,

statistically analyzed, and evaluated,

reports and specifications are prepared for

general use by the fluid flow community.

Additionally, ASTM currently has published

standards for flowrate measurements with

venturi meters, weirs and Parshall flumes,

and has task groups working on improved

standards in some of these areas.

The American Society of Mechanical Engi- neers (ASME) has a Committee on Measurement

of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits charged with

standardization of rules and methods for mea- suring this class of flows. The committee's

activity scope includes the following topics:

•Terminology and definitions;

•Rules for construction, installation and

operation;

•Conditions under which measurements are to

be made;

•Rules for collection, evaluation and

interpretation of measurement data,

including errors.

The standards developed under these procedures are intended to be submitted to the

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

for approval as American National Standards.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is the oil industry's major trade association

7
Units

Fluids

Dimensions

Reference Measurements

Capability

Transfer

Measurement

Outputs

Measurement

Uses

Measurement

Users

National Concerns

Mass (M), Length (L), Time (t) and Temperature (T) Liquids and Gases Flow Rates (M/t and L

3 /t) and Velocity (L/t)

NBS Calibrations

Government, Industry and

-» Academic Institution

Laboratory Calibrations

Consultations; assistance in experimental work, requests for services,

publications, conferences, symposia, standards committees,

evaluation panels

1

Legal and

Regulatory Reqmts

New Measurement Methods

and Techniques; and

Evaluate New Instruments

I

Transfer

Reference

Instruments

Evaluate

Verifiable

Data

Monitoring of Mec surements Calibrations Plant

Standards

Flow

Reference

Acceptance

Testing

Government Industries

Educationa

I

Institutions

General

Public

X

National concerns: energy conservation, environmental quality, occupational

health and safety and equity in exchange of goods

Figure 2. Structure of the national fluid flow measurement system

Units 2/j

Fluids

Dimensions

Reference Measurements

Capabil ity

Transfer

Measurement

Outputs

Measurement

Uses

Measurement

Users

National Concerns

2/ Same as

Air

Velocity (L/t)

y

y

2/ r2/ 2/ 21

NOAA, AF, NBS.NIOSH

Bu. Mines ,FAA, Inst. Manuf . ,Army ,Navy

AEC,

Navy

Calibrations

Meteorology,

Pollution,

Health&Safety,

Structural

Loads, Trans portation

NOAA,

FHwA,

Bu. Mines

Turbulence:

Pollution,

Ship Drag,

Noise

NASA, AF

Measurements

& Instruments Meteorology,

Mine Ventilation , Structural Loads

Incomp. Flow

Aerodynamic

omp. Flow: rahsomc & WifuTfuniiel Testing

for figure 2 Figure 3.

Gases

Flow Rates (M/t)

i

it

2/

2/

2/ I

2/

1

1 2/

1 y

2/ 2/ y y

EPA, Auto

Industry, ASME

Army, NASA

,

HEW.AF

Navy

Natural

Gas Industry

Develop- ment of

Instruments,

Air Quality,

Sampling & Measuring

Exhaust

Emissions

a 1 ibrations: >pace & Defense

Research

Health,

Safety

Cal ibra- tions

:

Flow meters

,

Equity

ofTrade

Structure of the national gas flow measurement subsystem

8
Units 2/

Fluids

Dimensions

Reference Measurements

Capability

Transfer

Measurement

Outputs

Measurement

Uses

Measurement

Users

National Concerns

Water

Flow Rates (M/t and L

3 /t) and Velocity (L/t)

11

2/

ii

Instrument Manufacturers, Bureau of Reclama- tion, Water Conservation Districts

USGS,NOIC,C.E, Instrument Manufacturers

Conservation

,

Water Supply,

Equity of Trade

I

Calibrations

,

Water Supply, Waste Water,

Oceanographic

and Estuarine

Hydrocarbons

Flow Rates (M/t and L

3 /t)

2/

21

21 21 21

Mil itary, NASA and Air- craft (some

Space) Industry

EPA, Oil and Auto Industries

Calibrations,

Aircraft En- gine Fuel Me- ters, SQuality

Control Flow

Standards

I

Automotive

Carburetor

Flow, Flow

Meter, Equity,

Safety, Energy

Conservation

2/ Same as for figure 2

Figure 4. Structure of the national liquid flow measurement subsystem

Key to abbreviations used in figures 3 and 4:

Symbol Name AEC(ERDA) Atomic Energy Commission (Energy Research & Development Admin.) AF Air Force

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

Bu. Mines Bureau of Mines

C.E. Army Corps of Engineers

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FHwA Federal Highway Administration

HEW Department of Health, Education, & Welfare

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NBS National Bureau of Standards

NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOIC National Oceanographic Instrumentation Center

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

9
whose activities reach far and wide into

three major areas: industry affairs, public

affairs, and environmental affairs. In the

first area, a Committee on Petroleum Measure- ment formulates standards on procedures and

equipment for the measurement of petroleum

and natural gas products. This work is carried out through voluntary committee and

working group participation, primarily industrial with some government participation.

It covers such areas as positive displacement

metering and turbine metering, automated measurement methods, cryogenic fluid handling, and tank calibration and gaging. API standards are aimed at promoting increased

accuracy in petroleum fluid measurement, and may be used by anyone. Their use as statutory requirements for trade purposes is left to the various users. There are close

ties between NBS and this API committee,

ranging from committee work to research

project participation. The Committee on Petroleum Measurement also represents the API

1n International measurement standardization

projects

.

The American Gas Association (AGA) is the

gas Industry's major trade association in the

U.S. Their Transmission Measurement Com- mittee is a standing committee in the Trans- mission Systems Division of the Operating

Section of AGA whose purpose is to provide

the industry with all necessary technical

guidance for commercial quantity measurements, pressure and volume regulation, and

quality measurements of fuel gas in con- nection with gas production, storage, and

transmission. This information is based on research, and the resulting fundamentals and

recommended practices are published for

general information in AGA Transmission Measurement Committee Reports.

Other flow measurement standardization or- ganizations in fluid flow include the Society

for Automotive Engineers, the Instrument So- ciety of America, and several governmental

bodies. The most important of the latter is the U.S. Geological Survey which operates the

Federal Interagency Work Group on Designation

of Standards for Water Data Acquisition under

the auspices of the Office of Water Data Co- ordination. This group is currently developing recommended methods for acquisition of water data, and NBS is represented on some of

Its committees. Also, the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program, GIDEP, has collected 17,000 calibration procedures and

35,000 engineering test reports in a variety

of measurement fields including fluid flow.

2.2.1.2 Survey of Documentary Standards

Universally used standards for fluid flow measurement that would constitute a national

reference system do not exist. Such a refer- ence system should include a system of laboratories using acceptable procedures with mea- surement accuracy verified by intercomparisons among the members, including NBS, and should form the basis for reliable field measurements. The need for this system in fluid metering was emphasized at the 1974 NBS Conference on Flow Measurements as Related to National Needs being actively promoted by the Process Measurement and Control Section's

Fluid Meters Standards Committee of the

Scientific Apparatus Makers Association

(SAMA). SAMA points out that the need for a reference system of this type is underscored

by (a) discrepancies in flow calibration

results, (b) the loss of U.S. technical stature in not having an agency comparable to existing flow measurement centers abroad,

such as NEL in England and PTB in Germany,

(c) duplication of measurement efforts, (d)

the lack of a technical "third-party" to arbitrate discrepancies in measurement, and

(e) the lack of facility certification.

In lieu of a coordinated standards ap- proach to flow measurement supported by the force of law, the U.S. fluid flow measurement

industry has developed its own standards. In aeronautics, the FAA uses a number of SAE standards and specifications to regulate airspeed indicators in use on aircraft. In fluid metering, a number of coefficient

tables for meter classes have come to be used

as "standards," such as the American Gas Association (AGA) Gas Measurement Committee

Report #3, the AGA-ASME Orifice Coefficient

Committee report of 1935, the 6th edition of

Fluid Meters, published by ASME in 1971, and

the American Petroleum Institute (API) type

standards. In open-channel flow metering of

irrigation water and wastewater, certain

published values of discharge data for

measuring flumes and weirs have become widely

accepted. These "standards" represent knowledge available from industry, manufacturers,

and government. Similarly, the International

Standards Organization (ISO), a non- governmental organization, prepares voluntary

standards for use by the flow metering

community in many application areas.

2.2.2 Instrumentation System

2.2.2.1 Measurement Tools and Techniques

Instruments used for velocity, volume, and mass flow measurements in either gases or liquids use some definite and reproducible

10
a

.

Orifice meter run and orifice plates
a. Examples of vane anemometers

b. Meteorological anemometer under dynamic response test in NBS unsteady

flow facility

Figure 6. Examples of windspeed measuring equipment

12
effect related to the motion of the fluid

such as differential pressure, force, convective cooling, sound transmission, electromagnetic behavior, vortex shedding, and more

recently light scattering. A large number of

instruments utilizing one or the other of the

foregoing approaches are available for the

measurement of steady and unsteady flows.

The particular approach used depends for the

most part on the accuracy required, the

nature of the fluid, whether it is a local

velocity measured at a point in the fluid, or

a velocity averaged over an area characterizing the volume flow, and whether the

flow is steady or unsteady.

The most widely used instruments make use of the differential pressure and force principles. Examples of the differential pressure type are the Pi tot-static tube, laminar

flowmeter, orifice meter, venturi meter,

critical flow nozzle, and the variable-area

free-float meter. Examples of orifice

metering equipment are shown in figure 5.

Mechanical instruments, for example, vane,

cup, and swinging-plate anemometers, positive

displacement meters, water current meters

,

and turbine flowmeters utilize the force

exerted by the fluid to produce a rotation or deflection of a moving member which is connected to an appropriate output device.

For example, in a turbine meter, a passing

fluid turns a rotating element at a speed

proportional to the velocity of flow and each

rotation of the element in a known cross- section represents a known volume passing

through that section. Examples of ane- mometers are shown in figure 6, and an example of a water current meter is shown in figure 7a.

An additional distinction can be made for

volume flows of liquids with a free-surface,

in which velocity-area methods and critical

depth devices are employed. In a critical

depth meter, the flow rate is related to the

height of the free stream surface upstream

from a dam-like structure. The Palmer-Bowl us flume is an example of such a device, and is

shown in figure 7b. Thermal anemometers, of

which the hot-wire and hot-film anemometers

are perhaps the most prominent examples,

utilize convective cooling, i.e., the cooling

of a heated body by the flowing medium.

a. A Price current meter with cable

and weight suspension

A Palmer-Bowl us flume with scow

float installed in a manhole

(from Leupold & Stevens brochure)

Figure 7. Examples of hydraulics flow measuring equipment

13
All of the instruments discussed above

have been in use for many years. A relatively new type of instrument for flow measure- ment 1s the vortex-shedding instrument. It

1s a hybrid type of instrument that depends

on detecting by an appropriate mechanical or thermal detector a resulting fluid dynamical

behavior such as the characteristic frequency-Reynolds number dependence of vortex

shedding. Instruments of this type have been

used for both wind-speed and volume flow measurements 1n air and water.

All of the forementioned instruments nor- mally require some form of calibration. However, an appropriately designed Pitot-static

tube can be employed, as is presently done by

NBS, as a primary standard for the calibration of wind-speed measuring instruments such

as non-standard Pitot-static tubes, thermal

anemometers, cup, vane, and swinging-plate

anemometers

.

The outputs of many instruments are not directly in terms of velocity or flow rate. Many of the force-type meters such as cup anemometers, turbine meters, and water cur- rent meters have an analog or digital output

1n terms of a voltage or frequency. The

relationship of these various outputs to the

velocity or flowrate is determined by calibration. In addition, instruments of the

differential pressure type require a coefficient to be specified by calibration. In- struments which are used in closed conduits

for metering volume flows such as the laminar

flowmeter, orifice meters, venturi meters,

critical flow nozzle, and turbine meters are generally calibrated using timed volume or mass discharge methods or gravimetric mea- surement methods. Thermal anemometers, under

well-established and restricted conditions

,

have been found to be particularly useful for

making measurements in unsteady flows and

turbulence, both in air and water.

The types of instruments referred to above

represent the bulk of the instruments with

the greatest commercial demand manufactured

in the United States for general application

to gas and liquid flow measurement. On the

other hand, instruments utilizing electromagnetic effects, sound transmission, and

light scattering at the present time have a much more limited market and may be regarded

to some extent as special -purpose instrumentation, but their use is growing rapidly. For example, electromagnetic flowmeters are used for the metering of conducting fluids

such as sewage sludges, liquid metals, and water 1f it has a sufficient threshold of

electrical conductivity. (Liquid metals are being considered for use as heat transfer

agents in nuclear systems.) Sonic ane- mometers operate on the principle of detecting the transit time of transmitted sound,

and this principle has also been applied to flowrate meters. In principle, they have

improved frequency response over most of the

differential pressure and mechanical types of

instruments which makes them particularly

useful for the measurement of low-frequency

unsteady flows. However, they are relatively

expensive and to date have received limited

use. The advent of the laser has made

possible the development of the laser

velocimeter which, operating on the principle

of the Doppler shift of scattered light, is finding application to the measurement of

multiphase flows in gases and liquids and to the measurement of very low velocities. Here again its use for the most part is confined

to research activity.

Gasoline pumps, utility water meters , and

utility gas meters are generally volume measuring devices. They are only occasionally

used as flowrate devices, and hence are not within the scope of this study on fluid flow. Testing and regulating volume measuring

devices normally falls under the jurisdiction

of state and local offices of weights and measures or state and local utilities.

2.2.2.2 The Instrumentation Industry

Consistent and reliable measurements are

the basis for questions of traceability that

arise in connection with contracts. The determination of what constitutes traceability

is made by the contracting agency and not by

the National Bureau of Standards. In general any specified chain of intercomparisons that

has an NBS calibration as its starting point,

can satisfy the requirement. This is most

often provided by the instrument manufacturer's certificate which cites an NBS test report by number and date. Numerous organizations, conducting their own measurement

systems for Inhouse purposes do not maintain

traceability to NBS. These include the

National Oceanographic Instrumentation Center

of NOAA (NOIC), and the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS). The latter is discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.3.

Recent exploratory discussions between NBS

and the above agencies could lead to highly

desirable comparisons of water current meter

calibrations between the USGS towing basin

and the NBS water tunnel (under development),

and also comparisons of evaluations of new current meters by NOIC and NBS. Of related

interest is the plan by NBS to have its

efforts pertinent to waste water measurement

include the establishing of recommended pro14
cedures for determining the 1n-p1ace perfor- mance of flow-rate meters and involve direct

participation by NBS in field measurements.

Table 3 presents a list of fluid flow meter manufacturers that have had instruments

calibrated at NBS over the past seven years.

In preparing this information, two criteria

were used: (1) an instrument maker is listed

1f he submitted at least one of his own in- struments to NBS for calibration, and he either uses it as a transfer standard or supplies it to a customer; (2) an instrument

maker is also listed if his instrument is submitted to NBS for calibration by a user although we may have no specific knowledge as to the use to which it is being put. No distinction is made in this table as to Instrument function, i.e., whether it is used

to measure velocity, volume, or mass flow, or whether they measure in gases or in liquids.

They are grouped for convenience according to their operating principle. Multiple listings

are provided when it is known that a manufacturer makes more than one type of meter,

however not all types have necessarily been

calibrated at NBS.

2.2.2.2.1 U. S. Domestic Business in Fluid

Flow Meters, Status and Trends

Total sales are increasing annually for

flow measurement equipment. Several forcing

functions are cp3rating here: (a) efficiency

is being increased in industrial operations

through improved methods and techniques of measurement; (b) productivity is being in- creased with improving accuracy of measurements in industries that rely upon quantitative measurements of production, e.g., the chemical processing industry; and (c) an in- creasing number of industrial business con- tracts include incentives and penalties for

adherence, or lack thereof, relative to quantitative performance that is scheduled

and must be measured in the production

process.

No real perturbations are foreseen in presently projected volumes of sales of flow meters and related apparatus, although forecasts do indicate a lower annual rate of

growth of sales for such equipment. It appears that the annual volume of total sales

dollars will continue to grow with mounting

demands for increased accuracy and related

sophistication in the flow meters.

Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Current Industrial Report MA-38B estimates

sales of industrial process flow and liquid

level instruments alone (not including meteorological instrumentation, but including

associated readout and control equipment, as follows

:

Year $M

1963 67.2

1964 72.6

1965 85.4

1966 90.4

1967 101.4

1968 95.9

1969 106.5

1970 107.2

1971 98.6

1972 109.8

1973 123.8

From the Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, "Equipment Market, Water and

Wastewater," February 1972, meters and

control equipment expenditures for water

supply treatment and wastewater disposal treatment are reported to be:

Year $M

1965 33.3

1968 35.1 1970 51.4

This kind of business data is proving to be very difficult to gather for flow meters per

se, exclusive of associated equipment.

The following trends of industrial levels

of business are examples of major domestic

industries characterized by growing efforts

to achieve improved accuracy of measurement

of the indicated fluid:

a. From "Gas Facts - A Statistical Record

of the Gas Utility Industry, 1973 Data,

American Gas Association.

Total Industry Net Gas Revenues Production

Year (10 3 $) (lO'W)

1965 7.4 16.4

1966 7.9 17.6

1967 8.3 18.7

1968 8.8 19.8

1969 9.5 21.2

1970 10.3 22.4

1971 11.4 22.8

1972 12.5 22.8

1973 13.0 22.9

15
Table 3. U. 5. manufacturers of flow measurement instru- ment calibrated at NBS

Force Advance Instrument Corp.

Airflo Instrument Co. Alnor Instrument Co. Bacharach Instrument Co. Bendix Environmental Science

Brooks Instrument Division

Cardion Electronics

Climatronics Inc. Climet Instruments

Cox Instrument Division

Daniel Industries Inc. Davis Instrument Manufacturing Co., Inc.

E G & G, Inc. Electric Speed Indicator Co. Fischer and Porter Co. Flow Technology Inc. Flo Tron, Inc. The Foxboro Co. General Electric Co.

W. and L. E. Gurley Co. ITT Barton Meteorology Research Inc. (MRI)

Quantum-Dynamics

Rockwell Manufacturing Co. Scientific Instrument Co. Specialty Electronics Development Corp.

Taylor Instrument Co.

C. W. Thornthwaite Associates

Weather Measure Corp.

Xonics, Inc.

R. M. Young Co.

Electromagnetic

Brooks Instrument Division

Fischer and Porter Co. Taylor Instrument Co. The Foxboro Co. Thermo Systems Inc.

Displacement

American Meter

Industrial Measurement & Controls

Precision Scientific Co.

Differential Pressure Airflow Developments Limited

American Standard Corp.

Brooks Instrument Division

Cox Instrument Division

Daniel Industries Inc. Dwyer Instrument Co. Ellison Instrument Division

Emil Greiner Co. Environmental Instruments, Inc. Fischer and Porter Co. Fluid Dynamics Devices (Canada)

The Foxboro Company

Kollsman Instrument Corp.

Meriam Instrument Laboratories

National Instrument Co. Pacer Systems, Inc. Parker-Hannifin, Inc. Taylor Instrument Co. Teledyne Geotech

Testek, Inc. Texas Instruments, Inc.

Sonic

E G & G, Inc. Nusonics Inc. Saratoga Systems

Thermal

Alnor Instrument Co. Datametn'cs

Environmental Instruments Inc. Hastings-Raydist Inc. Reeves -Huffman Inc. Weather Measure Corp.

Vortex Shedding

American Standard Corp.

Eastech, Inc. Fischer and Porter Co. J-TEC Associates, Inc.

Tracer

Badger Meter Co. Hydrospace Challenger

16
From U. S. Department of the Interior,

U. S. Petroleum Refinery Capacity and

Utilization, July 1972 -

Percent

Capacity Ca paci ty Utilization uti nzanon Capacity

"(lO 6 bbls/day) (10 b bbls/day)

1970 11.9 10.8 92.0

1971 12.7 11.5 90.6

1972 13.0 12.1 93.0

1973 13.4 12.7 93.9

1974 13.5 13.3 98.3

1975 13.6 13.9 100.0+

c. From Journal Water Pollution Control

Federation, Water (municipal) and wastewater (municipal) expenditures

and federal grants, February 1972 -

Year Expenditures Grants Total

(10*$) (10 a $) (10 y $)

1967 2.7 0.3 3.0

1968 3.5 0.6 4.1 1969 3.1 0.4 3.5

1970 2.9 0.8 3.7

1971 3.2 1.3 4.5

1972 3.7 2.3 6.0

Table 4 includes an estimate presented in Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook as to the relative order of occurrence of flow measurements in the process industry.

2.2.2.2.2 Export-Import Business in Fluid

Flow Meters, Status and Trends

Business outside of the U.S. is growing

vigorously in fluid flow meters, and U.S. manufacturers of meters are engaged in aggressive programs to increase their sales

abroad. Along with the growth of U.S. exports there is some increase of imports of meters Into the U.S.

In testimony before the Congress, the Scientific Apparatus Makers Association

(SAMA) testified in part, "about 25 percent

of total flow meters and flow instrumentation

sold by the industry are sold abroad. The

Industry believes that export sales of flow

meters and flow instrumentation exceed

Imports by greater than 4 to 1 . Of great

significance is the fact that flow meters and

flow Instruments are the leading edge for a wide variety of controllers, control systems

and control computers. They are the leverage

for export sales of information and control

systems valued at two to three times the flow measurement products."

Table 4. Relative order of occurrence of

various types of measurements in the process industries (from Perry's Chemical

Engineers Handbook)

Type of Measurement

Temperature

Electrical Methods

Mechanical Methods

Radiation Methods

Flow

Mechanical Methods

Electrical Methods

Liquid Level

Mechanical Methods

Electrical Methods

Pressure

Mechanical Methods

Electrical Methods

Chemical Composition

Electrical Variables

(I,E,R, etc.)

Humidity

Speed (linear and

rotational ) Density and Specific

Gravi ty

Moisture

Others ("viscosity)

,

weight, color, etc.)

