NIST Special Publication 250-1039r1 

Liquid Flow Meter Calibrations with the 

0.1 L/s and the 2.5 L/s Piston Provers 

Jodie G. Pope 

John D. Wright 

Aaron N. Johnson 

Chris J. Crowley 
 

 

 

 

 

NIST Special Publication 250-1039r1 

Liquid Flow Meter Calibrations with the 

0.1 L/s and the 2.5 L/s Piston Provers 

Jodie G. Pope 

John D. Wright 

Aaron N. Johnson 

Chris J. Crowley 

Sensor Science Division 

Physical Measurement Laboratory 

December 2013 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Penny Pritzker, Secretary 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Patrick D. Gallagher, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this 

document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. 

Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the 

entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 250-1039r1 

 Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 1039r1, 55 pages (December 2013) 

 CODEN: NSPUE2 
 

 

 

Liquid Flow Meter Calibrations with the 0.1 L/s and 2.5 L/s Piston Provers 

Table of Contents 

Abstract .............................................................................................1 

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
 

2.0 Description of Measurement Services .................................................................... 2
 

3.0 Procedures for Submitting a Flow meter for Calibration ........................................ 4
 

4.0 Description of the Liquid Flow Standards .............................................................. 5
 

4.1 Flow Measurement Principle ................................................................................ 10
 

5.0 Uncertainty Analysis Overview ............................................................................ 18
 

5.1 Techniques for Uncertainty Analysis .................................................................... 19
 

5.2 Measured Quantities and Their Uncertainties ....................................................... 21
 

5.3 Propagating Components of Uncertainty .............................................................. 32
 

5.4 Combined and Expanded Uncertainty of the Meter Factor .................................. 37
 

6.0 Uncertainty of Meter Under Test .......................................................................... 39
 

7.0 Summary ............................................................................................................... 40
 

8.0 References ............................................................................................................. 41
 

Appendix A Sample Calibration Report ..................................................................... 43
 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract 

This document provides a description of the 2.5 L/s and 0.1 L/s liquid flow calibration standards operated by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Fluid Metrology Group to provide flow meter calibrations for customers. 

The 0.1 L/s and 2.5 L/s flow standards measure flow by moving a piston of known cross-sectional area over a measured 

length during a measured time. The 0.1 L/s standard uses a passive piston prover technique where fluid is driven by a 

pump that in turn moves the piston. The 2.5 L/s standard uses a variable speed motor and drive screw to move the piston 

and thereby move the fluid through the system. The fluid medium used in these standards is a propylene glycol and water 

mixture that has kinematic viscosity of approximately 1.2 cSt at 21 °C (1 cSt = 1 x 10-6 m 2

/s), but the ratio of propylene 

glycol to water can be altered to offer a range of fluid properties. The 0.1 L/s standard has an expanded uncertainty of 

± 0.044 %, spanning the flow range 0.003 L/s to 0.1 L/s (0.05 gal/min to 1.5 gal/min). The 2.5 L/s standard has an 

expanded uncertainty of ± 0.064 %, spanning the flow range 0.02 L/s to 2.0 L/s (0.3 gal/min to 31 gal/min) (Here, 

expanded uncertainties correspond to a 95 % confidence level). 

This document provides an overview of the liquid flow calibration service and the procedures for customers to submit 

their flow meters to NIST for calibration. We derive the equation for calculating flow at the meter under test, including 

the corrections for storage effects caused by changes in fluid density in the connecting volume (due to temperature 

changes). Finally, we analyze the uncertainty of the flow standards, give supporting data, and provide a sample calibration report. 