Estimated Relative Occurrence

Percent

34.7

17.5

11.8

11.7

20.5

12.4

1.8

14.6

2.9

10.2

1.6

9.8

1.9 5.6 4.6

3.5

2.1

1.8

0.7

6.0

From Department of Commerce, Bureau of

Census, Report Mo. FT-990, U.S. exports in scientific and technological instrumentation

(scientific, medical, optical, photographic,

and measuring and calibrating instruments)

amounted to approximately 885 million dollars

and imports were approximately 381 million

dollars in 1971. From Department of

Commerce, Bureau of Census, Report Nos. FT- 410 and FT-135, for industrial process Instruments (including flow meters):

Year

1970

1971 1972 (Jan. to June)

Exports

~m~

21,700

24,600

12,100

Imports

188

253

n.a.

Favorable balance in trade can be attributed to technological leadership, marketing

aggressiveness, and reliability of

instruments and service. However, exportimport trade has become highly competitive

and foreign manufacturers of meters are Intensifying their efforts in both foreign

and U.S. markets.

17
A foreign procedure of major concern to

U.S. manufacturers of meters is the business

enhancement programs which a growing number

of countries have initiated. France, Japan,

Germany, Canada and the United Kingdom have programs which offer a variety of generous incentives such as tax credits, accelerated

depredation allowances, low interest loans,

and outright grants for the performance of

research and development. The establishment

of research associations and joint ventures

among private firms and between a government

agency and one or more private firms are generally encouraged and supported. Such

arrangements avoid duplication of R&D efforts, pool resources, and spread the risks. These programs surpass anything

comparable in the U.S.

Foreign countries are more frequently

becoming third parties in buyer-seller deals

leading to foreign sales by U.S. meter manufacturing companies. While accustomed to discretionary or voluntary use of standards

1n the U.S., our meter manufacturers find

that standards are mandatory and legal

requirements have to be met in a growing

number of countries abroad where national

agencies play a paramount role in the

purchase of U.S. flow meters. U.S. companies

are looking to the U.S. Government for help

in negotiating differences between U.S. and

foreign standards. A pertinent view

expressed by Daniel Industries is that, "On the international scene the one weakness that

1s continually faced (by U.S. meter manufacturers) is the lack of a 'Bureau of

Standards' approved method of measurement for

presentation to the international standards

groups. . .this results in difficulties for

American manufacturers in getting their

equipment accepted in foreign countries...".

Wherever practical U.S. flow meter manu- facturers are resorting to maximum employment

of local capability abroad. This includes

manufacturing and competing locally with meters produced in the foreign countries. In an important sense the exporting from the

U.S. occurs in the form of technical and

management talents. U.S. companies use a variety of foreign organizational arrangements that include corporate offices, whollyowned companies and subsidiaries, and licensing and sales agreements.

2.2.3 Reference Data

The basic reference data for fluid flow

are the fundamental units of mass, length,

time, and temperature. Measurement of these

quantities is covered by separate studies in this report series.

In addition to these basic quantities, a number of publications contain data on physical properties of gases and liquids found in fluid flows. These include:

1. NBS Circular 564, "Tables of Thermal

Properties of Gases."

2. "Fluid Meters," ASME, 6th ed. 1971,

for orifice and nozzle coefficients,

viscosity and other properties of

liquids, design data on meters.

3. Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt

(PTB) tables for water density.

4. ASTM-IP Petroleum Tables.

5. Parshall flume and weir coefficients,

appearing in many references, e.g., "Water Measurement Manual," Bureau of

Reclamation,

6. Publications of Thermophysical Properties, Research Center, Purdue University,

7. U.S. Geological Survey Series, "Techniques of Water Resources Investigations."

2.2.4 Reference Materials

The following reference materials are used

for instrument calibrations and tests in fluid flow:

1. Hydrocarbon liquid MIL-C-7024B-Type I (Normal Heptane, a calibration liquid

simulating aviation gasoline).

2. Hydrocarbon liquid MIL-C-7024B-Type II (Stoddard Solvent, a calibration

liquid simulating JP-4 jet fuel).

3. Hydrocarbon liquid MIL-H-5606C

(hydraulic oil )

.

Specifications for these liquids are prepared

by the Aeronautical Systems Division's

Engineering Standards Division at Wright

Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio.

These materials are used at NBS and other

laboratories primarily for turbine meter

calibrations.

Reference materials whose properties are

well known are often used to good advantage

to supplement air and water calibrations of

flow measuring apparatus by extending the range of dimensionless similarity parameters.

Examples of such materials include pure helium and glycerine.

18
2.2.5 Science and People

Fluid flow measurements are encompassed by

the broad field of science called fluid

mechanics. Virtually every major university

1n the U. S. teaches fluid mechanics as a part of its engineering curriculum at undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition,

universities have made significant contributions to fluid flow measurement and the prop- erties of flow.

Interacting with the university segment

are research and development institutions,

such as the National Bureau of Standards,

which have interests in both properties and

phenomena of flow, instrumentation development, and derived standards of flow. Depart- ment of Defense laboratories and contracting

agencies have made significant contributions

to flow measurement and fluid mechanics, and

the National Science Foundation has supported

much work in this field. Other federal agencies, notably the U.S. Geological Survey, the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of

Reclamation, the Army Corps of Engineers, and

TVA, have made significant contributions to water resource flow measurements. These

Interactions often occur through professional

societies such as the American Society of

Mechanical Engineering's Fluid Meters Re- search Committee, the American Physical

Society, the American Gas Association (AGA),

the Transmission Measurement Committee of

AGA, the American Meteorological Society, the

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,

and A1r-Conditioning Engineers, and the

Scientific Apparatus Makers Association

(SAMA)

.

2.3 Realized Measurement Capabilities

A comprehensive analysis is being conducted of the existing facilities and measurement

capabilities of all laboratories within the national fluid flow measurement system. In- formation obtained to date is presented in tables 5, 6, and 7 for air flows, gas and

liquid metering, and supply and waste water

measurements, respectively. There is an on- going effort directed to inter-compare the

facilities and capabilities within these mea- surement areas to establish measurement sys- tem performance levels.

In applied meteorology, wind speed mea- surements up to 100 mph are generally made

within about 5 percent accuracy. In water

resource and wastewater measurements, the accuracies achieved depend upon the sophistication of the organization and on the cost of water delivery and/or wastewater

treatment and on regulatory requirements.

However, they are often no better than 5 percent when the flow is in open conduits,

and the accuracy can, and often does,

deteriorate sharply from that level. Major

errors due to improper application of open

channel measuring devices and poor maintenance can be frequently observed in the field. In pipeline measurements of liquid

and gas flows, the uncertainties are the order of 1 to 3 percent, owing to uncer- tainties in discharge coefficients of the orifice meter. In the aircraft engine in- dustry, calibration laboratories are maintained to within about 0.15% of NBS results.

An additional discussion on the general state of adequacy of measurement capabilities

vs. needs can be found in Sections 3.2.1.1 through 3.2.1.4 under the topic of status of

the fluid flow measurement system.

2.4 Dissemination and Enforcement Network

2.4.1 Central Standards Authorities

Over the years, a system of national mea- surement standards for the derived quantities

characterizing fluid motion has evolved. At the center of this system, NBS is the central measurement standards authority serving the entire domestic flow measurement community.

NBS has a collection of facilities capable of

generating a wide variety of reproducible

reference conditions in flows of air, water,

and liquid hydrocarbons. These facilities

have been tested and evaluated over many years, and through comparison with comparable

facilities have been determined to operate

within well-defined limits of accuracy. Instruments and calibration procedures are included, and they are applied as national

reference standards. The use of this

standards system, while not generally a legal

requirement, is considered to be a desirable

means of achieving coordinated measurement

results from all segments of the fluid flow measurement system.

Other government agencies, in particular

the U.S. Geological Survey and the National

Oceanographic Instrumentation Center (NOIC),

are central authorities for select classes of measurements or certain ranges of flows

involving particular instruments.

2.4.2 State and Local Offices of Weights

and Measures

State and local offices of weights and measures deal primarily with volume dispensing devices in fluid measurement. This

includes gasoline pumps, household water

meters, household gas meters, and the like.

19
Table 5. Examples of aerodynamics (air velocity measurement) laboratories facilities

Location

Low Velocity

Southwest Res. Inst.,

Thermal Systems, Inc.,

universities and NBS (under development).

Subsonic

Private companies

,

universities

»

government, and NBS.

Unsteady Flow

111. Inst, of Tech., Texas ASM and NBS.

Type of Facility

Flow ducts for research

and calibrations. Laser calibrations at NBS.

Wind tunnels with pi tot- static tube as primary

standard.

Wind tunnels with variable fluctuations of

flow for research.

Calibrations at NBS (under development).

Velocity

0.15 to 50 fps and

± 1% uncertainty

at NBS.

270 fps max. and

0.15% uncertainty

at NBS. Attainable

at other locations.

90 fps max. , 1 to 25 Hz freq. range, speed of 0 to ±50%

of mean speed, and

gusts and lulls at NBS.

Table 6.

Location

Examples of fluid meters (gas and liquid flowrate measurements)

laboratories facilities

A1r

Col . Eng. Exp. Sta.

NEL, United Kingdom

NBS Rockwell Intl.

Water

Univ. of Minnesota

Fischer S Porter

Alden Research Lab. Japan

NBS

Liquid Hydrocarbons

Brooks Instrument Di vision

Japan

Fischer and Porter

NBS

Flowrate (Max.)

80,000 scfm

(time limited)

10,000 scfm

3,000 scfm

800 scfm

145,000 gpm 40,000 gpm 40,000 gpm 22,000 gpm 10,000 gpm

10,000 gpm 3,100 gpm

1,700 gpm 2,000 gpm

Pressure (Max.)

2,800 psig

1,000 psig

125 psig

1,000 psig

8 psig

10 psig

21 psig

25 psig

75 psig

40 psig

100 psig

50 psig

20
Table 7. Examples of hydraulics (water velocity measurements ) laboratories facilities

Location

Private Industry (research)

Hydronautics

,

inc.

Government (research and calibrations)

Army C. E., Bonneville, Ore. Natl. Oceanic Instr. Center

NBS

Naval Ship Res. and Dev. USGS, Mississippi

Ctr.

University (research and calibrations)

Chesapeake Bay Inst., JHU M.I.T.

Penn. State

Type of Facil ity

Towing tank

Towing

Water tunnel

Water tunnel

Towing tank

Towing tank

Water tunnel Towing tank Water tunnel

Velocity Range

0 - 20 fps

0 - 12 fps

0.05 - 0.10 fps

(low veloc. range)

0.10 - 40 fps Down to 0.05 fps

0 - 15 fps

Down to 1 cm/sec

0 - 25 fps

0 - 80 fps

type Labs.

Private

U. S.

State

Table 8. Standards laboratories within system - a summary

Services

Standards

Capabi 1 ities

Primary Secondary Both Parent Other Calibr. Calibr.

No. Only Only Standards Org. Organi- on Fee No-Fee

Labs . Gas Liq. Gas Liq. Gas Liq. Only zations Basis Basis

180

26

12

12

4

1

31

5

32

7

1

17 20

4 3

1

61

13

20

7

94

5

5

1

Total 218 15 17 36 40 21 24 74 27 104

21
Since such devices are not used as flowrate

measuring devices in these applications, they

are excluded from this study. In irrigation water distribution, the state and local offices of weights and measures have little

or no activity.

State standards laboratories for fluid

flow are covered in section 2.4.3.

2.4.3 Standards and Testing Laboratories

and Services

Numerous laboratories are engaged in the

flow measurement of gases and liquids, and

table 8 presents a summary of the

laboratories identified to date within the

fluid flow measurement system. This summary

reflects a continuing NBS effort to understand the depth and scope of

participation and contributions on the part

of all calibration and standards laboratories

within the system's infrastructure. Table 9 comprises a list of these laboratories as obtained in part from "A Directory of

Standards Laboratories" prepared by the

National Conference of Standards Laboratories, 1974 Edition, and including their

standards capabilities and measurement services.

In table 9, measurement services are indicated by (P) for primary standards only, (S)

for secondary ^.nd/or test instruments only,

and (B) for both levels of services. Primary measurement standards are defined as those

maintained at an echelon just below the

principal standards of mass, length, and time

maintained by NBS. In this table customers receiving services are indicated by (0) when

limited to parent organizations only, (C)

when others are served in special cases, (F)

when calibration is generally available on a fee basis, and (X) when calibrations are conducted on a no-fee basis.

The functions of several laboratories in table 9 deserve mention. The U.S. Geological

Survey calibrates its own water current

meters 1n a towing tank and occasionally

calibrates on a fee basis for customers.

USGS also conducts research and development

on water current meters and flumes. The

National Oceanographic and Instrumentation

Center calibrates and evaluates oceanographic

current meters. They also share some facilities with USGS in Mississippi.

Note that table 9 contains several state

offices of weights and measures for convenience and reference. While the Directory of

Standards Laboratories considers these as providers of fluid flow services, an NBS

sampling indicates these services are volumetric measurements, and not rate measurements, and hence explicitly not within the scope of this report.

2.4.4 Regulatory Agencies

A number of new federal regulations re- quire increased consistency and reliability

in fluid flow measurements for implementation. These regulations arise from the:

•Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of

1969

•Federal Standard No. 209a for Clean Room

and Work Station Requirements

•National Environmental Policy Act of 1960

•Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 •Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, and

others.

Regulatory agencies charged with enforcing

these and other laws include:

•Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

•Federal Power Commission (FPC) •Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)

•Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) •Bureau of Mines

2.5 Direct Measurements Transactions Matrix

2.5.1 Analysis of Suppliers and Users

Supplies and users of fluid flow measure- ment services are shown in table 10, the

Direct Measurements Transactions Matrix. To identify and analyze these groups and to discuss their roles requires an understanding of

just what is being supplied and used. The

following categories encompass all of the

kinds of goods and services that are involved

in these transactions:

•End-use measurement data

•Reference data

•Other measurement services (e.g., calibrations or time and frequency broadcasts)

•Reference materials

•Measurement instrumentation and its asso- ciated software

•Measurement how-to information •Measurement requirements specifications

(e.g., laws, regulations, documentary

standards) •Measurement needs information

•Money to pay for the above.

In developing the matrix for this study,

attention was focused on the functional in- formation, goods, and services involved in the transactions. The last item, money, was ignored as a direct entry in these particular

matri ces.

22
Table 9. U.S. Standards Laboratories-gas and liquid flow

Obtained in part from "A Directory of Standards Laboratories prepared

by National Conference of Standards Laboratories, 1974 Edition.

0 Service to Parent Organization ONLY

C Available to Customers in SPECIAL CASES

F Calibration Services Available on a FEE BASIS

X Calibration Services Available on a NO FEE BASIS

P Serivce for PRIMARY standards only

S Service for SECONDARY standards and/or test instruments only

B Service for BOTH primary and secondary services

O 3

i— O

Laboratories Zip

J !3

91702 0 S 83401 C s S 01520 F p 19446 F s 90247 F B B 19116 F P P 20910 0 S 29411 F B 44092 0 B 43201 0 S S 92634 F S S 67201 C S S 14240 c B S 64141 0 B B 02893 F P 73125 F P P 98124 F S s 67210 F S s 30458 F P 19301 F s s 92311 0 B 52406 F S B 80302 F B 20734 0 s S 10003 C S 47201 0 s S 77001 F p P 80401 C s S 18974 F p P 75069 F s s

85281 F p p 02035 F s s 19115 F s 85034 0 p p 06340 C s 92112 F B B 92112 F B B 13201 F S 33733 0 S 39520 C s S 11714 0 B B 32901 F S S 33733 C S 90230 0 P P 92634 0 S S 21203 0 S S

Laboratories Zip

O" I/) —I IS Aerojet Electro Systems Co. Aerojet Nuclear Co. Alden Research Laboratories 1/

American Electronic Labs., Inc. American Geophysical & Instr. American Meter Co. 1/ Applied Physics Lab./JHU

Avco Corp. Lycoming Div.

Bailey Meter Co. Battelle, Columbus Labs. Beckman Instruments, Inc. Beech Aircraft Corp.

Bell Aerospace Co. Bendix Corp., Kansas City Div. BIF y Black, Sivalls and Bryson 1/

Boeing Co., Aerrspace GP Boeing Co., Wichita Div. Brooks Instrument Div. 1/

Burroughs Corp.

Cal Tech, JPL DSN Collins Radio Co. Colorado Engineering Exp. Comsat Laboratories

Cox & Company, Inc. Cummins Engine Co. Daniel Industries ]_/ Dow Chemical Co. Fischer & Porter Company ]_/ Fisher Controls Co. McKinney

D1v. 1/

Flow Technology, Inc. ]_/ Foxboro Co. Gage Lab Corporation

Garrett Corporation

General Dynamics Corp.

General Dynamics Corp.

General Dynamics Corp.

General Electric Co. General Electric Co. General Electric Co. (NASA) Grumman Aerospace Corp.

Harris- Inter type

Honeywell Inc. Hughes Aircraft Co. Hughes Aircraft Co. Koppers Co. , Inc.

21220

80201 63166

92647

of

55101 45342

91304

78355

Phillips Petroleum Company 1/ 73034 C Raytheon Co. 01810 0 Raytheon Co. 02154 0 Rockwell International 2803 F Sanders Associates, Inc. 03060 F Sandia Labs. 87115 0 Singer Co., Kearfoot Div. 07424 F A. 0. Smith Corp. Mis. Div. 1/16510 0 Southern California Gas Co.l/ 92365 F 32601 F 48237 F 55414 F

14601 0

1/ 77001 F - 90278 F 37830 C

Sperry Electronic Tube Div.

SSC0 Standards Lab.

St. Anthony Falls Hydraulic

Lab. , Univ. of Minn. 1/ Sybron Corp. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. TRW Systems Group

Union Carbide Corp.

Lake Center Indus. 55987 0 Lear Siegler, Inc. 49508 0 Lockheed Aircraft Corp. 30060 C Lockheed-California Co. 91503 F Lockheed Electronics Co., Inc. 07061 F Lockheed Electronics Co. (HASD)77058 0 Lockheed Missiles and Space 94088 F B Co. Maintenance Mechanical 77001 F P Corp. 1/

Martin Marietta Corp.

Martin Marietta Corp.

McDonnell Aircraft Co. McDonnell Douglas Astro.

0 S C S C B

F B McDonnell Douglas Astro. West 90406 F B

F0 S

F S

F

3M Company -- 3M Center Monsanto Research Corp.

NAR, Rocketdyne Div.

Natural Gas Pipeline Co Amer. 1/ Newport News Shipbuilding 23607 C S & Dry

Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. 13202 0 North American Rockwell 90241 C B Northern Natural Gas Co. ]_/ 68102 F Ohio State University 1/ 43210 F Pan Am World Airways, Tnc. 32925 C Pan American World Airways 89023

Perkin Elmer Corp. 06810 0 Phil co-Ford Corp. 92663 0

PSs

s

s

s

s s

B B

S S B B

S

P

S

S

S

s

B S

S B B B B

23
Laboratories Zip

cr _i

i/> <o CD

United Aircraft Corp. 06108 0 B B Varian 94303 F S S Westinghouse Electric Corp. 21203 F B B

U. S. Government Laboratories

A KorHoo n Pvnvirtn f^vnimrl nUciUccil rruviiiy of UUiiu L?10flR IUUJ r

<; D nci UbpQLC uu 1 uallLc a 1 It IF u • tJUJJ n pr Dr Pont Lent*

u.j. Mr my lie Li u* 01 id i iu. r Dr Pr Ceil tc 1 u • o • ucu i uy i la i our v cy i / no i i v u i atiiuiiu i_auo 20438 n p

1LCAOYinnf"nn- 1 RImp fira^ ^ Af*mv NJj lull U l UC ui Gj j ni M \j 40507 0 o O Depot NASA 32899 C B B NASA 35812 c B B National Bureau of 20234 F P P Standards 1/ National Oceanographic & Instrumentation Center 1/ Naval Air Rework Facility 23511 F S S Norfol

Naval Air Rework Facility 94501 0 B B Navy Calibration Lab. 98277 c S S Navy Eastern Stds. Lab. 20390 F P Norfolk Naval Shipyard 23709 0 S USAF Type II A Standards 95652 0 S S Lab. Type II Stds. Lab. 32508 c B B Pensacola

Western Standards Lab. 92135 0 P P

Laboratories Zip

O" 1/1 •i- 1TJ

! CD Minnesota Dept. of Public 55403 C T

Serv. Nevada Dept. of Agric. 89504 C S New Hampshire Bur. of Wts. 03301 F S & Meas. New Jersey State 08625 X S North Carolina Dept. of 27611 X S Agri

.

North Dakota Public Serv. 58501 F S Comm. Oregon Agriculture Dept. 97310 F S Commonwealth of Pennsyl vanial7120 B Tennessee Dept. of Agric. 37204 X S Wisconsin Dept. of Agric. 53705 X B

1/ Added by authors.

State Laboratories

Alabama Dept. of Agr. & 36109 X B Indust.

Alaska State 99503 X S S Arkansas Weights & Measures 72209 X S Lab. California Bureau of Wts.& 95814 F S S Meas. Colorado Dept. of Agric. 80211 X S Connecticut State Office 06115 X S Bldg.

Delaware Dept. of Agric. 19901 X S State Dept. of Agri, Hawaii 96814 X B Idaho Dept. of Agric. 83701 X B Illinois State 62706 X S Indiana State Board of 46206 X S Health

Maine Dept. of Agric. 04330 F S Maryland Office of Wts. & 20740 F B S Meas. Commonwealth of Mass. 02133 X S Michigan Dept. of Agric. 48913 X S

24
The supplier-user categories have the following composition:

(1) The knowledge community consists of

academic institutions, professional

societies, scientific institutions,

and others. Specific groups within

these categories that deal with fluid

flow measurement are listed in Section

2.2.5.

(2) Documentary specification organizations include international and na- tional standards agencies, committees,

etc. The specific composition cf tnis group is discussed in Section 2.2.1.

(3) The fluid flow instrumentation in- dustry is covered in Section 2.2.2.

(4) The National Bureau of Standards occupies a key role between the basic

technical sectors and the dissemination and enforcement network. NBS is discussed in Section 4.2.

(5) The standards and testing laboratories

for fluid flow are discussed in Section 2.2.1.1. Those of the Depart- ment of Defense are included, as well

as any other sector described below in this list, but those of NBS and any sector described above are excluded.

(6) Regulator} agencies are discussed in Section 2.4.4. This entry in the

matrix includes state and local regu- latory agencies.

(7) The DoD agencies, excluding standards

laboratories, are listed in table 9,

and also include the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers.

(8) Civilian federal government agencies

are listed in table 9, and include,

for example , NASA.

(9) State and local government agencies

are listed in table 9. This category

excludes state and local regulatory

agencies

.

(10) The agriculture segment includes irrigation companies as well as individual

farmers. Hence, farmers are excluded

from the general public category.

'(11) The transportation category excludes

the aerospace industry, since aero- space is listed on a separate matrix

line.

(12) The general public includes the individual consumer, the worker, organized

labor, and consumer organizations.

The other categories are self-explanatory.

In constructing this matrix, every defined sector is entered as both a supplier and a user. There are several reasons for this. Some sectors--such as the regulatory agen- cies—are inherently or as a result of

circumstances both significant suppliers and significant users. All supplier sectors are

users of some sort of measurement good or service. All normal user sectors are at least potentially significant suppliers of measurement needs information. And, most

importantly, all sectors may be suppliers to themselves of at least some of the mea- surement goods and services that they use.

The diagonal elements on the matrix—those

for which the supply sector is the same as tne user sector—display the nature of the measurement goods and services rendered by

that sector to itself.

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

codes are used to further define supplieruser categories where convenient.

The following ground rules were used in completing the matrix entries:

(a) Only measurements transactions are covered. Transfers of any other kinds of goods or services are excluded. The transfer

of money is ignored.

(b) Only di rect transactions are assessed. A may do something for B, and B may do something for C, so that A had done

something indirectly for C, but no entry

would be made in the A-C intersection box on the basis of this kind of transaction.

(c) A number is entered in the center of

each intersection box to define the magnitude

of the transaction that occurs between the given supplier and user, how much happens.

"How important," "how well ," and all other

questions are ignored at this point. Quantitative data may be available to form a basis

for these judgments, e.g., the dollar value

of the transactions, the number of units

sold, etc. Generally, however, the selection

of the proper entry is based on experienced

judgment.

(d) If the transactions for a given

intersection are judged to be trivial in magnitude, all other potential entries for

that intersection are ignored, and the zero

for the cental entry suppressed to leave the box simply blank. A blank box means a

2E
Table 10. Organizational input-output transactions matrix

DIRECT KASUREMLNTS

TRANSACTIONS

KATRIX FOR FLUID FLOW

U

S

ER

S mjj c

—i Op • jr v.

z> o o

W>— Q.

1

1— <_> «J —. r-^i

O ct^

2

- OJ

jj 5" cl > o X oc

/"> —

•

r-_ r> ^ " o —

3

CO

4

3

—

x < a

1 o

a •

l/i _j —

5

£12 °

UO V

CL «* —

6

A

XI

<o O

7

<oro

O <J.

8

o '

-is

r- O O o «a.

9

z

—1 o•—

CC <t

— ^ ^2

10

mUJSit O <_> ft —

<t —

11

goo

iju

LJ<CT> 0.0 00

12

o

^ IJ O.

zzt a.

13

UTILITIES

-

»

SUPPLY

A

1,0

WASTE

WATER

(SIC

Gp

49)

or —

' Q — jo a -oJ

oHo

17

U

CO

rDa.

18 SUPPLIERS \ 15 16

1 KNOWLEDGE COMMUNITY (Science , Educ .

,

Prof. Soc.l Publ.)

u

1 4

2 4

1

2

4 4

2

3

2 1

2

2 2 2 2

2 I 2

1 I 2 1 2

2

2 2

2 3

2 2 2

c i 2

2 DOCUMENTATION

SPECIFICATION ORGANIZATIONS

2 4

3 1 3 2

2 1 2

2

2 1 2

2

3 2

2

2 2 2

2 1 3 22

3

2

2

2

2 1 3 2

2

2

2

7J 1

2

2 1 2

3 INSTRUMENTATION IN- DUSTRY

(SIC Gp 38)

2 1 2 4

2 42

4 1 3

4 1 3

4 C

2 2 2 ?

2

2

3 3

2

3 1 3 2

3 2

4

2

2 1 32 1 4

•5 1 J 1 3

2 4 NBS

o 1 4

2 2 3

3 ] 4

2 3

3

2

3 4

3

4

2 1 2 2

2 2

2 2 1 22 1 3

x

2

2

2 1 22 1 2

c 1 2

5 STANDAROS 4 TESTI'JG LABS. AND SERVICES

(SIC Gp 73)

2 2

2 1 4 22 i 32 1 2 2 3 2 2 1

2 ? 32 i

2

2 1 3 2

2 1 3

2

2 1 2 2 2

6 REGULATORY AGENCIES (exd. OWM's)

2 1 2

3 i 4

2 2 3 2 2

3 i 3

2

1 2

3 i

2

3 i 3

2

i 1 4

2

2

3 1 3 2

3 1 3

2 7 DEPARTMENT OF OEFENSE

(excl. Stds. Labs.)

4 ] 2

2

2 3 2 4 1 ? 4 1 3 3 1 1 3

8 CIVILIAN rtULKAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

3

1 2 2

2

2 2 2 2 3 2

4 1 4 1 2

'5 5 3

2

3 3 2 2

9 STATE 4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

AGENCIES

1 3 3 2 3 2 1

3 2 3

2

1 1 2 2 2

TRADE ASSOCIATIONS3 3

Z 1 2 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 7 3 2 " AEROSPACE

(SIC Gps 37,45)

2 1

1

2 1 4 2 1 3

2 1 4 2 3

2 1 4 1 4 2 1

12 PETROLEUM i NATURAL

CAS (SIC Gps )3,d.

29T46)

1

2 1 3

2

'

3

2 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 ? 4 3 1 ?

13 UTILITIES - POWER GENERATION

(SIC Gp 49) 3

3 1 2 3 U

2

3 2

2

2 1 2 1 3

2 1 4 2

2 1 2 2

2 1 X

14 UTILITIES - SUPPLY AND WASTE WATER (SIC Gp 49)

2 3

3 i 3

2 2

3 2

2

2 1 3 1 2 1 2

2

2 1 3 2

3 2

4

2 X

IS AGRICULTURE

(SIC Gp 49)

1 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 2

3 Z

4 2

2

16 HEATING, VENTILATION AND AIR CONDI- TIONING (SIC Gp 17) —

1 1

2 1

1 1 2 2 2 2

TRANSPORTATION

(SIC Gp 37)

1 3 2 1 2 ?

2 1

2

? 2 ? 7 1 3

18 GENERAL PUBLIC 2 2

KEY TO MATRIX ENTRIES

- IMPORTANCE OF TRANSACTIONS

1 Purely convenience

2 * Strongly desirable

3 No real alternatives

4 Essential

j - RATE OF CHANGE

N • Declining 0 Stable

2 Growing

4 Growing explosively

T • Unknown, X • Not studied.

SUPPLIERS

Blank « 0

(IN)AOEQUACY OF SERVICES

Ho improvements needed

= Could be improved

' Marginal

= Serious deficiencies

= Out of control

- MAGNITUDE OF TRANSACTIONS

0 - Trivial

1 Minor

2 • Moderate

3 Important

4 - Major

26
judgment that the volume of the transactions

for that box 1s trivial

.

(e) On occasion, the authors felt able to make a reasonable assessment regarding "how

much" happens for a given transaction intersection, but did not wish to record any judgments regarding any other aspects of the transaction. In such cases, only the central

"magnitude" code number will be found.

(f) If any additional judgments are made,

a number will be entered in the upper left

hand corner of the intersection box to characterize the importance or criticality of the transactions, independent of their physical

volume.

(g) The lower left hand corner is used to code in the rate of change of the magnitude

of the transactions for that intersection.

(h) The inadequacy of the transaction in terms of providing the goods or services

needed or desired by the user is coded into

the upper right hand corner of the box.

(1) Normally, all zeros are suppressed to leave the table blank when they apply. Thus

a blank spot in the table implies that there

1s no need for attention to it, and any entry

signifies some need for attention. If a zero

1s significant for calling attention to a situation that needs changing, it is entered

as such.

(j) Question marks may be entered at any

of the information locations. They indicate

a lack of knowledge by the authors combined

with a judgment that the knowledge is probably of significant value for the purposes of

this matrix.

(k) An X entered at any information location Indicates that the study deliberately

excluded efforts to develop information on that point.

2.5.2 Highlights Re Major Users

Measurement capabilities possessed by various segments of the fluid flow community are Illustrated in tables 5, 6, and 7 for air

flow measurement, gas and liquid flowrate

measurement, and water flow velocity measurements, respectively. In addition, the NBS measurement capabilities in these three areas

are discussed in Section 4.2.1. Needs ex- hibited by all categories of fluid flow mea- surement users are discussed in detail in Sections 3.2.1.1 through 3.2.1.4. In addition, Section 4.4 summarizes activity areas posed by the 1974 NBS Conference on Flow Measurements as Related to National Needs

that were highlighted as a result of user

needs

.

Major users of water flow measurements are

the water pollution-abatement sector, the

domestic and agricultural water suppliers,

the hydroelectric power generation industry,

and the hydraulic engineering community dealing with navigation and flood control in rivers. An analysis of the users of all fluid flow measurement services covered by

the matrix shows the instrumentation industry

and regulatory agencies are the largest

general users. Other major users of air,

liquid, and gas flow measurements are the power generation utilities, the Department of

Defense, and other federal government

agencies

.

Frequently the sectors of the water user community are in competition with each other

for access to limited amounts of water, and

the importance of flow measurements conse- quently is increasing. For example, nuclear

and fossil fuel power plants use large amounts of cool ing .water. A significant por- tion of this use is consumptive due to loss through evaporation in the cooling towers. The agricultural community also needs large

quantities of this water from the same supply

for irrigation, creating a situation of com- petitive needs for existing resources.

The U.S. Geological Survey operates by far

the largest number of stream gaging stations,

providing many other organizations with their

data through periodic publications. However,

significant numbers of measurements are also

made by the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of

Reclamation. Because these agencies have

substantial hydraulic measurement capability

and facilities in-house, the direct NBS mea- surement service to them is generally limited

to water current meter calibrations for

Agriculture and Corps of Engineers field

stations. A significant transfer of information on needs and capability between NBS and

these agencies does, however, occur.

Irrigation water is generally distributed

to individual farms by irrigation water com- panies. The quality of the flow measurements

made in this distribution process is believed

to be variable, depending in part upon the size and capability of the company, and in part on the cost of the water. NBS provides

direct measurement services in this area by

calibrating water current meters, which the companies then use in turn to field calibrate

other flow measurement devices or to make water balances of their system. However, few

irrigation companies have been sending meters

in to NBS for regular recalibration. The

effect of this on their flow measurements, or

the nature of any alternate procedures they

might use, is not known. Unlike the situaatlon in wastewater measurements, the location of most irrigation measurement activity

27
1s unfortunately so distant from NBS that

personal observation of procedures is not convenient.

In the field of hydroelectric power, a measurement problem of great economic impor- tance is that of flowrate through pumps and

turbines. This flowrate is needed to determine compliance with contracted efficiencies

on the part of the turbine and pump manufacturers. This area of flow measurement, characterized by flow through large closed con- duits, receives considerable international

attention from organizations such as ISO and

the International Electrotechnical Commission. NBS has contributed to this area primarily by work on methods of computing

closed-conduit velocity-area traverses and by

serving on pertinent flow measurement

commi ttees

.

3. IMPACT, STATUS AND TRENDS

OF MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

3.1 Impact of Measurements

3.1.1 Functional, Technological, and Scientific Applications

The technology assessment of the National

Fluid Flow Measurement System has identified

many attributes that can be used to quantify

this system. In particular, there are over

350,000 orifice neters estimated to be in use within the gas aiid oil industries alone, and

1t 1s believed that at least one million orifice meters are used in the U.S. to measure

flows of liquid and gas in commercial,

Industrial, and scientific applications.

Minimum levels of air flow rates required

1n mine safety, industrial ventilation, and

Indoor circulation of ventilating air involve

a broad area of applications in field mea- surements resulting from regulatory requirements. Measurements of air flow rates also

Include applications to ascertain the effects

of wind loading on structures and buildings

1n an environment of variable winds, the

gathering of climatological and weather data,

and the measuring of atmospheric turbulence

and transport properties in the assessing of

distribution effects of pollution associated

with determinations of air quality.

Additionally, every industry which discharges wastewater into a stream or lake is now required to have a discharge permit, the terms of which require monitoring the flow- rate as well as the content of the effluent.

3.1.2 Economic Impacts -- Costs and Benefits

Refer to Sections 2.2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2.2

for a discussion of the costs involved in making fluid flow measurements in the U.S. and a discussion of impacts of this sector of

the business community.

Errors 1n measurements can significantly

alter the cost-benefit relationship for fluid

flows. For example, orifice meters, among

the most common used to measure pipeline

flows, have uncertainties in the published

values of their discharge coefficients

ranging up to approximately 2% for water or other liquids and up to 3% for gas. These

uncertainties can produce large economic inequities, for example, in the production of

natural gas involving gas producers, pipeline

companies, large manufacturing industries

that use the gas, public utilities and finally the individual consumer. It is common practice for any large gas transmission com- pany to trade as much as one million dollars

a day across one metering station, and

therefore an improvement of only 0.1% of

uncertainty of measuring the flowrate would

decrease the uncertainty of trading by one thousand dollars a day.

Long distance transfers of water are on the increase and accountability for all water

is becoming more important. The California water project, a major interbasin transfer of

supply water between northern and southern

parts of the state, charges approximately $62 per acre-foot for irrigation water in the

vicinity of Los Angeles. This compares to a charge of $5 per acre-foot for water used for

irrigation in one part of Kansas. The

California project has an uncertainty of

flowrate measurement estimated to be 5% and

extensive efforts are underway to decrease

this possibly as low as 2%. This reflects a trend to account more accurately for all water supply throughout the National Fluid

Flow Measurement System.

3.1.3 Social, Human, Man on the Street Im- pacts

In increasing numbers waste treatment

plants have to assess individual jurisdictions and industries for their fair share of

the costs to collect and treat sewage. Costs

are increasing for the required treatment,

and improved accuracy of flowrate measurement

and sampling of waste water is a mounting

need. Reasonable projections and equitable

distribution of these costs will depend di28
rectly upon flow measurements. For example,

the Virginia State Water Pollution and Control Board recently placed a limit of 18 million gallons per day upon the capacity of

flow to be managed by a water pollution

control and treatment plant in Fairfax

County. This requirement in turn caused the authorities to place a moratorium upon the

establishing of sewer connections of new family units to be served by the plant.

Within operating conditions of an estimated

5% uncertainty of measurement by the plant

and an estimated 400 gallons per day of flow

of sewer water from each unit, the

uncertainty as to whether the plant exceeds

Its mandatory capacity is equivalent to 2,200

family units. These exclusions raise a serious situation in which the community

cannot go forward with the development of

these units and their economic value to the

community. Although this situation arises

fundamentally from the treatment plant's

limitation in processing sanitary throughput,

1t may be cost beneficial simply to reduce

the uncertainty in the measurement of

throughput. However, a complete analysis of

this problem would require additional data

gathering regarding costs and benefits of the

processing.

3.2 Status and Trends of the System

3.2.1 Status of the System

3.2.1.1 General Status

The status of the fluid flow measurement

1s presented from several viewpoints in this

report. Initially, the needs of flow mea- surement are examined, both in general and

specifically for subelements of the overall measurement system. Later in this section,

current trends of fluid flow measurement

capability are discussed.

General needs of the flow measurement sys- tem that have been identified to date in- clude: (a) disseminating old and providing

new flow standards, preparing recommended

practices, and evaluating and developing

Instrumentation for the measurement of low

velocities and unsteady speeds of air; (b)

establishing a rational basis for demonstrating consistency of flow measurements

within and between laboratories, developing

and disseminating new or improved instrumentation and standards for fluid metering

and re-establishing the validity of discharge

coefficients for orifice meters; and (c) providing new flow standards, preparing

recommended practices, and evaluating and

developing instrumentation for the measurement of low velocities and total flowrates of

supply and waste water.

The needs have their origin in national concerns that both influence and benefit

directly from better fluid flow measurements.

In practice these concerns include the development and effective utilization of energy, improvement of the quality of our environment, occupational safety and health, and equity in the exchange of goods. Industry,

government, universities, technical societies

and trade associations are willing supporters

of the importance of finding adequate answers

to these needs. The impacted national concerns related to the measurement needs are undergoing continuing review and analysis. A representative summary in table 11 illus- trates this relationship as it is viewed to date in the course of conducting this study.

3.2.1.2 Air Flow Measurement Needs

Accurate calibrations are not presently

available for air speeds below 600 feet per

minute. The uncertainty at 100 feet per minute is about 20% and reliable measurements

are nonexistent below 100 feet per minute.

Regulations are increasingly becoming more stringent as to minimum levels of air flow

rates to be maintained for solving problems

of health and safety in mines, industrial

ventilation and indoor circulation. The

National Institute of Occupational Safety and

Health requires precise measurements of air

velocities as slow as 50 feet per minute and

the Bureau of Mines has similar needs for carrying out legislative responsibilities.

Standards and calibrations are needed down to approximately 10 feet per minute with an accuracy of 1% along with evaluations of the

performance and applicability of existing and new instrumentation for the measurement of

low velocities of air. Methods should be developed for improving the behavior of these

instruments under conditions of use in the field.

Suitable calibration facilities, capable

of unsteady wind generation, do not exist for

characterizing the dynamic response of wind

speed measuring instruments, and existing

meteorological instrumentation does not permit the accurate determination of

instantaneous wind speed. There is considerable uncertainty in measurement of gust

velocities, and errors are also introduced in the measurement of average wind speed in fluctuating winds. Existing instruments

rarely survive gust velocities above 100 mph.

All of this is of increasing importance in such national problems as the effect of wind

29
Table 11. Measurement needs and impacted national concerns

Measurement Needs National Concerns Application Examples

Transfer standards

Orifice coefficients

Waste water flow

Low velocity air

Dynamic wind speed

Low velocity air

Dynamic wind speed Waste water flow Water supply flow

Transfer standards

Orifice coefficients Waste water flow Water supply flow

Interlaboratory

comparisons

Energy

Health and Safety

Environmental

Economic

Gas and petroleum trans, and dlstr. Power generation

Process control

Ventilation of mines

Industrial ventilation

Clean work bench

Aerodynamic loading of structures

F1re research

Air and water quality

Climatological data

Stack emissions

Monitoring and surveillance

Export sales of instruments

International standards for instruments

Equity in transfers of goods Process control

Regulatory compliance

loading on structures and buildings during a variable wind, the gathering of climatological and weather data, and the need to understand atmospheric turbulence and transport

properties in the atmosphere to assess the

effects and distribution of pollutants. With

the partial support of the Federal Highway

Administration, NBS has started a study of

the lag characteristics of wind speed

measuring instruments to develop procedures

and practices for characterizing their

behavior in both the laboratory and the

field. Calibration procedures will be developed for the dynamic response of wind

speed measuring instruments. The performance

and applicability of existing devices will be

evaluated and methods will be investigated

for Improving their response. Referenceable measurement methods will be provided for air

speed instruments operating in unsteady

winds. The results of the Federal Highway

Administration supported study will be used

1n formulating new design criteria pertinent

to dynamic loading and design life of such

highway structures.

3.2.1.3 Gas and Liquid Metering Needs

The products of American flow instrument

manufacturers are encountering increased re- sistance for use abroad because there is no central authority that certifies measurement

capability or performance. As more international standards are developed, they will serve as non-tariff barriers for our exports

1f they vary from domestic standards and

practice significantly. Flow Instrument man- ufacturers and users have indicated the

desire for a meaningful system that will

allow them to demonstrate that they are operable parts of a coherent and consistent

national flow reference system.

New or improved transfer flow standards

and validated methods for verifying measurements in the field are needed to monitor or comply with effluent discharge regulations,

to measure stack emissions and to establish

equity in transfers of custody. Nonintrusive

devices that can serve as standards are especially needed for verifying the per- formance of the thousands of existing

metering stations without disruptions in operations or altering the performance of the existing systems. Changing relationships

between producers, transporters and users and new regulations on accountability for the product being flowed are unbalancing the previously equitable arrangements that were

based on precise but not necessarily accurate measurements. Depending on the application,

evaluations and improvements of acoustic,

laser or electromagnetic type meters may meet

the needs. Also, critical flow ventirus (or

nozzles) can serve as low head loss standards

in lieu of some existing devices after

further development.

Present uncertainties in the published

values of discharge coefficients for flow measurements with the orifice meter range up

to approximately 2% for water or liquids and

30
up to 3% for gas. Correspondence with major

users of orifice meters shows that a growing

number of them consider these uncertainties

to be too high. Improvements are needed in this major field of flow measurement by

reestablishing a reliable data base for flow

meters, and developing analytical procedures

for extending experimentally verified relationships of flow beyond the range of

Reynolds numbers of existing calibration

facilities.

3.2.1.4 Water Supply and Waste Water Mea- surement Needs

At this time, meticulous care is required

to achieve uncertainties lower than 5" in measuring the flowrate of waste water in open

channels. However, measurements of approximately 1 fps and lower velocities have become

Important for determining the ultimate disposition of heated power plant effluents and

other waste discharges . Needed improvements

are particularly difficult to achieve for

systems of measurement in which remotely

located velocity measuring instruments must

operate unattended and on-station for ex- tended periods of time as long as several

months 1n harsh environments. The need for

decreasing the uncertainty of measuring waste water is of increasing importance under

operating conditions in which municipalities

and sanitary districts impose sewer use sur- charges based on volume rate and content of waste materials. The economic impact of such

policies was discussed in Section 3.1. Existing methods for flowrate measurement in sewage handling and treatment systems must be evaluated and improved, and reliable field

calibration procedures must be established

for presently available flowrate devices.