Key words: calibration, flow, connecting volume, flow meter, flow standard, uncertainty 

1.0 Introduction 

Flow measurement units are derived from the SI base units. Therefore, the paths taken to realize flow measurement 

standards vary and depend upon such issues as the properties of the fluid(s) to be measured. Realization methods at NIST 

are always derived from fundamental measurements such as mass, length, time, and temperature, typically by accounting 

for the transfer of a known mass or volume of fluid during a measured time interval under approximately steady state 

conditions of flow, pressure, and temperature at the meter under test (MUT). Such flow metrology facilities are known as 

“primary flow standards”, and by definition [1], they are facilities capable of determining flow, at specific, quantifiable 

uncertainty levels, while being traceable to more fundamental units of measure (e.g. length, time, etc.), and not calibrated 

against another flow device. This document describes a 0.1 L/s Liquid Flow Standard (LFS) that covers flows up to 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.1 L/s with expanded uncertainty of 0.044 % and a 2.5 L/s LFS that covers flows up to 2.5 L/s with expanded uncertainty 

of 0.064 % (with a 95 % confidence level)a 

. 

The 0.1 L/s and 2.5 L/s LFSs each consist of a fluid source (e.g., tank), a long, straight test section that provides a fullydeveloped flow profile, stable temperature and pressure, and a system for timing the displacement of a quantity of the 

fluid. The flow measured by the primary standard is computed along with the average of the flow indicated by the MUT 

during the collection interval. All of the quantities measured in connection with the calibration standards (i.e., temperature, pressure, density, time, etc.) are traceable to established national standards. 

NIST calibrates liquid flow meters to provide traceability for flow meter manufacturers, secondary flow calibration 

laboratories, and flow meter users. We calibrate a customer’s flow meter and deliver a calibration report that documents 

the calibration procedure, the calibration results, and their uncertainty on a fee-for-service basis. The customer may use 

the flow meter and its calibration results in different ways. The flow meter is often used as a transfer standard to compare 

the customer’s primary standards to the NIST primary standards so that the customer can establish traceability, validate 

their uncertainty analysis, and demonstrate proficiency. Customers with no primary standards use their NIST-calibrated 

flow meters as working standards or reference standards in their laboratory to calibrate other flow meters. The Report of 

Calibration is the property of the customer and NIST treats the results of calibrations as proprietary information belonging 

to the customer. 

Operators of primary flow standards seek to validate the claimed uncertainties of their standards by establishing and 

maintaining the traceability of calibration results to the SI. One complete way to establish traceability involves the use of 

proficiency testing techniques, which quantify the traceability of a facility’s results using a set of flow standards mai ntained by a National Metrology Institute (NMI) [2]. Alternatively, establishing traceability can be achieved through 

assessment of individual facility components and analyzing their respective contributions to the calibration process. A 

detailed uncertainty analysis of NIST’s LFSs is described in following sections of this document using the component 

analysis method [3]. 

2.0 Description of Measurement Services 

Customers should consult the web address http://www.nist.gov/calibrations/flow_measurements.cfm#18020C to find the 

most current information regarding NIST’s calibration services, calibration fees, technical contacts, and flow meter 

submittal procedures. 

a Standard uncertainty with coverage factor k = 1, refers to 65 % confidence level and expanded uncertainty with k = 2 refers to 95 % confidence 

level. For expanded uncertainty k ≈ 2; however, effective degrees of freedom and the associated t-value must be considered for the true k value 

corresponding to 95 % confidence level. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIST uses the LFSs described herein to provide liquid flow meter calibrations for flows between 0.003 L/s and 2.5 L/s 

[4]. The most common flow meter types received for calibrations are turbines, Coriolis meters, and positive displacement 

(PD) meters. NIST’s LFSs are designed to acquire square-wave pulse outputs from the MUT. The liquid used for 

calibrations is normally a 5 % by volume propylene glycol and water mixture (PGW). The facility can be used with 

varying PGW mixtures with varying physical properties, but this is a Special Test and should be discussed with the 

technical contacts before a flow meter is submitted for such a calibration. The liquid temperature during the calibration is 

22 ± 1 o

C. NIST has a supply of fittings designated Swagelokb, A/N 37 degree flare, and national pipe thread (NPT) for 

installing flow meters into the LFSs for calibration. 

Meters are tested if the flow range and piping connections are suitable and have precision appropriate for calibration with 

the NIST flow measurement uncertainty. Meter types with calibration instability significantly larger than the primary 

standard uncertainty are generally not calibrated with the NIST standards because such meters can be calibrated with 

acceptable uncertainties at a lower cost by commercial labs. 