Slow circulatory velocities of water play

an Important role in the quality of lakes,

reservoirs, bays and estuaries as affected by

Influent wastes and other factors. Today's

emphasis on steps that will result 1n better

quality highlights the need to improve applications of water current meters to measure

these low velocities and to determine volumetric flow rates by velocity-area integrations. Such meters are used also by water

supply and irrigation districts to calibrate

1n situ open-channel measuring devices and

for mass-balance or continuity checks on en- tire distribution systems of water supply. As water becomes more costly, its equitable

division among users will become increasingly

Important. Some economic consequences of

this fact were presented in Section 3.1. The

trend to account more accurately for all water supply is on the rise throughout the national measurement system, and the need

exists to both evaluate the performance of

present current meters in their various forms

and develop new current measuring devices

with improved accuracy and performance.

3.2.1.5 Impact of Metrication

Fluid flow measurements are currently made

primarily in customary units. In addition, a number of commonly used combinations of

customary units have evolved to describe

certain classes of flows. For example, in hydraulics, water storage is frequently

measured in acre-feet, which is the volume of water needed to cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot. Similarly, supply and waste water flows are often measured in millions of gallons per day. A major portion

of the metrication program in this area would

thus be training the personnel who take these measurements to think metric. Calibration

data per se can be reported in any system of

units, and in some cases can be reported in dimensionless ratios independent of units. For field applications, however, conversion

to physical units is necessary. To record

flow data in metric units involves using the same instrument used to record data in custo- mary units, but changing the associated

readout equipment. Instruments with metric

readouts are steadily becoming available for

fluid flow.

3.2.1.6 Impact of Automation

Automation of fluid flow measurements is widespread in cases where a large number of meters must be monitored or where highly

automated process control phenomena are en- countered. Sewage -treatment plants are be- coming increasingly more automated as more complex process flow scheduling is required

for multistage treatment of waste.

An interesting application of automation

in waste water flow measurement concerns

optimal use of treatment plants during peak

load periods. Many large cities have com- bined sewer systems still in use, where com- mercial and domestic sewage and storm water

runoff flow in the same lines. Periods of

heavy rainfall seriously over-load treatment

facilities in this type of system, and often

force untreated sewage to be discharged into

the nearest watercourse. Since economic and

environmental factors prevent separating

these sewers, attempts are being made in some municipalities to use sewer lines as temporary storage basins by implementation of

computerized valving systems designed to route water flow into as much of the existing

piping as possible before sending it to the treatment plant.

31
The Impact of automation in hydraulics is currently being studied by the Federal Inter- agency Work Group on Designation of Standards

for Water Data Acquisition, Impaneled by the USGS's Office of Water Data Coordination.

The degree of automation in laboratory

systems for calibration services is generally

a function of the workload of that facility.

Many flow meters provide output in parameters

easily monitored by a computer. This fact,

coupled with reduced prices of computer systems being brought about by advanced electronic technology, makes automation in many

of these cases practical as well as desirable.

3.2.2 Trends of Measurement Capability in the System

The cost to flow a unit of fluid is gen- erally rising. This trend is due largely to the disproportionate amount of inflation in the values of the: materials being transported

but is also a reflection of increased op- erating costs in fluid transportation. These

cost increases are forcing greater invest- ments to be made for both increased accuracy

and the managing and controlling of fluid

flow. Primary metering devices are becoming

Increasingly sophisticated and their basic

accuracy of measurement is the cutting edge

of Improvements in the state-of-the-art and

1n advancements of technologies of measurement.

In both the very small and the very large

rates of flow the scene is a constantly

changing one of new dimensions. For example,

the automotive industry is now targeting for

fuel flows in calibrations at approximately

0.1 Ibm/min with ±0.2% accuracy of readings

and striving for even smaller rates at Improved accuracy. Additional efforts are being directed to possible standardization of

the Industry through the application of

transfer reference devices. The nuclear

power Industry requires measurement of

cooling water flows on the order of 1 to 2 million gallons per minute, depending on plant power output. Such plants also require measurement of 300 ° F condensate flows at 20,000 gal/mi n with accuracies of 0.1%.

Another example of the changing state-of-theart in fluid flow measurement is the rate of

100,000 gal/min of conducting fluid that can

be measured using electromagnetic flow meters with an accuracy that ranges to ±2% of full scale. These meters can be used with

conduits as large as 96 inches in diameter.

In both the oil and the natural gas in- dustries a similar trend exists 1n the metering of larger rates of flow with advancements

1n the state-of-the-art of meters.

The more traditional designs with improve- ments and numerous new designs are finding

uses in the application of flow meters. Orifice meters will continue to be used for a long time. Such meters are probably used more for flow measurement than any other

instrument. The vortex shedder seems to be establishing a firm footing from which it can continue to grow in applications. The

ultrasonic device is the newest device that

is finding its place competitively with other

flow meters. Light-scattering devices are relatively new but they are showing real promise in measuring the velocity of flow. Thermal devices, both hot-wire and hot-film,

are finding increased applications for mea- suring flow velocities. Another item of note

is the increasing use of the critical flow

nozzle for calibrating gas flow metering

instruments. Turbine meters are also being

applied to the measuring of flow rates of an increasing range of fluids. The British have

reported they can measure fluid flow using

tracers with accuracy of ±0.2% in high pressure gas flow. The French report a similar experience. Although some use is being made of tracer techniques in flowrate measurements in the U.S., the current meter

continues to be the major instrument for water flowrate measurement by velocity-area

integrations.

Important technological problems have

arisen from the use of electrically conducting fluids, and especially liquid metals, as the cooling medium, heat transfer agent or the working fluid in existing and proposed

thermo-nuclear power and magnetohydrodynamic

(MHD) devices. Methods and instrumentation

should be developed to make reliable mea- surements of steady flow, turbulent flow and

temperature in liquid metals, to provide data

on the flow dynamics and heat transfer of

electrically conducting fluids. These developments would provide the technical base for

relating this information to the design,

performance and operation of the critical

components of liquid metal handling systems

of advanced power-generating plants.

Instruments are required that will measure

more accurately low velocities in air and

water, and will also perform well under

environmental conditions in the field. Low velocities are particularly important in water pollution control and are arbitrarily

defined here as velocities between 0.1 and

1.0 ft per second with emphasis on the low

end of this range. The new high-performance

NBS water tunnel will provide reference

velocities for 0.1 ft per second and higher.

Technological problems in velocity measurement in the field include unattended low- velocity meters. Today's instruments (in32
eluding sensor element, recording, and

storage or transmission components) are not reliable enough for long-term (up to 2 months

and often longer) use in place. Problems are associated with fouling, wind, waves, ice,

debris and a generally hostile environment.

At the other end of the hydrographic velocity

spectrum, there is no adequate means of mea- suring flowrate in very high-velocity channels carrying heavy debris. This is a situation commonly found in flood channels. Many

velocity sensors are affected by a vertically

oscillating platform such as a bobbing buoy

or boat. These effects generally take the

form of erroneously high readings. A buckettype meter, for example, can be seen to rotate in the positive velocity direction if

1t is moved up and down in still water. Closed conduits which are inaccessible for measurement present a difficult situation in which to obtain a flowrate measurement except

at very high cost in a submerged pipe outlet.

Difficulty is encountered in obtaining good

depth or head measurements accurately in the

field. The metering system depth sensing

element is subject to fouling when used for wastewater measurements. Very careful maintenance is required and frequent recalibratlon is desirable of the head sensing and

recording system. Some industrial outfalls

have wastewater issuing at high velocity from

a pipe protruding from a wall. Access is often difficult and the high momentum of the

flow makes it almost impossible to insert a meter of any kind at the outlet. Use of the

trajectory to deduce the efflux velocity does not always satisfy regulatory requirements.

Such outfalls are also common for surface

runoff. Maintenance of weirs, flumes and the

associated head measuring instruments is often poor. Portability is essential for

Instruments or methods which are to be used

by regulatory authorities 1n checking

Industrial waste water measuring systems.

Reliable hydraulic, thermal and other water quality data are needed in the technical decisions for selecting, developing and

maintaining electric power generating plant

sites. Effects of cooling water intake and

discharge on the adjacent body of water are major factors in siting decisions. The

hydraulic information is difficult to obtain

on-site. Existing measuring instruments and

systems are not adequate for this job. An economical measurement system consisting of

an array of instruments needs to be developed

to operate unattended over long periods of

time In adverse environments, and at the same time either storing or transmitting data.

Site selections for measurement instruments

and the optimum schedules for series of

measurements need to be guided by validated

mathematical models of the river and/or lake

systems.

4. SURVEY OF NBS SERVICES

4.1 .The Past

Fluid flow measurement research at NBS has been instrumental in the development of the

science of fluid mechanics in the last 60 years, and a number of pioneering contributions have been made by Bureau scientists.

4.1.1 History of Aerodynamics

The earliest work in aerodynamics at NBS began soon after Congress established the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics

(NACA), the forerunner of NASA, in 1915. The

mission of NACA was to initiate and direct

scientific studies in problems of flight, and

they charged NBS with investigation of the

physical factors in aerodynamic design.

In 1916, Dr. Robert A. Goddard presented

his idea for a rocket gun to the nation's

Astrophysical Laboratory, which subsequently

called Dr. Edgar Buckingham, the Bureau's aerodynamics specialist, for consultation.

The device was conceived for launching

recording instruments into the upper atmosphere, but had obvious and significant military value. The Bureau aided with design of

two models, and the first .device was suc- cessfully tested in July 1918. Unfortunately, other wartime projects with more immediate prospects of utilization caused the

rocket gun project to be terminated.

The first aerodynamic facility built at NBS consisted of a wind tunnel and an aerodynamic balance, designed in 1917 by Dr. Lyman

J. Briggs, who later became the Bureau's third director. When the wind tunnel was placed 1n operation in 1918, there were only

two others in existence in the United States;

one at the Washington Navy Yard and one in Dayton, Ohio, belonging to the Wright

brothers

.

The Bureau's aerodynamic research during

the 1920's was funded primarily by NACA, the Army Air Service, the Navy Bureau of Aero- nautics, and, after 1927, the aeronautics

branch of Commerce. The primary interests of

the military were improved airplane design

and dirigible model testing. Passing inter- est was shown in the innovative areas of helicopter and jet propulsion. Dr. Buckingham

evaluated a two-foot helicopter propeller

model in 1917, and worked out its aerodynamic

33
equations. He reported that a one-man helicopter was practical, but it was 20 years

before vertical flight was successfully

achieved. Jet propulsion was studied in the

1920's at NBS, but the concept was considered

to be Impractical due to high fuel consumption and excess weight of materials

needed in construction of high-temperature

combustion chambers.

More recently, NBS has pioneered in re- vealing the fundamental processes in the

transition from laminar to turbulent flow in boundary layers. In the 1 940 ' s the Bureau provided the first experimental confirmation

of the linear theory of boundary layer sta- bility proposed by the German school of

aerodynami cists , which until such confirmation had been largely discounted as unrealistic. Subsequent investigations through the

present time at NBS probed deeper and yielded

Important findings concerning further stages

of the instability and transition process,

and the factors influencing transition.

In the field of anemometry, NBS work has been concerned with instrumentation for measurement of steady and unsteady flows.

Significant contributions were made to tur- bulence measurement, and to the behavior and

performance of laboratory and meterological

wind speed measuring instruments. This

Includes the pioneering work on the theory

and application of hot-wire anemometers, published 1n 1929, with further contributions in 1946; studies of the effect of supports on vane anemometer performance, 1948; a study of

lag characteristics of anemometers, 1954; and

research on the heat-loss characteristics of

hot-wire anemometers in transonic and supersonic flow, published in 1955. In the period

of late 1940 1 s to the early 1950 's , investigations into the effect of damping screens on flow in duct systems were made at NBS. This

led to the design and construction at the Bureau of the first low turbulence wind

tunnel and served as the basis for what has become the standard wind tunnel design practice. The quantitative evaluation of the

effect of screens on diffusing flow and flow

Irregularities has also found ready application to wind tunnels providing for improved

performance and more efficient and economical

design.

From the early 1950 ' s to the present time, NBS has been actively engaged in the study of

nonlsotropic and isotropic turbulent fields,

and has been a major contributor to the basic

reference literature on this subject. This

work has played an important part in our present understanding of turbulent structure

and 1n the evaluation of theoretical ideas,

and has contributed to a technology concerned

with fluid mechanical design problems and

fluid mechanical devices.

A previously unpublished historical ac- count of aerodynamic facilities through 1956 and outstanding contributions in aerodynamics

can be found in Appendix B.l by Dr. Galen B. Shubauer entitled "A History of the

Aerodynamics Section." Of the facilities

listed in this account, only the supersonic

wind tunnel is still in existence. Current

aerodynamic facilities are described in Section 4.2.1.

4.1.2 History of Fluid Metering

Air and water flow measurement research

began in about 1918 at NBS. Mr. Howard S. Bean joined the staff in 1920 and became

involved in widespread measurement problems

almost immediately. He was soon joined by

Dr. Edgar Buckingham. This led to participation in research programs designed

to improve flow measurement with the orifice

meter, and later with nozzles and displace- ment meters. Activity in this area continued

through the 1930 's, and saw Mr. Bean on as many as six committees simultaneously. Most

of the NBS work was in cooperation with the AGA and ASME. For instance, the Columbus

Tests, held at the Hydraulic Laboratory of

Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio in 1932

to 1933, provided the primary data base for

the hydraulic coefficient of discharge for

the orifice meter. Some of the massive

amounts of data gathered were still being

processed in the 1940's, and most of it has been reviewed recently [119].

Mr. Bean and Dr. Buckingham contributed

prolifically to journals and trade papers, as well as about fifteen NBS publications as a result of this work [120], [121], [122]. Es- pecially notable is the analysis of the Columbus test results by the National Bureau

of Standards made by Dr. Buckingham and Mr. Bean. The results of their work were trans- mitted by the Director of NBS to the Chairman

of the Joint AGA-ASME Orifice Coefficient

Committee in May 1934. Additional developments at NBS during this period include an improved wet test meter, a gas compressibility measuring device, the portable

Stlllman Standard, and a small constant head

aspirator.

Prior to about 1940, flow measuring facilities at NBS consisted only of a 25 scfm, 90 psig air flow facility. Volume/time mea- surements were used as the calibration

method. Much of the fluid metering research

was done at other laboratories. The number

34
of meters calibrated at NBS was modest,

Increasing from a few wet or dry displacement

meters 1n the 1920's to about 12 per year in the 1930's, nearly all for government agencies. Completion of the Hydraulics Laboratory in 1932 added a water flow measurement

facility with flows to 1000 gpm at 125 psig.

Some growth in the air and water calibration effort occurred in the late 1930's when

private companies began requesting calibrations, followed by a decrease in calibrations

that lasted until about 1950. Access to a larger air flow capability was acquired about

1950 (2000 scfm and 50 psi) and a water calibrated orifice meter was then used to calibrate larger capacity air meters. Increased

need for more accuracy perhaps accounts for

an Increasing number of calibrations from

1950 to the present. The need for calibrations shifted from the wet or dry displacement meters to the head-type meters with

larger capacity. A capability to flow and meter air with volume/time measurement at rates to 50 scfm and pressures to 500 psi was added in 1958.

During World War II and in the years Im- mediately following, testing and research

programs on devices for handling and metering

fuels for aircraft resulted in development of

technical expertise forming the basis for the

liquid hydrocarbon fluid metering program at NBS. These programs included significant

work on such topics as spray nozzle performance characteristics [123], and methods for

correcting for density and viscosity of Incompressible fluids in float-type flowmeters [124].

About 1954, the Navy and the aircraft industry became interested in flowmeter calibration methods and, as part of a continuing

program under the sponsorship of the Bureau

of Aeronautics, the performance of various

liquid flowmeters as well as equipment and techniques for their calibration was investigated extensively [125]. This effort

resulted in demonstrating uncertainties as low as 0.15% to be possible for calibration

of meters, using interlaboratory comparison

techniques to establish the bounds on possible systematic errors. This represented

a significant improvement in the state-ofthe-art at that time. NBS was one of the first laboratories to advocate use of turbine

meters as transfer reference meters for

liquid hydrocarbons and to document their

advantages and limitations [125]. A direct

reading viscometer (range 0.3 to 30 centlstokes) was also developed and patented

as part of this effort. During this time and

to the present, members of the Fluid Meters

Section have actively participated in professional society committee efforts

involving fluid meters research and

generation of flow standards. These include

committees in the ASME, API, SAE and ISA.

In 1969 the flow measurement laboratories

were moved from the Bureau site in Washington

to Gaithersburg.

Additional historical information on fluid

metering throughout the U.S. can be found in Appendix B.2 in an account by Mr. Bean titled

"Comments on Fluid Metering Events Preceding

and Following the Organization of the ASME

Research Committee on Fluid Meters."

4.1.3 History of Hydraulics

Hydraulics as a discrete entity at NBS originated in 1930 when Congress authorized

establishment of the National Hydraulic

Laboratory. The goal of this laboratory, as dictated by law, was "...determination of

fundamental data useful in hydraulic research

and engineering, including laboratory re- search relating to the behavior and control

of river and harbor waters, the study of

hydraulic structures and water flow, and the development and testing of hydraulic in- struments and accessories...". Work for any

U.S. Government agency and any state or political subdivision of a state was also

authorized.

Hydraulics research in the 1930's was spurred by construction of hydroelectric

power plants, flood control, irrigation, in- land waterways, shore protection, and harbor

development. Hydraulics was basically an empirical science at the time, and fundamental research in all areas was vital. The new laboratory provided three basic services:

(1) Fundamental research. Problems in this area were generally those re- quiring continuity of effort over periods of time that were unprofitable

to organizations interested in spe- cific engineering problems.

(2) Special investigations and tests. This work was limited to solution of

specific problems for immediate application, and generally used results of

fundamental research.

(3) Information services. The laboratory

served as an information center and

clearinghouse for current documents on worldwide hydraulics research.

35
The Hydraulic Laboratory was opened in 1932 in the midst of the depression and

equipment purchases and staffing were severely limited. Specific research projects

1n Its early days included: open channel

flow studies; flow in curved pipes with

smooth and rough walls; study and prediction

of flood waves - a project suggested by the

Weather Bureau; and plumbing research - a project involving translation of design data

Into practical plumbing codes and recommended

plumbing practice manuals. Special investigations and tests included: model tests of

flood control dams, spillways, and. spillway

channels; tests of portable pumps for fire

protection; and tests of plumbing fixtures

for compliance with specifications.

Government agencies served in the early

days of the laboratory were the Departments

of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, Navy,

Treasury, and War, as well as the Government

of the District of Columbia, the Federal

Trade Commissior , the National Housing

Agency, the Public Health Service, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Veterans Administration.

Hydraulics activity was suspended during

World War II, and the laboratory building was entirely converted to guided-missile in- vestigations. When hydraulics work was re- sumed after the war, the emphasis was gen- erally on fundamental investigations. Pioneering work was done on stratified flows and

on wind stress on water surfaces, mainly for

the Army Corps of Engineers and the Office of

Naval Research. After the fluid mechanics

group moved to the Gaithersburg site in 1969,

the hydraulics activity shifted to more measurement-oriented investigations required

by national needs which have been described

elsewhere in this report.

4.2 The Present - Scope of NBS Services

4.2.1 Description of NBS Services

4.2.1.1 Fluid Flow Measurement Capabilities

Fluid flow measurement services pertinent

to this report are provided by three Sections

within the Mechanics Division: Aerodynamics,

Fluid Meters, and Hydraulics. The basic pro- visions of each section are, respectively,

air flow services, gas and liquid metering

services, and water flow measurement services. Facility descriptions in each of the

three organizational areas are presented in tables 12, 13, and 14.

4.2.1.2 Fluid Flow Work Areas

Aerodynamic services at NBS are provided

at present in six basic work areas. These

are:

(1) Calibrations

a. Steady flows - 0.15 fps to 270 fps.

(2) Aerodynamic Measurements and Instru- mentation

a. Steady flows - 0.15 fps to Mach No. 1.95.

b. Unsteady flows - up to 90 fps

(3) Incompressible Flow

a. Steady flow

b. Unsteady flow

(4) Compressible Flow Characteristics

(5) Turbulence Studies

(6) Physical Modeling

In the areas of gas, liquid, and water

flow metering, NBS work areas include:

(1) Calibration Services (see table 13)

(2) Meter Evaluation and Development

(3) Measurement Technique Development

Work areas for water flow measurements

consist of:

(1) Evaluation and research on water

current meters for low velocity flows

and for open channel flow rate measurements.

(2) Evaluation and research on flowrate

measuring flumes, particularly to improve on-site verifications.

(3) Supporting services to other govern- ment agencies.

(4) Publication of measurement techniques.

A significant contribution toward making

accurate measurements under field conditions,

a major problem in water flow studies, 1s the recent publication by NBS of a "A Guide to Methods and Standards for the Measurement of Water Flow" [118]. Need for such a guidebook

is emphasized by recent water pollution

control legislation and the need for a closer

accounting of the disposition of our water

36
Type

Dual test-section

Low-velocity

(under development)

Unsteady flow

Table 12. NBS air flow facilities

Test-Section Size

5« x

7'

4' x 5'

3' x

3'

4.5' x 4.5'

Supersonic 3

U x

4"

Capability Uncertainty

150 fps (max) ±0.3%

270 fps (max)

0.15 fps (min)

50 fps (max)

90 fps (max)

Subsonic to Mach No. 1.95

±0.3%

±1.0%

Distinguishing Feature

Low-stream turbulence

Adjustable pressure gradient Low-stream turbulence

Laser-velocimetry

Steady or fluctuating

mode

Simulate gusts and lulls (fluctuating

flows - 0.1 Hz - 25 Hz)

Amplitudes 50 percent mean (flow in 3 per- cent increments)

Low turbulence

Table 13. NBS gas and liquid metering facilities

Im.