A normal flow calibration performed by NIST’s Fluid Metrology Group consists of five flows spanning the range of the 

flow meter. A flow meter is normally calibrated at 10 %, 30 %, 50 %, 75 %, and 100 % of its full scale. At each of these 

flow set points, five flow measurements are made consecutively. The same set point flows are tested on a second 

occasion. Therefore, the final data set consists of ten flow measurements made at five flow set points, i.e., 50 individual 

flow measurements. The sets of five measurements can be used to assess repeatability, while the sets of ten can be used to 

assess reproducibility [1]. For an example, see the sample calibration report in Appendix A of this document. Variations 

on the number of flow set points, spacing of the set points, and the number of repeated measurements can be discussed 

with the NIST technical contacts. However, for data quality assurance reasons, NIST rarely conducts calibrations 

involving fewer than three flow set points and two sets of three flow measurements at each set point. 

The Fluid Metrology Group prefers to present flow meter calibration results in a dimensionless format that takes into 

account the physical model for the flow meter type. The dimensionless approach facilitates accurate flow measurements 

by the flow meter user even when the conditions of usage (liquid type, temperature) differ from the conditions during 

calibration. Hence for a turbine meter calibration, the calibration report will present Strouhal number vs. Roshko number 

[5, 6]. In order to calculate the uncertainty of these flow meter calibration factors, we must know the uncertainty of the 

standard flow measurement as well as the uncertainty of the instrumentation associated with the MUT (normally 

b Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this paper to foster understanding. Such identification does not imply 

recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment identified 

are necessarily the best available for the purpose. 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

frequency and temperature instrumentation). NIST-owned and controlled instruments (temperature, etc.) are used as part 

of the test of a customer’s meter since these have established uncertainty values based on calibration records maintained 

as part of NIST’s Quality System: http://www.nist.gov/qualitysystem/index.cfm. Such information is not available for the 

customer’s instrumentation. Use of the customer’s instrumentation for a calibration or Special Test requires specific 

arrangements with the NIST technical contact. Calibration of customer’s ancillary instrumentation is not part of the 

calibration procedures described here and would require that separate arrangements be made. 

Following calibration, meters are rinsed with ethanol and dried. This precaution avoids contaminating customers’ fluids 

with water that remains in the meter and it prevents corrosion of any part of the meter that is incompatible with water. 

Most meters can be simply rinsed with alcohol using a hand held squirt bottle, or capped, filled with alcohol, inverted 

several times to fill and mix trapped volumes, and drained. Some meters (e.g. positive displacement meters) may have 

crevices that retain water if not rinsed more aggressively. NIST rinses such meters in a recirculating flow of ethanol at 

approximately 15 % of the maximum flow for a minimum of five minutes. During the rinse, the meter is installed so that 

the RF or magnetic pickoff of the positive displacement meter is positioned downward. This precaution assures that all 

water is removed from the relatively small cavity enclosing the pickup if the meter has such a cavity. There are multiple 

acceptable ways to dry flow meters: 1) application of vacuum, 2) application of a stream of dry gas , and 3) by hanging 

and waiting for draining and evaporation. For turbine and positive displacement meters, one end of the meter is capped 

while vacuum is applied to the other for one hour. This method avoids over-spinning the turbine or PD meter that might 

occur if too strong a stream of dry gas is applied. However, Coriolis meters are dried using a stream of dry nitrogen 

because it is quicker and over-spinning is not a concern with this meter type. In the event that no vacuum or inert gas is 

available, meters are hung to dry at various orientations for a minimum of three hours at each orientation to be sure all 

void volumes in the meter have drained dry. 

3.0 Procedures for Submitting a Flow meter for Calibration 

The Fluid Metrology Group follows the NIST calibrations policies which can be found at the following addresses:
 

http://www.nist.gov/calibrations/policy.cfm,
 

http://www.nist.gov/calibrations/domestic.cfm, and 

http://www.nist.gov/calibrations/foreign.cfm. 