Air (Constant Volume Collection Tank)

Air (Bell-type Prover)

Air (Mercury Sealed Piston Prover)

Water (Collection in Weight Tank)

Liquid Hydrocarbons (Collection in Weight Tank)

(Stoddard Solvent and Hydraulic Oil)

Liquid Hydrocarbons (Collection in Weight Tank)

(under development)

Capability Uncertainty

3.8 lb/sec (3000 scfm)(max) ±0.13%

20 scfm (min) 125 psig (max)

0.064 lb/sec (50 scfm) (max) ±0.13%

0.2 scfm (min) 500 psig (max)

15000 cc/m (max) ±0.13%

50 cc/m (min) 500 psig (max)

10,000 gpm (max) ±0.13%

0.1 gpm (min) 75 psig (max)

200 gpm (max) ±0.13%

0.03 gpm (min) 30 psig (max)

2000 gpm (max) ±0.13%

200 gpm (min) 50 psig (max)

37
Type

Open-circuit Water Tunnel

Table 14. NBS water flow facilities

Test-Section Size

20-inch diameter

Closed-circuit Water Tunnel

(under development)

Open Channel Facility

(under development)

24-inch diameter

3' wide by 1.5' deep

by 40' long

Capability

0.25 fps (min)

8 fps (max)

0.1 fps (min)

40 fps (max

3 psig (min

35 psig (max)

0 to 10 cfs

resources. Wastewater flow criteria and

requirements in particular are now involving

many engineers and technicians who have had

little past experience in flow measurements. Getting this information into the hands of

those who need and will use it is one of the

major thrusts of measurement programs at NBS.

4.2.2 Users of NBS Services

Table 15 presents the users of NBS fluid

flow services, listed by Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) codes and short titles.

A "user" is any person or organization to whom the outputs of work at NBS make a positive difference--cl ients , colleagues, or con- stituents, i.e.,

•Who would care, or whose work would

suffer, if NBS had not done what it has been doing, stopped doing it now, or quit

at some future time.

•Clients - those who pay NBS to do work.

•Colleagues - those who use NBS outputs,

often obtained through very informal interactions.

•Constituents - those who use our products or services directly;

•the first layer of user,

•those directly conscious of benefits

they derive from NBS,

•constituents even though third-party

organizations provide liaison coupling, as long as some direct tie to NBS exists.

The SIC codes cover the total of the pro- ductive, wage-paying economy. They do not

cover the various final consumption sectors. The four-digit code is the finest level of

breakdown in the SIC code system. When all four-digit codes in a three-digit category

are judged to be equivalent from the viewpoint of NBS programs, only the three-digit

code is listed. When the primary output con- tact is with a trade or business association

(SIC 8611) or professional membership organ- ization (SIC 8621), the other SIC categories

that these associations represent are listed

when there is a significant focus on or con- tact with such categories. For example, output to the American Petroleum Institute is coded under 8611 and also under 1311, 1321,

1389, 2911, 2992, 3498, 492, 493.

4.2.2.1 Users Services

of NBS Air Flow Measurement

Distributions of customers of calibration

services for air speed measuring instruments

for FY 72 to present were as follows:

Government

Industry

65 percent

35 percent

The following Government agencies submitted instruments for calibration: NASA, N0AA,

HEW, NI0SH, FAA, Army, Navy, Air Force, Agriculture and Bureau of Mines. Manufacturers

1n the industry segment who submitted instru- ments for calibration are listed in table 3. In-house calibrations were also provided to other Divisions of NBS. These instruments

impact upon meteorology, pollution, health

and safety, defense, fire research, loads on structures and transportation.

Other services and their impact areas are shown in table 16.

38
Table 15. Users of NBS fluid flow services

Listed by Standard Industrial Classification Codes and short titles

B. MINING

Code Short Title

11 ANTHRACITE MINING

12 BITUMINOUS COAL AND LIGNITE MINING

13 OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION

1311 Crude petroleum and natural gas

1321 Natural gas liquids

1389 Oil and gas field services, nec

C. CONSTRUCTION

17 SPECIAL TRADE CONTRACTORS

1711 Plumbing, heating, air conditioning

D. MANUFACTURING

20 FOOD AND KINDRED PRODUCTS

2082 Malt bevt rages 2084 Wines, brandy, and brandy spirits

2085 Distilled liquor, except brandy

28 CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS

2812 Alkalies and chlorine

2813 Industrial gases

2816 Inorganic pigments

2819 Industrial inorganic chemicals, nec

(incl. inorg. nuclear fuels)

2821 Plastics materials and resins

2822 Synthetic rubber

2823 Cellulosic man-made fibers

2824 Organic fibers, noncel 1 ulosic

2831 Biological products (drugs)

2833 Medicinals and botanicals (drugs) 2834 Pharmaceutical preparations

284 Soap, Cleaners, and Toilet Goods

2851 Paints and allied products

2865 Cyclic crudes and intermediates (org.) 2869 Industrial organic chemicals, nec

2879 Agricultural chemicals, nec

2892 Explosives

29 PETROLEUM AND COAL PRODUCTS

2911 Petroleum refining

2992 Lubricating oils and greases

34 FABRICATED METAL PRODUCTS

3483 Ammunition, exc. for small arms, nec

(incl . nuclear bombs

)

3494 Valves and pipe fittings

3498 Fabricated pipe and fittings

35 MACHINERY, EXCEPT ELECTRICAL

3511 Turbines and turbine generator sets

3551 Food products machinery

3561 Pumps and pumping equipment

3563 Air and gas compressors

3564 Blowers and fans

3566 Speed changers, drives, and gears

Code Short Title

3582 Commercial laundry equipment

3585 Refrigeration and heating equipment

3586 Measuring and dispensing pumps

3592 Carburetors, pistons, rings, valves

36 ELECTRIC AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

3634 Electric housewares and fans

3635 Household vacuum cleaners

37 TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT

371 Motor Vehicles and Equipment

372 Aircraft and Parts

373 Ship and Boat Building and Repairing

376 Guided Missiles, Space Vehicles, Parts

38 INSTRUMENTS AND RELATED PRODUCTS

3811 Engineering & scientific instruments

3822 Environmental controls

3823 Process control instruments

3824 Fluid meters and counting devices

3829 Measuring & controlling devices, nec

3841 Surgical and medical instruments

E. TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC UTILITIES

45 TRANSPORTATION BY AIR

4582 Airports and flying fields

46 PIPE LINES, EXCEPT NATURAL GAS

49 ELECTRIC, GAS, AND SANITARY SERVICES

4911 Electric services

492 Gas Production and Distribution

493 Combination Utility Services

4941 Water supply

4952 Sewerage systems

4953 Refuse systems

4959 Sanitary services, nec

4961 Steam supply

4971 Irrigation systems

I. SERVICES

73 BUSINESS SERVICES

7391 Research & development laboratories

7397 Commercial testing laboratories

86 MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS

8611 Business associations

8621 Professional organizations

J. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

95 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND HOUSING

9511 Air, water & solid waste management

9512 Land, mineral, wildlife conservation

96 ADMINISTRATION OF ECONOMIC PROGRAMS

9631 Regulation, admin, of utilities

9651 Regulation misc. commercial sectors

9661 Space research and technology

97 NATIONAL SECURITY AND INTL. AFFAIRS

9711 National security

39
Table 16. NBS air flow measurement areas 4.2.3 Alternate Sources

Agency Impact Area

AEC Pollution

Navy studies, drag

reduction, noise

NOAA Meteorology,

FHwA loads on strucBureau of tures , mi ne Mines ventilation

Air Force Transonic and

supersonic wind

tunnel testing

Navy Drag reduction

NASA and noise

Work Area

Turbulence

Aerodynami c measurements

Compressible

flow

Incompressible flow

4.2.2.2 Users of NBS Gas and Liquid Metering

Services

Distributions of customers of flowrate

calibration services (for air, water and

liquid hydrocarbons) in FY 72 through FY 74 were as follows:

Industrial

Space, Aircraft engine 30 percent Instrument manufacturers 26 percent

Other 19 percent

Government (Army, NASA, 25 percent

HEW, Air Force and Navy)

The number of gas and liquid meters currently

calibrated is 90 per year, consisting mostly

of transfer reference meters for inter! aboratory flow measurement comparisons.

4.2.2.3 Users of NBS Water Flow Measurement

Services

Customers for water current meters calibrated 1n FY's 72 through 74 are distributed

as follows:

Water and Irrigation

Districts

Industry

Government

35 percent

30 percent

35 percent

Current meters impact upon both water sup- ply and waste water. Measurements of velocities of water flow are needed in streams and

1n Irrigation and wastewater systems to calibrate flowrate measurement stations or devices. The meters are also used to measure

the velocities of waste waters which enter

relatively static bodies including lakes,

reservoirs, estuaries and bays.

A large number of alternate sources for

calibration services comparable to those

provided by NBS are available. Laboratories

in table 9 that provide calibrations from

primary standards on a fee basis encompass

the bulk of these. In some cases, organizations with large calibration work loads have

found it practical to develop their own calibration facilities, as discussed in Section

4.3.3 for the USGS.

4.2.4 Funding Sources for NBS Services

Funds for fluid flow measurement programs

come from three sources:

•calibration fees

•direct appropriations

•other government agencies.

Calibrations are done on a reimbursable fee

basis. Other agency projects involve a number of constraints; basically the work must be relevant to national concerns and must meet the criteria set to establish that

it is within the scope of the NBS mission.

4.2.5 Mechanism for Supplying Services

Fluid flow measurement services are pro- vided through:

•calibrations

•publication of handbooks and guidebooks

for field measurements

•publication of research papers •correspondence with the flow measurement

community

•fluid flow conferences

•consultations.

These services are discussed in detail In Sections 4.2.1 and 4.4.

4.3 Impact of NBS Services

4.3.1 Economic Impact of Major User Classes

The major user classes of NBS flow mea- surement services are listed in Section

4.2.2. The economic impact of the private sector 1s indicated in the sales data pre- sented in Section 2.2.2.2.1 for industrial process flow and liquid level instruments.

It is evident from the variety and com- plexities of the instrumentation used in flow measurement that their use by government,

industry, and academia covers a large cross section of the nation's technology involving

40
goods, services, and research activities

amounting to billions of dollars. Government

agencies concerned with health, safety, power, fuel resources, water resources, weather

monitoring, pollution control , military and space programs, etc., as well as major seg- ments of industry sucn as the oil and gas Industry, power utilities, aerospace, heating

and ventilating, transportation, manufacturing and chemical processing, etc., are all concerned with the adequacy, accuracy and reliability of the various aspects of flow measurement. Not the least involved is the

public whose vital interest is directly

affected by the forementioned programs and

ranges from the gasoline they buy, to the heating of their homes, to the weather report

1n the morning paper. In addition, the

manufacturers of flow measurement instrumentation contribute in a major way to an area which at present has a favorable balance of

trade and depends on a quality product in order to maintain this balance.

4.3.2 Technological Impact of Services

Major technologies supported by NBS services and impacts therein are discussed in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.3.1

.

4.3.3 Pay -Off from Changes in NBS Services

A major change in NBS fluid flow calibration services occurred in 1964 when the U.S. Geological Survey undertook to develop its own calibration capability after it was en- couraged to do so by an NBS administrative

decision. This occurred when NBS moved to Gaithersburg, and was initiated by the large

work load of USGS in water current meter

calibrations. Calibrations for USGS were performed by NBS until 1969, at which time

the Fluid Meters Section moved to Gaithersburg. This work load comprised about 98% of

NBS water current meter calibrations at the time, and the shift emphasized that jobs of

that magnitude were more properly handled by

the user organization.

Similarly, the shift from a large towing

tank in Washington, D.C. for current meter

calibrations to a water tunnel in Gaithersburg reduced the NBS capability to calibrate and test large current meters used

1n oceanographic applications, but provided

greater flexibility for a variety of current meter Investigations.

The addition of the unsteady flow facility

1n aerodynamics increased the NBS capability

to respond to national needs associated with

these measurements.

4.4 Evaluation of NBS Program

The strength of the NBS fluid flow mea- surement program lies in the wide range of fluid mechanics and related expertise which

is available to back up that program. Weaknesses in the water flow measurement area are associated mainly with the size, or capacity, of facilities. Work cannot be done

in water at sufficiently high flowrates to fully assess scale effects. Also, closedcircuit flow facilities are not available for

investigating flow measurements in the presence of a solid phase or other additives,

or for study of chemical additive types of

flow measurement.

Needs for new or expanded fluid flow mea- surement services at NBS are identified by

establishing and maintaining contacts with

the user community. Mechanisms of contact

include facility visits, letters and telephone communications, and NBS flow measure- ment conferences. One such conference was held at NBS in 1974 and was instrumental in providing a common base for discussion of

user-supplier problems in fluid flow. Of the many problem areas covered, several can be used to identify pertinent follow-on activities 1n both the near-term and future. These

areas are listed in table 17 for air flows,

gas and liquid metering, and supply and waste water flows.

Fluid flow programs at NBS are reviewed

annually by a National Academy of SciencesNational Academy of Engineering-National Re- search Council evaluation panel. The

National Academy of Sciences, a private non- profit organization of scientists established

under a Congressional charter in 1863, is empowered by its charter to act as an adviser

to the federal government in scientific

matters. The National Research Council and the National Academy of Engineering share

this advisory responsibility with NAS. Panel members are selected by NAS-NAE-NRC from among leaders in research and administration

1n Industry and universities, and are charged

with reviewing and evaluating the functions

and operations of NBS. Specifically, they

consider importance and relative priority of projects, staff quality, equipment needs,

finance, and the relationship of programs to the NBS mission. Additionally, the panel

offers inputs of the anticipatory type on flow measurement needs and broad research and development needs, based primarily on their contact with the academic and industrial

communities. The evaluation panel does not,

however, represent every major user group in the three fluid flow areas covered by this

report.

41
Table 17. Activity areas Identified by 1974 NBS Flow Measurement Conference

A1r Flows

•Stack effluent flowrate measurements

•Accurate, simple and portable transfer

standard for calibration of anemometry

instruments

•Survey of response characteristics of new anemometry instruments

•Long-term unmanned operation of instrumentation systems used to measure winds on highway bridges

•Achieving higher sampling rates for air

flow measurements

Gas and Liquid Metering

•Calibration of power plant water flow meters at Reynolds numbers of 5 million

for application at Reynolds numbers in excess of 20 million

•National Reference System for flow mea- surement standards traceable to NBS and

reproducible between laboratories

•Flow laboratory certification to assure accuracy

•International legal and regulatory standards for exported instruments

•Standards coordinating group in the U.S.

to interface with comparable government

agencies abroad

•Measuring, not calculating, the accuracy of flow measurements

•Fully automated meter reading integrated

with electronic data processing in distribution gas flow measurements

•Large capacity gas flow meter proving

facilities

•Accuracy of measurements of leaks from

pipelines

•Approaching era of re-intensified coop- erative and participative efforts including meter manufacturers, calibration

and measurement services laboratories, and

NBS.

Supply and Waste Water Flows

•Improved accuracy of flowrate measurements

at point discharges

•Methods and practices of field measurements

•Evaluation of foreign matter degradation

of flow meters •Improvement in low velocity flow measure- ment accuracies

•Leadership by NBS in achieving and monitoring industry-wide flow meter performance standards

Facilities at NBS are currently adequate

for the most urgent of today's flow measure- ment needs, with the completion of the new facilities listed in Section 4.2. Needs that

require additional resources include:

•Large scale flows

•Multiphase flows

•Unsteady flows

•Flows of non-Newtonian fluids

•Electrically conducting fluid flow

•Capability for additives in self-contained

facilities

•Capability to test large current meters

•High velocity debris -filled flows.

Multiphase flow is an emerging technology,

particularly in hydraulic transport of solids

like coal and transport of solid waste and

sewage sludge. NBS currently has no program

or facilities to address this problem.

Priorities among users are assigned in the

direction of overriding need. For example,

in hydraulics, this need has been flow measurement for water pollution abatement and

related water resource needs. Service programs are monitored only by the evaluation

panel

.

NBS provides an essential service in identifying, evaluating, and disseminating

good measurement practices. Agencies such as EPA would find it increasingly difficult to operate wastewater discharge permit programs

if NBS discontinued its dissemination of

field measurement practices. It is feasible

for alternate sources to supply some services

now provided by NBS, particularly where NBS facility limitations restrict capabilities.

However, NBS can continue to serve as an expert but neutral third party, an approach

to measurement improvement becoming

increasingly important in view of the pervasive nature of regulatory requirements.

4.5 The Future

4.5.1 State-of-the-Art Advances

Advances are urgently needed in the state- of-the-art at NBS to develop a non-intrusive

flow reference device or system for pipe

flows, to remove important sources of am- biguities and uncertainties in the data for

head-type meters (orifices, nozzles, ven- tures, etc.) and to establish a rational

basis for flow measurement laboratories to demonstrate that their portion of the mea- surement system is within acceptable limits.

Advances are also needed in the state-of-the42
art at NBS to calibrate meters used in stack

flow measurement and sampling and for measuring flow rates associated with automotive

emissions and fuel rates under the severe environment of the automobile.

Improved field measurements of wastewater

flows are urgently needed by thousands of

industrial users to meet the requirements of

their discharge permits issued under the terms of the Water Pollution Control Act

Amendments of 1972.

There is an important need to characterize

the behavior of wind-speed measuring instruments in unsteady winds. Flow measurements

associated with unsteady flows will become

Increasingly important, for example, in problems associated with wind loads on structures, pollution monitoring, climatology,

etc. There is a significant deficiency in

the measurement of subsonic flows where com- pressible effects play a role, and in particular in the measurement of unsteady flows in this range. Such measurements are needed not only to obtain fundamental technical data but

are also sorely needed for the design and

construction of flow machinery that operates

1n this flow regime.

The dynamic characteristics of relatively

new types of commercial meters, e.g., electromagnetic, acoustic, vortex shedding, etc.,

which are receiving increasingly more use,

still await satisfactory evaluation. The

Interaction of such characteristics with the dynamic characteristics of the calibration

facilities also awaits clarification.

The present state-of-the-art of laser

velodmetry is adequate for NBS calibrations

at low velocities in both air and water. The

P1tot-static tube is an adequate calibration

standard at the higher velocities of air

flow.

Overall trends of the Fluid Flow Measurement System are discussed 1n Section 3/2, and

NBS services will help in the understanding

of the major problems of measurement that

arise.

4.5.2 Impacts of National Measurement System

Study to Date

Several accomplishments in fluid flow measurement at NBS throughout FY 73, FY 74,

and FY 75 are directly related to the

National Fluid Flow Measurement System Study.

These Include:

Preparation 1n July 1973 of an internal

report entitled "A Survey of Flow Measurements in Water Pollution Control," de- scribing a special effort to accomplish a contact survey to observe field work

firsthand in the measurement of flowrate

of water and wastewater and of low velocities of water at less than approximately 1 foot per second, with emphasis on

0.1 fps and lower velocities. This survey includes identifying problems encountered

in situ, present instrument and mea- surement capabilities, and accuracies

needed compared to accuracies attained.

The survey provides a direct means to establish and improve communications with

instrument users in the field.

NBS (Mechanics Division) sponsored a con- ference on "Flow Measurements as Related

to National Needs" in February, 1974. The

theme was practical flow measurements in the field and their relation to national

needs. Audiences of over 170 and invited

speakers represented views from industry

and trade associations, Government, regu- latory agencies, instrument manufacturers,

standards laboratories and users of

instruments.

"Wastewater Flow Measurement Interagency

Group Discussion of Standards and Methods

of Measurement" was hosted by the Me- chanics Division in June, 1974. This group of invited Federal hydraulic experts

identified for EPA the technically acceptable flow measuring instruments and practices for application in the field mea- surement of industrial wastewater

discharge flowrates.

A meeting was held in September, 1974 with

the Process Measurement and Control Sec- tion's Technical Committee 29, Fluid Me- ters Standards, Scientific Apparatus Manu- facturers Association, to discuss plans to establish a National Reference System for

Flow Measurement, traceable to NBS and

reproducible between institutional and commercial laboratories.

NBS participated in an inter! aboratory

comparison directed to reduction in the uncertainty of the discharge coefficients

for the orifice meter.

An analytical study of errors of flowrate measurement caused by departures from

"standard" conditions for Parshall and

other flumes was initiated.

43
Design was Initiated of a tilting openchannel test facility for evaluating openchannel flowrate measuring devices, and

for examining open-channel velocity tra- verse methods.

Evaluations were initiated, using a towing

tank, of the performance and error sources of meters used to measure low velocities

1n the field, examining, in particular,

their threshold velocities.

A guidebook to standards and methods for

the measurement of water flow was published in FY 75 (see Section 4.2.1.2 for a discussion of this item).

Initial experiments to ascertain the level of interlaboratory consistency in pipe

flow were designed and will be carried out

by NBS with four or five industrial

laboratories after more comprehensive ex- periments. These tests are expected to lead to one important part of a national

flow reference system.

Communications were Improved and expanded

between NBS, instrument users, manufacturers and regulatory authorities.

4.5.3 Ongoing and Expected Future Impacts of

National Measurement System Study

The MechaniC3 Division will initiate follow-on meetings and/or other activities as needed with the Wastewater Flow Measure- ment Interagency Group to assist EPA with

Its specific measurement problems and to benefit other measurement areas such as present and future voluntary national and

International standards.

Extend NBS calibration capability down to

10 fpm velocity in air.

Complete the evaluation of dynamic re- sponse of one of a class of meteorological anemometers

.

Establish NBS calibration service for dynamic response of windspeed measuring in- struments .

Evaluate the effects of flow turbulence on wind-speed measuring instruments and on water current meters.

Establish NBS capability for measurement

of liquid hydrocarbon flows at rates to 1500 gpm with uncertainty approaching

0.1%.

Conduct selected investigations to assist

industry to reduce the uncertainty of the discharge coefficient and expansion factor

for the orifice meter and in addition,

provide a better determination of the

functional relations of coefficient vs Reynolds Number for extrapolation to a high Reynolds Number.

Bring on-line a high performance water

tunnel to be used for improvements in the

state-of-the-art of low velocity measurements, and establish a low velocity ref- erence flow in its test section.

Complete the design and construct the

tilting open-channel test facility.

Complete the analytical and experimental

evaluation of errors in fabrication, in- stallation and field use of flow measuring

flumes.

Comp 1 ete the evaluation of the performance

of selected hydrographic current meters at very low velocities.

Establish guidelines for velocity-area

traversing of small artificial open con- duits with current meters.

Evaluate characteristics of part-full flow

in circular conduits for application to sewer flow measurements.

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The science of Fluid Mechanics from which

the National Fluid Flow Measurement System

originated has been in development for over 2,000 years. Over the centuries, mathematicians, physicists, engineers, and natural

philosophers have contributed to a firm and

mathematically definitive understanding of

fluid flow phenomena, from flows of water in irrigation and water supply channels to hypersonic flows around spacecraft bodies.

Despite this extensive technological base,

fluid flow measurements today constitute a constantly changing field. More sophisticated metering devices are being developed that

utilize rapidly emerging technologies, such

as laser velocimetry, ultrasonic flow meters,

and electromagnetic flow meters. Applications arise where existing metrology will not suffice 1n a new environment, as in the case of liquid metals being used as a cooling

medium, heat transfer agent, or working fluid

in nuclear power devices. This brings about

a need for development of methods and instru44
mentation to make reliable measurements of

such flows. Finally, more stringent federal

regulatory standards increase the requirements for accuracy, reliability, and consistency of flow measurements in ranges that are not adequately handled today.

Advancing technology and changing need for

procedural standards supplies the impetus for

a number of improvements within the National

Fluid Flow Measurement System. In particular, an operational scheme including refer- ence standards for fluid flow measurement

that would constitute a national reference

system do not exist. The need for such a system was emphasized at the 1974 NBS Flow Measurement Conference, and it is being

actively promoted by the Process Measurement

and Control Section's Fluid Meters Standards

Committee of SAMA. The need for a reference

system of this type is underscored by (a)

discrepancies in flow calibration results,

(b) the loss of U.S. technical stature in not having an agency comparable to existing flow measurement centers abroad, such as NEL in England and PTB in Germany, (c) duplication

of measurement efforts , (d) the lack of a technical "third-party" to arbitrate discrepancies in measurement, and (e) the lack of

facility certification.

Over the years, a system has evolved that

serves as the national standard for fluid

flow. At the center of this system, NBS is the central standards authority serving the

entire domestic flow measurement community.

NBS has a collection of facilities capable of

generating a wide variety of reproducible

reference conditions in flows of air, water,

and liquid hydrocarbons. These facilities

have been tested and evaluated over many

years, and through comparison with comparable

systems elsewhere have been determined to operate within well-defined limits of absolute accuracy. Supplementing this capability, the U.S. fluid flow measurement in- dustry, has developed its own sets of flow

facilities and documentary specifications for

practical flow measurements. These include

SAE air-speed measurement standards used by the FAA, AGA-ASME orifice coefficient tables

1n use by the natural gas and petroleum

Industry, published discharge data values

used for measuring irrigation and wastewater

flows, and many others. Presently, the lack

of coherence of this measurement system and

the low levels of interactions between the centers of measurement competence and measurement users has resulted in a considerably

less than optimal fluid flow measurement

system.

Instrument calibrations provide an essential service needed to satisfy requirements

for accuracy and consistency of measurements.

In general, all flow measurement instruments

in use today require some form of calibration. This may be achieved through satisfaction of geometrical requirements in construction of the meter; through comparison

of the instrument's output against a known set of input conditions related to fundamental units of mass, length, time, and

temperature; or through comparison of the

instrument's performance to a primary

standard. In connection with the latter case, NBS presently uses an appropriately designed

Pi tot-static tube for a primary standard for

calibration of wind-speed measuring in- struments. However, there is a need to pro- vide a very low velocity calibration capability. Also, calibration capability for

dynamic response of wind speed measuring

instruments is needed at NBS.

Errors in measurements can significantly

alter the cost-benefit relationship for fluid

flows, and in some cases produce large

economic inequities. For example, orifice

meters, among the most commonly used meter to measure pipeline flows, have uncertainties in the published values of their discharge

coefficients ranging up to approximately 2% for water or liquids and up to 3% for gas.

Sales of industrial process flow and liquid level instruments have grown from $67.2

million in 1963 to $123.8 million in 1973. Similarly, business outside of the U.S. 1s rapidly expanding in fluid flow meters, and

U.S. manufacturers of meters are engaged in aggressive programs to increase their sales

abroad. Along with the growth of U.S. exports there is some increase of imports of meters into the U.S. SAMA estimates that 25%

of total flow meters and instrumentation sold

by the industry are sold abroad, and that

export sales exceed imports by more than 4 to

1. More importantly, flow meters and

instruments provide leverage for export sales

of associated Information and control systems

valued at two to three times the flow measurement products.

It is evident from the variety and com- plexities of the instrumentation used in flow measurement that their use by government,

industry, and academia covers a large cross section of the nation's technology involving

goods, services, and research activities

amounting to billions of dollars. Government

agencies concerned with health, safety, power, fuel resources, water resources, wea45
ther monitoring, pollution control, military

and space programs, etc., as well as major

segments of industry such as the oil and gas industry, power utilities, aerospace, heating

and ventilating, transportation, manufacturing, chemical processing, etc., are all con- cerned with the adequacy, accuracy and reliability of the various aspects of flow measurement. The trend of increasing material

and operating costs in fluid flow is forcing

greater investments to be made in both in- creased accuracy and managing and controlling

of fluid flow.

In both the very small and the very large

rates of flow the scene is a constantly

changing one of new dimensions, and new measurement capability is needed for both gas and liquid flow. For example, the automotive

industry is now targeting for fuel flows in calibrations at approximately 0.01 lbm/min

with ±0.2% accuracy of readings and striving

for even smaller rates with improved

accuracy. Primary metering devices are becoming increasingly sophisticated and their

basic accuracy of measurement is the cutting

edge of improvements in the state-of-the-art

and 1n advancements of technologies of measurement. Automation of fluid flow measurements is already widespread in cases where a high volume of meters must be monitored or where highly automated process

control phenomena are encountered. Sewage treatment plants are becoming increasingly

more automated as more complex process flow

scheduling is required for multistage

treatment of waste.

Faced with limited natural resources, im- provements in accuracies of field measurements of fluid flows are urgently needed.

Competition between power generation utilities, industrial users, and agricultural water suppliers has significantly amplified

the need for accountability of fresh water

supplies. Wastewater flowrate measurements presently being made under field conditions

range from good to deplorable. Implementation of regulations such as the Water

Pollution Contract Act Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) require upgrading of many

of these measurements.

The NBS fluid flow measurement program is actively addressing many of the pressing

problems in fluid mechanics today. Some of

these activities were posed by the 1974 NBS Conference on Flow Measurements as Related to National Needs, capabilities are being ex- tended to cover flow ranges and conditions

emphasized in regulatory acts, error sources

in field measurements of wastewater flows are being identified and evaluated, meter per- formance data is being evaluated for improved measurement accuracies, and good field measurement practices are being published and

propagated through conferences and personal contacts

.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to recognize the participation in this study of Mr. Philip R. Compton, formerly of the Mechanics Division

at NBS, who served as coordinator from June

1973 to November 1974. The background

research performed by Mr. Compton and the

contributions that he made are gratefully

acknowledged.

46
APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

The National Fluid Flow Measurement System

Study used a mechanism of contacts as the

principal data gathering tool. These contacts, more than 200 in number, included

trade associations, government (Federal,

state, and local) agencies, private com- panies, universities and laboratories. Contact media included letters, telephone con- versations, and facility visits, all directed

toward learning the interests, views, and

contributions of persons engaged in conducting fluid flow measurements. A partial

11st of the organizations contacted can be found 1n table Al . The time schedule of the study and the logic flow used is shown

diagrammatically in figure Al

.

An additional data gathering tool was the sponsoring by the Mechanics Division of a Conference on Flow Measurements as Related to National Needs in February 1974. Information

gathered as a result of this conference and needs of the system subsequently uncovered

are presented in the report.

D-i

Drganize & analyze

first data - identify gaps. Complete, 12/31/74

NBS Programming

Oral Progress Report, 7/30/73

Continue contacts to gather data

NBS Flow Measurement

Conference, 2/26,27,28/74

Compl ete

Data Bank 12/31/74

Construct structural model

Evaluate adequacy of model

Identify measurement

probl ems

Forecasts of new requirements

Identify actions

to improve system

Final

Report,

12/75

Planning NBS program of: new flow measurement standards and methods;

evaluating and optimizing existing technoloqies and devices; and

improved measurement and calibration services (including in-place measurements )

.

Up-dating

annually

6/29/73 I 1974 I 1975

Figure Al . Time schedule of fluid flow measurement system study

47
Table Al . Contacts made in conduct of

fluid flow measurement system study

1. Summary of Number of Contacts

Asso- Gov- Pri vate Univercia- ern- Companies sities Total

tions ments

Letters 22 5 35 2 64

Tel cons 12 38 42 11 103 Visits _8 16 13 _3 40

Total 42 59 90 16 207

2. Organizations Contacted (Partial List)

U.S. Government

AEC, Argonne National Laboratory

AEC, Directorate of Licensing

AEC, Site and Health Standards

Agriculture Department, Agricultural Research

Service

Agriculture Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Army Department, Corps of Engineers, Coastal

Eng. Res. Ctr. Army Department, Corps of Engineers, North

Atlantic Div. Army Department, Corps of Engineers, Waterways Exp. Sta. Commerce Department, Census Bureau Commerce Department, Domestic Commerce Bureau Commerce Department, NOAA, Lake Survey

EPA, Air Quality Office, Durham, North Carolina

EPA, Air Quality Office, Ann Arbor, Michigan

EPA, Monitoring Office, Headquarters, D. C. EPA, National Environmental Research Center,

North Carolina

EPA, National Environmental Research Center,

Ohio

EPA, Region VII, Kansas City, Kansas

EPA, Research and Monitoring Office, Applied

Science and Technology Division

EPA, Research and Monitoring Office, Municipal Technology Branch

EPA, Water Quality Office, Combined Sewer and Stormwater Pollution Branch

EPA, Water Quality Office, Construction

Grants Division

EPA, Water Quality Office, Municipal Waste Water Systems Division

EPA, Water Quality Office, Process Optimization Branch

EPA, Water Quality Research Laboratory,

Edison, New Jersey

GSA, Transportation and Communications Service

HEW Department, National Institute for

Occupational Safety and Health

ICC, Enforcement Bureau Interior Department, Bureau of Mines

Interior Department, Bureau of Reclamation

Interior Department, U.S. Geological Survey - Tampa

Interior Department, U.S. Geological Survey- Water Resources Division

Labor Department, Office of Safety and Health

Administration

National Science Foundation, Project RANN,

Environmental Systems and Resources Program

Navy Department, Facilities Engineering

Command

Navy Department, Pensacola Naval Air Station

NOAA, National Oceanographic Instrumentation

Center Transportation Department, Federal Highway

Administration

TVA, Hydraulics Laboratory

State Governments California Department of Fish and Game California State Department of Water

Resources Colorado State Engineer Office

Delaware Office of Weights and Measures

Idaho Dept. of Water Administration

Maryland Office of Weights and Measures

Maryland State Department of Water Resources Maryland State Public Service Commission,

Engineering Department

Nebraska Central Public Power and Irrigation

District

Pennsylvania Office of Weights and Measures

Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences,

Dept. cf Physical Oceanography and Hydraulics

Virginia State Water Control Board, Bureau of

Surveillance and Field Studies

Local Governments

Dallas Water Utilities

District of Columbia, Department of Environmental Services

Fairfax County, Virginia, Lower Potomac Water

Pollution Control and Treatment Plant

Manassas, Virginia, Occoquan Sewer Authority

Milwaukee Sewerage Commission

Montgomery County EPA Potomac River Basin Commission

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission

Private Companies

American Chain and Cable Co., Bristol Div.

American Electric Power Service Group

American Meter Company

A. 0. Smith Meter Company

Arthur Brothers Company, Incorporated

Bacharach Instruments Company

Badger Meter Company

Bailey Meter Company

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company

Bendix Environmental Sciences Div.

Bethlehem Steel Corp., Sparrows Point

B-I-F Company

48
Bostwick Irrigation District, Kansas

Brandt Industries

Columbia Research Corp.

Consolidated Edison Company

Cummins Engine Company

Daniel Industries, Incorporated

Davis Instrument Manufacturing Company, Inc. DuPont Company, Engineering Center

Duke Power Company

El Paso Natural Gas Company

EG&G Corp.

Environmental Services Corp.

Fischer and Porter Company

Florida Power and Light Company

Ford Motor Company, Fuel Systems Laboratory

Fresno Irrigation District

Friendswood Development Corp., Bayport, Tex.

F. B. Leopold Co. Gamon/Celment Industries

General Motors Corporation, Fluid Dynamics

Laboratory

General Motors Corporation, Proving Grounds

General Oceanics, Inc. Helle Engrg. Co. Hersey-Sparl ing Meter Company

Holley Carburetor Company

Hydrospace-Challenger

Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories, Inc. Kahl Scientific Corporation

Kappe Associates

Katy Industries

Leupold and Stevens, Incorporated

Limnetics, Inc. Liquid Controls Corporation

Marsh-McBirney Co. Mead Instruments Co. NB Products

Owens-Illinois Co. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Potomac Electric Power Company

Rockwell International Corporation, Gas Products and Water Meter Products

San Diego Gas and Electric Company

Southern California Gas Co. "Taylor Instruments Process Control Division,

Sybron Corporation

Teledyne Gurley Co. The Foxboro Company

Union Carbide Corporation, Technical Center

Associations

American Gas Association

American Petroleum Institute

ASME Research Committee on Fluid Meters

Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association

Instrument Society of America

SAE Carburetor Flow Study Group

Scientific Apparatus Makers Association

U.S.A. Committee for International Standards

Organization, Technical Committee 30 Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers

Assoc.

Water Pollution Control Federation, Technical

Services

Universities

Cornell University, Civil Engineering Dept.

Georgia Institute of Technology, Hydraulics

Engineering

Michigan State University, Engineering Dept.

The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics

Laboratory

The Johns Hopkins University, The Chesapeake

Bay Institute

University of California, San Diego, Dept.

of Applied Mechanics and Engineering

Sciences

University of Cincinnati, Civil Eng. Dept.

University of Illinois, Civil Eng. Dept.

University of Michigan, Great Lakes Research

Division

University of Missouri, Civil Eng. Dept.

University of Wisconsin - Extension, Dept.

of Engineering

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Center for Environmental Studies West Virginia University, Department of Electrical Engineering Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Alden

Research Laboratory

Other

Canada Centre for Inland Waters
APPENDIX B. HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS

B.l History of the Aerodynamics Section

by Dr. G. B. Schubauer, March 1956

(Previously unpublished)

Soon after the United States entered World

War I, the Navy requested the Bureau to design and build an aerodynamic balance. Dr. Lyman J. Briggs, who had just arrived on duty

at the Bureau on loan from the Department of

Agriculture, was assigned this task by the Director, Dr. S. W. Stratton. After the

balance was completed, it was decided to keep

1t at the Bureau and to build a wind tunnel

to go with it. Accordingly, Dr. Briggs' next assignment was to design and supervise the

construction of a wind tunnel. In this he was assisted by Mr. Roy H. Heald who was working with Dr. Briggs in the Department of

Agriculture, and who like Dr. Briggs was assigned to the Bureau on war work. Thus

early in 1918 the Bureau got its first wind

tunnel, located in what is now known as the

South Wind Tunnel Building, No. 19. At that

time there were only two other wind tunnels

1n the United States, one at the Navy Yard in Washington, D. C, operated by Dr. A. F. Zahm, and the other in Dayton, Ohio,

belonging to the Wright Brothers.

The Bureau's tunnel was of the venturi

type with room return and had a test section

1n the shape of a regular octagon 4-1/2 feet

between opposite faces. It was powered by a 75 h.p. electric motor and could attain a speed of 80 miles per hour. The first

Investigations consisted of measuring the

characteristics of airfoil sections used on planes in this country and also those copied

from captured German planes. The staff

consisted mainly of Dr. Briggs and Mr. Heald

and later in 1918 included Dr. H. L. Dryden,

who transferred to wind tunnel work from the Gage Section at the request of Dr. Briggs.

In 1919 Dr. Briggs had to make a decision

as to whether to stay at the Bureau or return

to the Department of Agriculture. He was Induced by Dr. Stratton to remain at the Bureau to organize and head a new Division of

Mechanics and Sound in which the wind tunnel group was to be set up as a section along

with the Engineering Mechanics Section,

Mechanical Instruments Section, Aeronautical

Instruments Section, and Sound Section. The new section was called the Aerodynamical

Physics Section, which name was retained

until 1942 when the name was changed to Aerodynamics Section. Dr. Briggs was chief

of the Section as well as of the Division

until 1924, when Dr. Dryden was appointed

chief of the Section.

In 1921, a 3-foot diameter wind tunnel was constructed on the second floor of the North West Building. This tunnel was later moved

to the east end of the basement of the Industrial Building. The tunnel was powered by a 100 h.p. motor and could reach a speed of 180 miles per hour. In 1923 a 10-foot open-air

tunnel was constructed on the north side of

Van Ness Street. It was powered by a 200

h.p. motor and could reach a speed of 70 miles per hour. These constituted the principal facilities of the Section until

1938 when the original 4 1/2-foot tunnel was replaced by a return-circuit tunnel of the same size and power. This tunnel is now called the South Wind Tunnel.

Following World War I and continuing until 1926 the 4 1/2-foot and 3-foot tunnels were

used principally for the investigation of

speed measuring instruments and measurements

of wind forces and moments on models of

bombs. The 10-foot tunnel was first used for

measuring yawing and rolling moments produced

by rudders and ailerons in a study of sta- bility and control of airplanes. Later, and

continuing until 1931, the tunnel was used to investigate wind pressure on buildings and

chimneys.

About 1922 investigations were begun into

the factors affecting the validity of windtunnel measurements. Measurements in diff- erent wind tunnels in this country and abroad

showed large differences in the drag of such

objects as spheres and models of airship

hulls. A year or so later the first attempts

were made at the Bureau and in Holland to measure air turbulence by means of the hotwire anemometer. Through such measurements

it became possible to attribute the differences in drag to the turbulence of the air

stream. Turbulence was found to affect the flow very close to the surface of a body in a region known as the boundary layer. This

marked the beginning of basic research on turbulence and boundary layer flow which has continued to the present time. From 1925 on, the Section engaged in a steady development

of hot-wire equipment for measuring turbulence in terms of velocity fluctuations, and

the calibration of secondary devices such as spheres and cylinders. Along with this,

studies were made of sources of wind-tunnel

turbulence and means of reducing turbulence,

and on effects of stream turbulence on transition from laminar flow to turbulent

flow in boundary layers.

During the latter par^of the 1920's investigations of airfoil characteristics at

high speed were conducted using the jet of

air from a 2-inch nozzle. Speeds up to and

50
slightly exceeding the velocity of sound

could be obtained. The equipment was located

1n the northeast end of the basement of the

Industrial Building and in a small frame structure called the "High-Speed House" near

the northeast corner of the Industrial

Building. This was the first work on airfoils at high speeds to be done in this

country.

The Section pioneered in a number of in- vestigations and developments, some contributing directly to progress in aeronautics,

and others opening new avenues of research.

Up to the beginning of World War II such

works included the high speed work on airfoils, development of apparatus for measuring

turbulence and discovery of the importance of

turbulence in aerodynamics, experimental

verification of the laws of instability of

laminar flow, demonstration of the effectiveness of damping screens for the reduction of

turbulence, and measurements of decay of

Isotropic turbulence produced by grids.

Other major projects, illustrating the

variety of work undertaken in the section up to World War II, are: Comparative tests of

roof ventilators, early development of

mufflers for aircraft, attempts to produce

crash-proof gasoline tanks, investigation of

engine fires and extinguishing systems,

Investigation of fatigue failure of aircraft

propellers, stuiy of thrust augmentors for

jet propulsion, studies of the effectiveness

of streamlining automobiles and locomotives, measurement of the characteristics of

propeller-type fans, and determination of

wind loads on buildings.

With the beginning of World War II all members of the Section went to work either on guided missiles or on wind tunnel investigations of bombs and projectiles. The

first models of guided missiles developed at

the Bureau were constructed in the South Wind

Tunnel Building by members of the staff.

This work was later placed in a separate

section, but the wind tunnel work on bombs

and projectiles continued.

The requests for wind tunnel measurements

on bombs and finned projectiles increased to such proportion that it became apparent that more adequate facilities were needed.

Accordingly $110,000 was appropriated by

Congress in 1943 for the construction of a 6- foot wind tunnel (now known as the North Wind

Tunnel, Building No. 73). Construction began

1n October 1943 and the tunnel was put into

operation in 1945. This tunnel is powered by

a 750 h.p. motor and reaches a speed of 190 miles per hour.

Following World War II renewed emphasis

was placed on fundamental research on turbulence and boundary-layer flow. However,

investigations of aerodynamic characteristics

of missiles for the Armed Forces continued to be the principal activity in the North Wind

Tunnel

.

A Supersonic Wind Tunnel for speeds up to twice the speed of sound was acquired with

the help of the National Advisory Committee

for Aeronautics in September of 1950. On October 1, 1953 the Aerodynamics Section was combined with the Hydraulics Section to form

the present Fluid Mechanics Section.

Summary History of Facilities:

South Wind Tunnel Building (No. 19) with

original tunnel occupied early in 1918,

original tunnel replaced with return circuit tunnel in 1938.

Three-foot Wind Tunnel constructed in 1921, first located on second floor of

North West Building (No. 7), later removed

to east end of basement of Industrial

Building (No. 11), demolished in 1942.

Ten-foot Open-air Wind Tunnel constructed

in 1923, located on north side of Van Ness Street, demolished in 1948.

North Wind Tunnel (No. 73) construction

began 1n 1943, in operation from 1945 to present.

Supersonic Wind Tunnel, located in Hangar

Building (No. 76), construction began in 1950 but not in operating condition until 1953; in operation from 1953 to present.