The web site gives instructions for ordering a calibration for domestic and foreign customers and has the sub-headings:
 

A.) Customer Inquiries, B.) Pre-arrangements and Scheduling, C.) Purchase Orders, D.) Shipping, Insurance, and Risk of
 

Loss, and E.) Turnaround Time. The web site also gives special instructions for foreign customers. The web address:
 

http://www.nist.gov/calibrations/mechanical_index.cfm has information more specific to the flow calibration service,
 

including the technical contacts in the Fluid Metrology Group, fee estimates, and turnaround times.
 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Description of the Liquid Flow Standards 

Piston prover systems have long been accepted as primary flow standards for both gas and liquid flow meters [7,8]. 

Figure 1 shows NIST’s piston provers and Table 1 and Table 2 give their characteristics. Conceptually, a piston prover 

consists of a circular cylinder of known internal diameter surrounding a sealed piston. This piston strokes through 

measured lengths, at a constant speed, to produce a constant volumetric flow. The volumetric flow is calculated by 

dividing the swept volume by the time needed for the piston to traverse the measured length. Alternatively, a water draw 

ref can be performed to determine the volumetric prover factor, KV , which is the number of encoder pulses divided by the 

volume of fluid pushed through the cylinder. Temperature (and pressure for the 2.5 L/s LFS) measurements at key 

locations are used to assess the changes in fluid density and connecting volume that occur between the start and stop 

times, allowing corrections for storage effects. The calibration fluid coefficient of thermal expansion is known, hence the 

volumetric flow in the cylinder can be converted to the volumetric flow at the test section where the MUT is located (or 

the mass flow can be calculated using the fluid density). The output of the MUT is acquired along with the necessary 

piston measurements so that average flows from the MUT and the flow standard can be compared. 

Two types of piston arrangements are used in these systems. An active piston can both drive and measure a volumetric 

flow out of the cylinder (like a syringe), while a passive piston is pushed through the cylinder by pressure from a separate 

pump. The 0.1 L/s LFS employs a passive piston and the 2.5 L/s LFS employs an active piston. 

NIST’s LFSs were constructed by Flow Dynamics Inc, in Scottsdale, AZb and the hardware and software updated in 2012 

by Compuflow Solutions in Mesa, AZb 

. Upon receipt at NIST, we calibrated the length, time, and temperature 

instruments and we measured the fluid properties necessary to make the system directly traceable to NIST standards. We 

analyzed the uncertainty of these standards and the results are documented herein. 

The LFSs are operated in a closed loop mode. As shown schematically in Figure 2, the liquid is moved from the reservoir 

tank (by two pumps on the 0.1 L/s LFS and via a motor that moves the piston on the 2.5 LFS). The required flow passes 

through the piston-valve assembly and then to the test section, where the MUT is located. After the MUT, the entire flow 

is returned to the reservoir to complete the flow loop. 

Two, three-way valves allow back and forth piston motion while maintaining unidirectional flow through the MUT, with 

brief pauses for changes in the piston direction. Calibration data is acquired with the piston moving in either direction. 

5
 
 

D

d

L

Lc

c

t

C u

 

 

Vp

D

d

L

Lc

c

t 

C u

Q 

 

 

Table 1. Nominal Characteristics of NIST’s 0.1 L/s Liquid Flow Standardc . 

Volume of the cylinder [cm3], 

Vp

2229 

Diameter of the cylinder [cm], 7.62 

Diameter of the piston shaft, [cm] 2.54 

Length of the cylinder [cm], 55 

Length of piston stroke [cm], 14 to 55 

Duration of piston stroke [s], 5 to 60 

Standard Uncertainty [%], 0.022 

U(95 % confidence level), [%] 0.044 

Volumetric flow range [L/s], 

Q , 0.003 to 0.1 

Table 2. Nominal Characteristics of NIST’s 2.5 L/s Liquid Flow Standardc . 

Volume of the cylinder [cm3], 21245 

Diameter of the cylinder [cm], 15.24 

Diameter of the piston shaft, [cm] 2.54 

Length of the cylinder [cm], 120 

Length of piston stroke [cm], 13 to 110 

Duration of piston stroke [s], 1.4 to 200 

Standard Uncertainty[%], 0.032 

U(95 % confidence level), [%] 0.064 

Volumetric flow range [L/s], , 0.02 to 2.0 

c All values shown are within the uncertainty of the analyses shown in Section 5. 