B.2 Comments on Fluid Metering Events Preceding and Following the Organization

of the ASME Research Committee on Fluid Meters Given at the Committee luncheon, in Detroit,

Mich., November 14, 1973, by Howard S. Bean

1. Need for the Metering of Natural Gas and Development of the Orifice Meter

While natural fuel gas has been known,

used and wasted in this country for over 200 years, the metering of it in a transmission

pipe line is relatively recent. Sometime

51
about 1890 (exact date not verified) Prof.

Robinson of Ohio State University, built and

installed a P1tot-tube meter in a pipe line

to some town 1n Ohio. My recollection of the account of this, is he used a section of 3- 1nch brass pipe placing an impact tip at about one-fourth the tube length from the outlet end, and a static pressure wall tap

located probably in or preceding the plane of

the Impact tip opening. Later other Pitot

tube metering units were made, some of which were known as the Towl-type and others were referred to as the Oliphant Pitot tubes.

In 1904 Thomas Weymouth started a program

of tests on orifice meters. He mounted his

orifice plates between flanges, the flange

sections of which were much thicker than the

usual pipe flange. This enabled him to place

his pressure holes in the flanges, at a distance of one inch each side of the plate. From talking with him later, it is my recollection a 4-inch pipe was used in these

tests. He did not finish his test program

until 1911 or later. At the annual ASME meeting in 1912 he presented a paper on the

Metering of Natural Gas, but in that paper he did not give one bit of information about his

orifice tests. The reason, I learned from

him later, before that paper was either

written or at least presented, he had sold

his data to the Foxboro Company with all rights to its use, and he had become a consultant to th=»t company. So it was that

1n 1921 Foxboro published their book The

Orifice Meter and Gas Measurement by Brown

and Hall. In this they give a curve, called

the E-curve, of orifice efficiencies (i.e.,

coefficients) based on results of Weymouth's

tests.

Later, I learned that some time between

1910 and 1920, one or two men 1n Pittsburgh,

who apparently knew about Weymouth's test work, ran some tests on orifice meters. They

also located their pressure taps at 1 inch

each side of the orifice plate. However,

whereas Weymouth had taken his static

pressure from the outlet pressure tap, the

inlet pressure tap was used at Pittsburgh.

There was never any written report made of

these tests, but the information I was given

was that the results seemed to check with

Weymouth's.

So thus we have, so far as I know, the

origin of "Flange Taps."

Sometime about 1907, Professor Judd at Ohio State University made some calibrations

of orifice meters for Mr. E. C. Bailey, owner

of the Bailey Meter Company. In these tests Professor Judd located his high pressure tap

at 1 pipe diameter preceding the orifice

plate, and the low pressure tap at the vena contracta on the outlet side. Whether this was the first use of "Vena Contracta Taps"

with an orifice is uncertain. In 1933 Professor Tuve and Ray Sprenkle had a paper

in Instruments on the metering of viscous

fluids with an orifice meter. In the tests they report on, vena contracta taps were

used.

At the annual ASME meeting in December

1915, E. 0. Hickstein gave a paper on "The Flow of Air through Thin Plate Orifices."

The tests he reported on had been made at Joplin, Mo., with a gas holder as the reference measurement. Based on some work

reported from Charlottenb.urg, Germany,

Hickstein located his pressure taps at 2-1/2

pipe diameters preceding and 8 pipe diameters

following the orifice plate. This gives the origin (at least in the U.S.) of "Pipe Taps."

I do not know to what extent, if any, the Metric Metal Works, a gas meter company, helped Hickstein with his tests, but they

used his results extensively, later.

It is interesting to note that by 1921 there was the Foxboro Company promoting

Weymouth's flange taps, the Bailey Meter Company preferring Judd's vena contracta

taps, and the Metric Metal Works (later a part of American Meter Company) with

Hickstein's pipe taps.

2. NBS Inspections of Orifice Meters Used

for Custody Transfer of Gas

In 1919 Mr. S. S. Wyer, a consulting

engineer of Columbus, Ohio, became concerned

about the accuracy of town border meters and

fuel gas leakage in the lines to towns in Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri around Joplin,

Mo. Seems to me he had some connection at that time with a governmental agency on fuels. On the basis of that connection he went to the National Bureau of Standards and arranged for two men to go to Joplin and inspect the town border meters in the area. This inspection was made during the winter of

1919-1920 by M. H. Stillman (inventor of "A Portable Cubic-Foot Standard for Gas") and B. C. Page. Whether there was any improvement

1n town border meter accuracies and a decrease 1n gas leakage as a result of that

work I never learned.

Along about June 1921 Mr. Wyer again went

to the Bureau, this time as a consultant to the Lone Star Gas Company of Dallas, Texas. This time his request was for the Bureau to send men to check the town border meters of

that company. I had succeeded Mr. Stillman

52
the first of July 1920, so it became my job

to go, taking Ben Page. All we could do was

to check the recording gages, using a test

gage or a deadweight gage for the static, and

a water or mercury manometer for the

differential, measure the diameters of the

orifice plates, and to suggest the coefficient to be used based on the Foxboro

"E-curve" of which we had a copy. This was

no more than the gas company men could do themselves, it was not satisfactory to us, and it was made very plain to me it was not satisfactory to E. F. Schmidt, chief engineer

of Lone Star Gas. But we had no data of our

own to use or go by. So when we got back to

the Bureau in my report to my division chief,

I reconnended that we should undertake a full scale study of orifice meters. Nothing came from that recommendation.

For some time, I do not know how long, Homer Pierce, an employee of the U.S. Indian

Agency, had been in charge of the collection

of royalties from gas wells in the Osage

Indian Nation, in Oklahoma. Believing he should have official data for the measurements, he went to the Bureau of Mines office

in Bartlesville, Ok., and asked them to provide him such data. It being a measuring

(metering) problem the B of M staff

considered the request should be referrea to NBS. So 1t was that in September 1921, R. A. Cattell came to the Bureau from Bartlesville

to transmit the request by Pierce, and in which the B of M concurred. Since I was in charge of gas metering Cattell was directed

to me. (Incidentally, Cattell and I had been

classmates at the University of California

although we had not seen each other for over

5 years.)

3. NBS Study of Orifice Meters

Years later Cattell claimed he had not

said 1f the NBS did not undertake a study of orifice meters the Bureau of Mines would.

But 1f he did not say so directly he came near enough for me to report the request from

Cattell that way to my division chief. My

division chief took the matter up with the Director, Dr. S. W. Stratton. It was well known that Stratton was very vigilant

concerning the prerogatives of the NBS in all fields of measurements. It was for that

reason I had told my chief if the NBS did

not, the Bureau of Mines would have to. It worked. The Director allocated $2,000 to start the job with the stipulation that Dr. Edgar Buckingham must be associated with the program. My chief remonstrated that gas measurement was Mr. Bean's responsibility and not Dr. Buckingham's. Dr. Stratton answered

that by underlining that Buckingham be

associated with the program. So that was that.

I am going to digress here to pay tribute

to the late Dr. Buckingham. He had the remarkable ability to get more out of a set

of data, even poor data, than anyone at the

NBS. He had an unusual command of the English language, and could explain problems

in a way that was easy to follow and understand. No matter what he might be working on

he was always willing to give assistance and

advice to others as well as myself. For 18 years he advised and assisted me on the

several programs I was involved with after

the first, and my regard and admiration for

him increased throughout those years. I can join another former member of the Bureau staff in saying that our associations with

Edgar Buckingham were more helpful than any graduate course we could have taken.

3.1 Tests of Orifice Meters at Edgewood

Arsenal

Following allocation of the $2,000 starting fund I began looking up what could be found in the literature. Then early in 1922 set out on a trip to visit manufacturers and users of orifice meters. Those visited were

Mr. Weymouth, Oil City, Pa.; Mr. Bailey,

Bailey Meter Company, Cleveland; Mr. Jacob

Spitzglass, Republic Flow Meter Company,

Chicago, Professor Judd at 0SU, Columbus; and

Mr. T. H. Kerr of Ohio Fuel Gas Company In the meantime Dr. Buckingham had learned of some facilities at Edgewood Arsenal which the Chemical Warfare (War Department) would be

glad to let us use. After a trip to Edgewood

Arsenal I began laying out a test line and planning a program. By the end of September

1922 we were ready to make a few shake-down

runs

.

Learning that the Natural Gas Association

of America was to hold meetings in Atlantic

City, in October, I went to see if they could

give us some suggestions for the program. Getting a chance to meet with Mr. H. C. Cooper, chairman of the committee on measurements and research, and Mr. Wm. Way,

association secretary, I explained the Bureau's program and why undertaken. I then asked what conditions we should cover that

the results might be useful to the natural

gas industry. Mr. Way looked at me and said

"Mr. Bean, if you want to know we would like

to have the Bureau stay out of the gas metering business." So that ended the meeting.

The program at Edgewood continued through

'23, '24 and was terminated in '25. A full

53
description of the program and the results is given in NBS Research Paper 49 issued in 1929. Copies are on file in the libraries of most universities, many public and company

libraries, as are many such publications.

3.2 Tests of Orifice Meters at Peoples Gas Light & Coke Company, Chicago

At the Atlantic City meeting of the American Gas Association (the manufactured

gas industry) in October 1923, Mr. M. E. Benesh, Peoples Gas Light & Coke Company,

Chicago, was appointed chairman of a committee on the measurement of large volumes

of gas. On his way back to Chicago he called

at the Bureau and asked for a conference with

the Director and others including myself. He outlined a very extensive program that he proposed to conduct, and asked for Bureau assistance and cooperation, including having

a member from the Bureau take part in the test work. So it was that I spent some 7 months of 1924 in Chicago. The tests were

made at what had been a gas making plant.

The test line was assembled in the ground

floor of the station meter house, and

Included an orifice meter in a 24-inch pipe,

a rotary displacement meter, a Venturi tube,

a Thomas electric gas meter, and one of the

stations rotating drum wet gas meters, the

loop to this last could be blanked off.

There were 14 orifice plates available,

diameter ratios from 0.22 to 0.89. Calibration tests of the 4 lowest ratios,

0.22 to 0.55, and the Venturi tube were made

using the upper lift of a large gas holder as the reference and source of water saturated

air. Tests of the other meters were made by

1ntercompar1son. Pressure gradient measurements were made from 2-1/2 pipe

diameters upstream to 6 downstream on 10 of

the orifices, diameter ratios 0.22 to 0.77. These pressure gradient values are probably

the most useful of the entire program. Unfortunately it was not until July 1931 that

a complete report of the program was issued

1n NBS Research Paper 335.

3.3 Miscellaneous Orifice Research

In the summer of 1925 the Natural Gas Association set up piping to calibrate

several orifices in 8- and 10-inch pipes.

The tests were to be made with gas which

could be discharged into a small covered

holder located in Cleveland. The Bureau had

been asked to take part in the tests, which

accounted for my being there. The results of

this program were not published separately.

In 1926 the Natural Gas Association

Research Committee started their program on the effects of installation conditions. The

location was the Daly meter and regulator

station of the Iroquois Gas Corporation, at the south edge of Buffalo. The Bureau was again asked to assist in the program. The

work was continued into the fall, and then

suspended until late spring of 1927.

Sometime during the winter period the same

two men, who at Atlantic City in 1922 had

said they wanted the Bureau to stay out of

the gas measurement field, went to the

Director of the Bureau and asked if Mr. Bean,

as a member of the Bureau staff, could

supervise their test program. The Director

agreed.

3.4 Measurement of Compressible Fluids with

the Orifice

During the years since Bureau men first

went to inspect town border meters the pressures in gas pipe lines had been

increasing. Many of the orifice meter

stations were now operating under these

higher pressures. Some of us realized that

using the simple Boyle's law relation in the

computations could lead to appreciable

differences in the measurements at two stations operating under different pressures,

even if there were no leakage between them.

It was decided to make some tests that would

show the need for taking account of the true compressibility of fuel gas. Following a design suggested by Dr. Buckingham, an apparatus for determining the compressibility

of a gas was constructed, and in the summer of 1928 a few tests were made at the Daly

station. However, the maximum line pressure available there was relatively low, possibly

a little over 100 psig. So a part of the test line was moved to Hastings, W. Va. where

pressures of 200 to 250 psig were available.

Having heard of a gas field in California

that was reported to be almost pure methane,

I wrote to Mr. Wm. Moller, then Chief

Engineer of Southern California Gas Company,

to ask if some tests could be arranged in that field. He thought such might be arranged and I made a trip there to see. I obtained approval from the Bureau to do some winter computing in California, with the

understanding the desired tests would be made

in the spring. Following a trip to the Buttonwillow field near Taft, California, a test line was assembled and a series of tests made during April and May '29. The gas well from which gas was drawn had a well head

pressure of about 1000 psig. A 4-inch

orifice meter run was connected to the well head valve. The 4-inch meter discharged

through two control valves in series, and

then to two parallel 8-inch reference orifice

meters. Since there was neither a gas line

54
nor compressor plant in the immediate area,

the gas was vented from stacks. In the tests

that were run the maximum static pressure in the 4-inch meter was about 600 psig. One

reason for not going to a higher pressure was

to keep the static pressure in the 8-inch

reference meters below 30 and desirably below

15 psig. At the conclusion of the tests an evacuated gas cylinder was charged up to the

well head pressure and taken to the Taft

laboratory of the Standard Oil of California

where determinations were made of the

compressibility of the gas from that well.

In reporting the results of the Button- willow tests, and showing how the actual

compressibility, when applied to the high pressure test meter computations brought the computations into agreement with those of the

low pressure reference meters, I used the term "supercompressibility." This was done

to emphasize that at the higher pressure the

gas volume was less, that it was compressed

more than the familiar Boyle's law would

Indicate. The term served the desired

purpose and was used for some time, but of

late the "super" part is disappearing slowly.

The Edgewood tests had shown that as the ratio of differential pressure to absolute

static pressure was increased, the coefficient decreased or increased depending on whether the inlet or outlet static pressure

was used. However those tests were made with

air, and there had been a desire to obtain

similar data with pipe line fuel gas for

comparison. The Aliso Street gas plant of

the Los Angeles Gas and Electric Company

offered an ideal location for such tests. An adequate supply of gas was available from a medium pressure gas main, and the outlet from

a test line could be discharged into a holder

or the low pressure distribution mains. Test

meters of 4, 8 and 16 inches were used in turn. The outlet from these went to a bank

of 6 parallel 10-1 nch reference meters, any 1 or combination of which could be used. It was possible to keep the ratio of

differential to static pressure of the

reference meters very low (generally less than 0.05), while with both the 4- and 8-inch

test meters we went to ratios over 0.5.

It was from the results of the Los Angeles

tests, combined with those from Edgewood and

some from Germany with air (reported in a 1911 dissertation by Bachman), that Dr. Buckingham derived the expansion factor

equation that is still in use.

The activities mentioned so far were in conjunction with the natural fuel gas industry. Incidentally the Natural Gas

Association had become the Natural Gas Department of the American Gas Association in 1927.

4. Formation of Research Committees on Fluid Meters

As Chief Engineer of a power plant in Bridgeport, Conn., Mr. R. J. S. Pigott saw

the need for collecting information on fluid meters and sponsoring research thereon. He was successful in persuading the ASME to authorize the formation of a Research

Committee on Fluid Meters in 1916. Pigott

was of course designated chairman, and a few

of the other 18 members of the original

committee were: Jacob Spitzglass as secretary, E. G. Bailey, M. M. Borden, Dr. Buckingham, Professor Judd, C. G. Richardson

and Thomas Weymouth. The first report of the committee, "Fluid Meters, Their Theory and Application," Part 1, was issued in 1924. A second Edition of Part 1 was issued in 1927,

and a Third Edition in 1931. Part 2, "Fluid

Meters, Description of Meters" was issued in 1931, and Part 3, "Fluid Meters, Their

Selection and Installation" in 1933. Parts 2 and 3 were not issued separately again, Part

2 because it was not practical to keep

abreast of changes being made in meters, and

Part 3 because the material could be incorporated in Part 1 or other equally

suitable ASME publications, e.g. the Power Test Codas Instruments and Apparatus series.

I believe it was in 1929 that Ray Sprenkle

became a member of the Fluid Meters Committee; I was asked to be a member in 1930 and Sam Beitler in 1931. For several years I had been a member of the Gas Measurement

Committee, Natural Gas Department, A.G.A.,

also, and Weymouth was chairman of this

committee. Thus we were both members of the two committees. Since some of the interests

and problems of the two committees were the same, I suggested to Weymouth the desirability of a joint committee for doing

research on some of the problems. Weymouth

discussed the subject with Pigott who agreed,

and they decided the joint committee should

consist of 3 members from each of the parent

committees, and further, since the initiative

came from the Gas Measurement Committee, one of its members should be the chairman. The

arrangements for the formation of the Joint AGA-ASME Committee on Orifice Meters took

place in Pittsburgh on the 24th and 25th of

Sept., 1931, and the first meeting thereof

was held during the Annual ASME meeting in Dec. 1931.

55
4.1 Research Project on Determination of

Absolute Values of Orifice Coefficients

Among the several decisions reached at the

first meeting was the need for a research

project on the determination of the absolute

values of orifice coefficients. At that

meeting Sam Beitler was sitting next to me (almost the first time we met) so I asked him

1f he could make such tests at OSU. He replied "yes." So I made a motion to have a program of tests to determine the coefficients of orifices, made at OSU, to which the

committee agreed unanimously. Thus the 1932-

1933 Columbus Tests were launched.

I do not need to go into any details about

those tests since one or more accounts of

them have been published. We are still using

orifice coefficients derived from those tests and 1t looks like we will continue to do so for some time to come. This is certainly a tribute to the quality of Sam's work [127J.

From time to time there had come to our attention papers on orifice meters, from here

and abroad, giving the writer's conclusions,

but with no data on which the conclusions were based. Thus we could not compare their

test data with ours and draw our own conclusions. So it was decided to collect all of

the test data from all the several programs mentioned above, beginning with the Edgewood

program and on through the Columbus tests. These were all typed on transparent paper double letter sheet size, and blueprinted.

The blueprint sheets, when bound, made a volume about 12 x 18 inches and nearly 3 Inches thick, and was dubbed "the big

report." There were some 50 copies of the

"big report" made up, how many are still in existence I do not know, but a few of the

locations are: Joint Engineering Societies

Library; National Bureau of Standards; Ohio State University, Dept. of Engineering; The

Foxboro Company; and the Lone Star Gas Company in Dallas did have one.

During the middle 1 930 1 s the committee

sponsored programs on flow nozzles, some being done at the National Bureau of Standards, some at the University of California

(Berkeley), and some at the University of

Oklahoma, Norman. At Norman the tests were made with oil, and thin plate orifices were

used as well as nozzles. The first time I visited the work at Norman, Hi 1 ding Beck was

the assistant professor supervising the test

crew. The next time I went there I found

Beck had been lured away by John Diehl of the Metric Metal Company (later absorbed by the American Meter Company), and Ed Ambrosius was supervising the work. Both Beck and

Ambrosius are now on the emeritti list of the Fluid Meters Committee. Perhaps the most important result gained from the Norman work

is that it showed the necessity for careful measurement and control of the oil temperature, especially when metering oil with nozzles or orifices.

About 1948, after years of inactivity, the committee decided to conduct some additional

tests on installation effects, and these were

made near Rockville, Md. Probably the most important result from these tests was to show

the effects of elbow shape. At Buffalo the

elbows used had been welded miter joints.

Welded miter elbows similar to those used at Buffalo were assembled and comparison tests

made, then sets of the present well -curved

elbows were substituted. The effects with

the formed elbows were less than half those

with welded elbows.

About 1951 some of the measurement men of

the gas transmission companies became con- cerned about using the Columbus data with

orifices in 30-inch and larger pipe lines. A suitable location for some comparison tests

was offered near Refugio, Texas, where an adequate volume of gas for testing orifices

in a 30-inch line, could be drawn from a transmission line, through a 30-inch pipe test loop and back into the transmission

line. In the inlet line of the test loop was

a 30-inch orifice flange union, then a bank

of 8-10-inch reference meters, and in the return line of the loop a 30-inch orifice

fitting. From these tests it was decided the

coefficients from the Columbus tests could be

extrapolated to the larger pipes.

5. Various Personalities 1n Early Flow Measurement

Now some brief comments about a few of the men who have been members of one or both

committees. First, Lee Spink who was a member of both committees. I first met Lee during the tests at Cleveland in 1925. He took part in all of the field work from then

through the tests at Hastings, W. Va. in 1928. He made up some of the equipment items

for some tests, and contributed to the planning. Occasionally he was the recipient

of a practical joke by others of the test

group, which he took in good turn.

Another was John Overbeck, who passed on this last spring (1973). He grew up in W. Va. well away from any of the larger towns,

and his schooling (high school) was such as was available there, adding to his education

as he worked. Tom Kerr, for whom John worked

for many years, said that in the early days

56
1f he asked John a question he could not answer he might stay up most all night to have an answer the next day. John had an exceptional ability for seeing a way around

an obstacle to a piping layout or a test

setup. In later years Sam Beitler and I often called on Johnny for advice in such matters. For many years he was a member of

the Gas Measurement Committee, and took part

1n all of the field tests along with Lee

Spink.

Ed S. Smith, a member of our Fluid Meters Committee for some 20 years, was nicknamed

"Ed-no-dot-Smith" because his given name was simply "Ed." For the 1929 Engineering

Conference in Tokyo, Japan, Ed submitted a paper on Quantity-Rate Fluid Meters, and

which was printed in ASME Transactions in 1930. The important item in the paper

applies to metering compressible fluids with

differential pressure meters. Ed proposed

the use of the compound ratio of differential

pressure/absolute static pressure over the ratio of the specific heats, and to which he gave the name "acoustic ratio." Dr. Buckingham used this ratio in the correlation

of the test data and the formulation of the expansion factor equation now used with

orifice meters. In one of Buckingham's

papers he credits Ed with the original

proposal of the acoustic ratio.

Professor W. S. Pardoe was another

Individualistic member of our Fluid Meters

Committee, who on occasion was very

vigorously outspoken. The Venturi tube was

his particular favorite among fluid meters,

and he calibrated many in his laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia. However, some of us did not

have quite the same degree of confidence in his plots of coefficients as he claimed

because his points always fell very close to

a nice smooth curve. He always reported his

data and comments as well as plotted values

on cross section paper, with his name prominently placed on each sheet. This at times was very troublesome to the ASME publications group.

At one of the annual meetings the Fluid

Meters Committee had no papers for a technical session, instead most of an afternoon

was devoted to a somewhat informal debate. I do not know what plans for it had been made

ahead, but probably some. The subject

debated was the use and validity of dimensional analysis as a tool in correlating

experimental data and the formulating of

empirical equations. Dr. Buckingham and Ed Smith were the affirmative speakers while

Professor Pardoe and Jacob Spitzglass said

no. Of course Pigott was the moderator. At

times the discussion was fast and spirited,

almost vitriolic. Then the discussion would

calm down, and if it became too quiet Pigott

would Inject a question or remark and start

it off again. This provided a most

interesting session for all, even the

debators.

57
BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following documents constitute a collection of background material that was used to assess the composition and state of

the fluid flow measurement system. Most of

these were used for general information only,

and are not explicitly referenced in the text. 19.

1. "A Directory of Standards Laboratories,"

National Conference of Standards 20. Laboratories, 1974 Edition.

2. Annual Report 1971, Rockwell Manufacturing

Company, Pittsburgh, Pa.

3. Annual Report 1972, American Electric 21. Power Corporation, New York, N. Y. 4. "Gas Products Condensed Industrial

Catalog," Catalog G5300.1, Rockwell

Manufacturing Company, Pittsburgh, Pa., 22. 1971-1972.

5. "Gas Products Condensed Catalog," Catalog

G5400, Rockwell Manufacturing Company,

Pittsburgh, Pa., 1972.

6. "Turbo Meters, Mark II," Catalog M1070, 23. Rockwell Manufacturing Company, Pittsburgh,

Pa., 1972.

7. "A Guide to Foxboro," The Foxboro Company, 24. Foxboro, Mass., June 1970.

8. Pocket Catalog, Bulletin A-14C, The

Foxboro Company, Foxboro, Mass., June 1972 25,

9. "Flow Facility," The Foxboro Company,

Foxboro, Mass. , 1972.

10. Miller, R. W. , "A Large Hydraulic 26. Laboratory Designed to Meet Today's

Calibration iJeeds," The Foxboro Company,

Foxboro, Mass. , 1968. 27.

11. Miller, R. W. , "Hydraulic Calibration

Laboratory," The Foxboro Company, Foxboro,

Mass., 1969. 28.

12. "Fuel Flow Transfer Standard," Fuel Systems Research Laboratory, Dearborn,

Mich., 1972. 29.

13. "Air Flow Transfer Standard," Fuel Systems Research Laboratory, Dearborn,

Mich., 1972. 30.

14. Catalog, Fischer and Porter Company,

Warminster, Pa. , 1972.

15. Product Specifications, Bailey Meter 31. Company, Wickliffe, Ohio.

16. "Taylor Flow Data," Taylor Instrument

Process Control Division, Sybron Corpora- 32. tlon, Rochester, N. Y. , 1972.

17. Annual Report 1972, Badger Meter Company,

Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1972.

18. Stanford Research Institute, Long Range 33. Planning Service

- "The Changing Chemical Industry,"

Report No. 155, 1962. 34.

- "The U. S. Petroleum Industry," Report

No. 226, 1964.

- "Natural Resources for U. S. Industrial

Growth," Report No. 264, 1965.

- "The Process Control Industry," Report

No. 284, 1966.

- "Manufacturing Systems," Report No. 269, 1966.

- "Pipelining Solids," Report No. 320,

1967.

- "Air Pollution Control," Report No. 353,

1969. "Global Market Surveys, Industrial and

Scientific Instruments," U.S. Department

of Commerce, 1972. "New Report on Exports Available from

Commerce," Commerce News, Report No. 71-22, U. S. Department of Commerce,

1971. "Exports of Process Instruments Up 3 Percent in First Half," Bureau of

Domestic Commerce, Report No. BD71-60,

U. S. Department of Commerce, 1971. "Selected Instruments and Related

Products," Bureau of Census, Report

Series MA-38B(70)-1 , MA-38B(71),

MA-38B(72), MA-38B(73)-1 , U. S. Depart- ment of Commerce.

"Exports, Commodity by Country," Bureau

of Census, Report No. FT 410-72-6, U. S. Department of Commerce, 1972. "Imports, Commodity by Country," Bureau

of Census, Report No. FT 135-69, U. S. Department of Commerce, 1970 and 1971. "Highlights of Exports and Imports,"

Bureau of Census, Report No. FT 990-728,

U. S. Department of Commerce, 1972. "Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas," Bureau

of Census, Report No. MIC67 (1 )-13A, U. S. Department of Commerce, 1970. "Natural Gas Liquids," Bureau of Census,

Report No. MJC67(1 )-133, U. S. Department

of Commerce, 1970.

"Oil and Gas Field Services," Bureau of

Census, Report No. MIC67(1 )-13C, U. S. Department of Commerce, 1970. "Statistics of Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Companies," Report No. FPC-5-213,

Federal Power Commission, 1971.

"1971 Gas Data Handbook," Department of

Statistics, American Gas Association,

Arlington, Va. "BP Statistical Review of the World Oil Industry, 1971," The British Petroleum

Company, Ltd., 1971. "United States Petroleum Refinery Capacity

and Utilization," Report No. 00026, Office

of Oil and Gas, U. S. Department of

Interior, 1972. "Water Pollution Control Facts," Water

Pollution Control Federation, Washington,

D. C, 1969. Shaw, R. E. , Jr., "Experience with Waste Ordinance and Surcharges at Greensboro,

North Carolina," Journal Water Pollution

Control Federation, Washington, D. C,

1970.

58
35. "Federal Water Pollution Policies and Programs," CPR Research, Washington,

D. C, 1971.

36. Anderson, Norval E. and Ben Sosewitz,

"Chicago Industrial Waste Surcharge

Ordinance," Journal Water Pollution

Control Federation, Washington, D. C,

1971.

37. Kollar, K. L. and W. G. Youngwirth,

"Equipment Market - Water and Wastewater",

Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Washington, D. C, 1972.

38. "Water Pollution Abatement Program: Assessment of Federal and State Enforce- ment Efforts," Document No. B-166506,

Comptroller General of the U. S., 1972.

39. "Activities in the Water Pollution Field," Water Pollution Control Federation,

Washington, D. C, 1972.

40. Fluid Meters Research Committee, ASME,

"Flow Measurement Symposium," Flow Measurement Conference, Pittsburgh, Pa.,

1966.

41. Public Law 90-148, "Air Quality Act of

1967," Amendment, Title I - Air Pollution

Prevention and Control, Nov. 21, 1967.

42. Federal Standard No. 209a, "Clean Room

and Work Station Requirements, Controlled

Environment," Aug. 10, 1966.

43. Public Law 91-173, "Federal Coal Mine

Health and Safety Act of 1969," Dec. 30,

1969 . 44. Executive Order 11514, "Protection and

Enhancement of Environmental Quality,"

March 5, 1970.

45. Public Law 91-190, "National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969," Jan. 1 , 1970.

46. Public Law 91-596, "Occupational Safety

and Health Act of 1970," Dec. 29, 1970.

47. Public Law 92-500, "Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Amendments of 1972,"

Sept. 18, 1972.

48. Brennan, J. A., R. W. Stokes, D. B. Mann

and C. H. Kneebone, "An Evaluation of

Several Cryogenic Turbine Flow Meters,"

NBS Technical Note 624, National Bureau

of Standards, 1972.

49. Brennan, J. A., D. B. Mann, J. W. Dean

and C. H. Kneebone, "Performance of NBS Cryogenic Flow Research Facility,"

Advances in Cryogenic Engineering, 17, 1972. ~

50. Skogerboe, G. V. and W. R. Walker,

"Changing Role of Water Conveyance

Systems," ASCE National Water Resources Engineering Meeting, 1973, Preprint No. 1880.

51. Silberman, E. and H. Stefen, "Physical

(Hydraulic) Modeling of Heat Dispersion

in Large Lakes," St. Anthony Falls Hyd.

Lab. Proj. Rep. No. 115, 1970.

52. Tucker, M. J., "Measurement in Oceanography," J. Phys., E, Sci . Instr., £,

1971 , 405-413 . 53. Ippen, A. T. , "Environmental Problems and Monitoring in Coastal Waters," 13th Int. Conf . on Coast. Eng. , 1972.

54. Corbett, D. M., "Stream Gaging Procedure,"

USGS, WS 888.

55. Johnson, J. W. and R. L. Wiegel , "Inves- tigation of Current Measurement in Estua- rine and Coastal Waters," California

State Water Pollution Control Board,

Publ. 19, 1958.

56. Dedow, H. R. and R. F. J. King,

"Miniature Liquid Flow Meter,"

Engineering, Sept. 24, 1954.

57. Wingo, H. E., "Thermistors Measure Low Liquid Velocities," Control Eng.,

Oct. 1959.

58. Caldwell, D. R. , "Indirectly Heated

Thermistor for Measuring Ocean Currents,"

Rev. Sci. Instr., 39, 12, 1968, 1865-69.

59. Allen, J., N. SinglTand C. W. Bray,

"Fluidic Anemometers," J. Phys., E, Sci. Instr., 6, 1973.

60. Bagnold, R., '"Measurement of Very Low Velocities of Water Flow," Nature, 167 , 4260, June 23, 1951 , 1025-27.

61. Gaster, M. , "A New Technique for the Measurement of Low Fluid Velocities,"

J. Fluid Mech., 20, 1964, 183-192.

62. Foreman, K. M., ""Tome Operational

Characteristics of Hot Film Water Velocity Sensors," Grumman Aerospace

Corp., Rep. N71-21516, 1971.

63. I.S.O., "Draft Proposal for an ISO Standard - Measurement of Clean Water

Flow in Closed Conduits by the Velocity

Area Method Using Current Meters,"

Dec. 1972.

64. I.S.O., "Summary of Works Presented to the I.C.M.G. on the Effects of Turbulence

and Velocity Fluctuations on the Response

of Propeller Meters, on the Effect of

Interference Between the Propellers and

Supports and on Methods of Integrating

the Velocity Field," Feb. 1973 (in French).

65. Lathrop, G. N. and R. A. Singleton,

"Turbine-Discharge Measurements by CableSuspended Current Meters," U.S. Army Corps

of Engrs., Missouri River Div. Rep.,

Dec. 1970.

66. Johnson, R. L., "Laboratory Determination

of Current Meter Performance," U.S. Army

Engr. Div., North Pacific, Tech. Rep.

843-1, 1966.

67. Benini, G., "Researches on Mutual

Interference and Wall Proximity Effects

on Current Meter Readings," Paper A-2,

Flow Measurement in Closed Conduits,

N.E.L., 1962.

68. Coffin, J., "First Results Concerning the Effect of Water Temperature in the Calibrating Tank," Paper A-3, Flow Measure- ment in Closed Conduits, N.E.L., 1962.

59
69. Jepson, P., "Currentmeter Errors Under 86. Pulsating Flow Conditions," J. Mech. Eng.

Sci., 9, 1, 1967, 45-54.

70. Serpaud, J., et al., "Influence of a 87. Current Meter Frame on the Measurement of

Large Discharges," Paper A-4, Flow Measurement in Closed Conduits, N.E.L., 88. 1962.

71. Aiming, K. , "Calibration of Current

Meters - A Comparison," Water Power Lab.,

Tech. Univ. of Norway, Rep. No. 262, 1969. 89.

72. O'Brien, M. P. and R. G. Folsom, "Notes

on the Design of Current Meters," Trans. 90. Amer. Geophys. Un., 29, 2, 1948, 243-250.

73. National Oceanographic Instrumentation

Center, "Interim Report on the Evaluation 91. of Current Meters," unofficial, unpublished report, 1973. 92.

74. Smoot, G. F. and R. W. Carter, "Are Individual Current Meter Ratings

Necessary?" Proc. ASCE, 94, HY2, 1968,

391-397. 93.

75. Carter, R. W. and I. E. Anderson, "Accuracy of Current Meter Measurements," Proc. ASCE, 89, HY4, 1963, 105-115. 94.

76. Carter, R. W. and I. E. Anderson, Closing

Discussion of "Accuracy of Current Meter Measurements," Proc. ASCE, 90, HY4, 1964, 95.

p. 343.

77. Kallio, N. A., "Effect of Vertical Motion

on Current Meters," U. S. Geol . Surv., 96. WS 1869-B, 1966.

78. Pierce, C. H., "Investigations of Methods 97. and Equipment Used in Streamgaging - Performance of Current Meters in Water

of Shallow Depth," U. S. Geol. Surv.,

WS 868-A, 1941. 98.

79. Smoot, G. F. and C. E. Novak, "Calibration and Maintenance of Vertical -Axis

Type Current Meters," Techniques of Water 99. Resources Investigations of the USGS,

Book 8, Ch. B2, 1968.

80. Buchanan, T. J. and W. P. Somers, 100. "Discharge Measurements at Gaging

Stations," Techniques of Water Resources Investigations of the USGS, Book 3, Ch. A8, 1969. 101.

81. Vigander, S. and W. 0. Wunderlich,

"Calibration and Use of a Low Velocity

Current Meter," ASCE Water Resour. Eng. 102. Conf., 1971, Meeting Preprint 1349.

82. Gianelli, W. R. and R. B. Jansen,

"California Water Project," Civi. Eng., 103. June 1972, 78-84.

83. Anonymous, "National Water Commission

Reports," Civil Eng., May 1973, 70-73.

84. Trail, J. J., "Tests of Hydraulic 104. Turbines - An Appraisal," Engrg. J.»

Nov. 1959, p. 66.

85. Schubauer, G. B. and M. A. Mason, "Per- formance Characteristics of a Water 105. Current Meter in Water and Air," J. Res. NBS, 18, RP981, 1937, 351-360.

Chandler, T. S. and W. Smith, "Optical Current Meter Use in Southern California,"

Proc. ASCE, 97, HY9, 1971, 1461-1469.

Kalvaitis, A7~N. , "Survey of Savonius Rotor Performance Characteristics,"

J. Marine Tech. Soc, 6, 4, 1972. Yarnell, D. L. and F. A". Nagler, "Effect

of Turbulence on the Registration of Current Meters," Trans. ASCE, 95, 1931,

776. ~~

Leach, H. R„, Discussion of reference

(39), Trans. ASCE, 95, 1931, 816. Schoof, R. R. and F. R. Crow, Discussion

of reference (25), Proc. ASCE, 94, HY6,

1968, 1596-1601. —

U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, "Water Measurement Manual," 1967. Walker, W. R., "Importance of Flow Measurement in Water Control," ASCE,

Irrigation and Drainage Div. Spec.

Con*., 1972. Blench, T., "Temperature Error in Cup

Type Current Meters," The Engineer,

163. 4203, 1937, 102-105.

HTranandani , M. G. and S. V. Chitale,

"Stream Gauging," India Ministry of

Irrigation and Power, 1964. Ros^elder, A. M., "Drag Force Current

Meter," Univ. of California, NTIS No. PB 185113.

Leupold and Stevens, Inc., "Hydrographic

Data Book."

Environmental Protection Agency, "Research,

Development and Demonstration Projects as of -July 1970," Division of Appl . Sci. and

Technology.

Hooper, L., "Evaluation of a Westinghouse

Acoustic Flowmeter," Alden Research Lab.

Rep.

Skogerboe, G. V. and M. L. Hyatt,

"Rectangular Cutthroat Measuring Flumes,"

Proc. ASCE, 93_, IR4, Dec. 1967. Schuster, J. C. , "Canal Discharge Measurements with Radioisotopes,"

Proceedings ASCE, 91, HY2, March 1965,

101-124.

ASTM No. D1941-67, "Open Channel Flow Measurement of Industrial Water and

Industrial Waste by the Parshall Flume."

Shah, J. B., "Simple Method for Waste- water Flow Measurement," J. Water Poll.

Control Fed., 45, 5, 1973, 932-935.

Robinson, A. R. and A. R. Chamberlain,

"Trapezoidal Flumes for Open Channel

Flow Measurement," Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng., 1960, 120-128.

Palmer, H. K. and F. D. Bowlus, "Adaptation of Venturi Flumes to Flow Measure- ment in Conduits," Trans. ASCE, 101,

1936, 1195-1231.

ASTM No. D2-34-68, "Open Channel Flow Measurement of Industrial Water and Industrial Waste Water by Weirs."

60
106. Hydraulic Institute, Centrifugal Pump

Section, Standards, 1947.

107. Bauer, S. W. and W. H. Graf, "The Free Overfall as a Measuring Device," Proc. ASCE, 97, IRI, March 1971. Also discussion by G. Kulin, Proc. ASCE, 98, IRI, March 1972.

108. Heckroth, C. W. , "How to Cope With the New Act," Water and Wastes Eng., May

1973, C2-C5.

109. Klein, L. A. and A. Montague, "Gauging

and Sampling Industrial Wastewater

(Open Channel)," J. Water Poll. Control

Fed., Aug. 1970. 110. Thomas, C. W. , "Errors in the Measurement

of Irrigation Water," Proc. ASCE, J. Irr. and Drain. Div., Sept. 1957, Paper No. 1362.

111. Cascex, L., "An Up-to-Date Review of

Discharge Gaging Weirs," LaHouille

Blanche, No. 5, 1969 (in French).

112. Frigo, A. A. and D. E. Frye, "Physical Measurements of Thermal Discharges into

Lake Michigan: 1971," Argonne Natl. Lab. Rep. ANL/ES-16, 1972.

113. Henderson, J. M. , "Water Pollution -- Facts and Fantasies," Proc. ASCE, 98,

SA3, June 1972.

114. Kulin, G., "A Survey of Flow Measurements

in Water Pollution Control," Fluid

Mechanics Laboratory, National Bureau

of Standards., July 1973.

115. Perry, John H., Editor-in-Chief,

"Chemical Engineers ' Handbook," 4th

Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company.

116. Anonymous, "Proposed Program for the National Hydraulic Laboratory", National Bureau of Standards Report, September

23, 1946.

117. Cochrane, R. C, "Measures for Progress - A History of the National Bureau of

Standards," National Bureau of Standards,

Department of Commerce, 1966.

118. Kulin, G.and P. R. Compton, "A Guide to Methods and Standards for the Measurement of Water Flow," National Bureau of

Standards Special Publication 421, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1975.

119. Dowdell, R. B. and Yu-Lin Chen, "A Statistical Approach to the Prediction

of Discharge Coefficients for Concentric

Orifice Plates," Transactions of the

ASME, p. 752, Dec. 1970.

120. Bean, H. S., E. Buckingham and P. S. Murphy, "Discharge Coefficient of

Square-Edged Orifices for Measuring the

Flow of Air," J. Res. NBS, 2, March 1929. 121. Buckingham, Edgar, "Note on Contraction

Coefficients of Jets of Gas," J. Res. NBS, 6, p. 765, May 1931

.

122. Bean, Howard S., M. E. Benesh, and

Edgar Buckingham, "Experiments on Metering of Large Volumes of Air," J.

Res. NBS, 7, p. 93, July 1931

.

123. Shafer, Montgomery, "Applications of

Dimensional Analysis to Spray-Nozzle

Performance Data", J. Res. NBS, 52, No. 3,

March 1954. ~

124. Shafer, Montgomery R., Ernest F. Fiock,

Harry L. Bovey, and Ross B. Van Lone,

"Correcting for Density and Viscosity of

Incompressible Fluids in Float-Type

Flowmeters," J. Res. NBS, 47, No. 4,

October 1951.

125. Shafer, M. R. and F. W. Ruegg, "LiquidFlowmeter Calibration Techniques,"

Transactions of the ASME, October 1958.

126. Shafer, Montgomery R., "Performance

Characteristics of Turbine Flowmeters,"

ASME Journal of Basic Engineering, 84,

p. 471, 1962. —

127. Dowdell, R. B. and Yu-Lin Chen, "A Statistical Approach to the Prediction

of Discharge Coefficients for Concentric

Orifice Plates," Transactions of the

ASME, December 1970. 128. "Ga-, Facts - A Statistical Record of the Gas Utility Industry, 1973 Data,"

American Gas Association, Arlington,

Va., 1974.

61
NB5-114A (REV. 7-73)

U .S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLIC ATION OK REPORT NO.

NBSIR 75-930

No.

3. Recipient's Accession No.

A TIT I F AND SUB TIT 1 1"

"T » 111 L L. Mill/ ' V ' 1 I »

The National Measurement System for Fluid Flow

5. Publication Date August 1976

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

William C. Haight, Coordinator

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

oy • PF-'H r L l\ PHR I \J I\ 1*1 MINT, 1 IN V. J ORWi\ CV^J fAN\ L\ 171 z.j ill AT ION 1 V 7 1 N NAMF m /l 1*1 /Ill AND1/ /ADDRFSS 1 I J VJ 1\ I - i_>iJ NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP) 13. Type of Report & Period

Covered

final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less (actual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

Fluid flow is a diverse field concerned with the motion of a wide variety of

fluids encountered both in daily life and in scientific applications. It encompasses

movement of weather systems by atmospheric winds, travel and dispersion of air

pollutants, flow around aircraft and spacecraft bodies, oil and gas pipeline flow,

irrigation and waste water flow, and many others. The types of fluid motions

encountered in descriptions of these phenomena include closed-conduit, open channel,

supersonic, subsonic, steady, unsteady, laminar, and turbulent flow. Measurements

of the properties of these flows are instrumental in the functioning of the nation's

industries and the advancement of scientific technology, and impact the lives of

every consumer. This report presents the concept of the National Measurement System for Fluid Flow

as it exists today and the activities and mechanisms employed within it to generate

and implement measurement data. The system structure is presented, and data and

information gathered on the interrelationships between the identifiable parts are

reported. To further the study, more than 200 contacts were made with trade

associations, government agencies, private companies, universities and laboratories.

This study was conducted over the time span June 1973 to December 1975.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons

Aerodynamics; air flow; flow measurement; fluid flow; fluid metering; hydraulics

18. AVAILABILITY f]T Unlimited

|

' For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington. D.C. 20402. SD Cat. No. C13

| X 1 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

65

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price

$4.50

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74