6 
A) Photograph of the 0.1 L/s LFS. 

B) Photograph of the 2.5 L/s LFS. 

Figure 1. NIST’s LFSs. 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Sketch of the LFSs with the piston stroking left. 

The operation of the four-way diverter valve is demonstrated schematically in Figures 2 and 3. The calibration interval 

begins as soon as flow conditions reach steady state and the piston accelerates to constant velocity (shortly after the piston 

begins travel in one direction). During the transition period when the piston changes direction, both of the three-way 

valves are set so that all three ports are open, thus preventing any hydraulic ram effects. During the change in direction, 

flow stops at the MUT, and it is necessary to wait for steady state conditions before beginning to collect calibration data. 

The meter output averaging is stopped before the piston reaches the transition period. To assure steady flow is achieved 

prior to taking a data point, data is acquired for the specified time for a given flow and stability in the MUT is evaluated. 

The MUT meter factor must be stable within 0.2 %. Once this stability is achieved, data is acquired only while this 

stability is maintained. When the piston changes direction, this stability criterion must be met again before another data 

point is taken. 

To allow a range of flows, a computer-controlled stepping-motor drives both pumps on the 0.1 L/s LFS and the motor that 

moves the piston is computer-controlled on the 2.5 L/s LFS. The 0.1 L/s LFS capacity of the small pump is about one 

tenth the larger one. At lower flow conditions, the flow from the large pump is bypassed to the reservoir tank. 

8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(b) Transition from Left to Right Stroke

(d) Transition from Right to Left stroke

(a) Piston Stroking Left

(c) Piston Stroking Right

(a) Piston Stroking Left

(c) Piston Stroking Right

Figure 3. Diagrams of piston and three-way valves reversing piston directions. 

Both LFSs are located in a temperature-controlled room where the air temperature is maintained at 21 ± 1.5 oC. 

Therefore, steady state temperature conditions are achieved by cycling the piston back and forth at the intended 

calibration flow, which promotes mixing of the fluid. Thermal equilibrium on the 0.1 L/s LFS is further enhanced by 

forcing the calibration fluid through an outer cylindrical jacket that encloses the cylinder and piston. The liquid flow from 

the pumps is directed into this outer jacket before entering the four-way diverter valve. The 0.1 L/s LFS uses twelve 

temperature sensors to determine fluid properties throughout the flow loop. The 2.5 L/s LFS uses ten temperature sensors 

and four pressure sensors. Placement of these sensors measures changes in density in the connecting volume between the 

cylinder and the MUT and the resulting corrections for storage effects. This is discussed further in section 5. 

The position of the piston along the cylinder length is measured with two, redundant linear encoders, one on each of the 

supporting shafts attached to either side of the piston. The encoders output approximately 50 square wave pulses per mm 

of length traveled. The time for the piston to travel a given length is measured by counting pulses from two redundant 

2.5 MHz timers (see section 5.2). 

Leaks of calibration fluid can be visually detected. There are two wiper seals on the piston, one on the leading edge, 

another on the trailing edge. Fluid that leaks past either of these seals flows through machined holes in the piston and 

piston shafts to the shaft ends where it will drip out. Leaks past the piston shaft seals and from pipe fittings are easy to 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

detect by eye. Because leaks are detected and repaired, errors resulting from undetected leaks are small enough to be 

neglected during uncertainty analysis. To determine if a visible leak is significant, a graduated cylinder is used to collect 

the leaking fluid during the collection of a calibration flow point. If the collected volume is a large enough percentage of 

the volume through the MUT to increase the uncertainty in the measurement by more than 50 parts in 106

, it is repaired 

before the LFS is used again. 

4.1 Flow Measurement Principle 

Flow determinations are based on the piston displacing a known volume of fluid during a measured time interval. The 

volumetric flow exiting the cylinder is 

t

NK

Q





eV

cyl

(1)
 

where 

KV

is the LFS constant or herein called the volumetric prover K-factor with units of volume per encoder pulse 

and Ne is the number of encoder pulses. The volumetric prover K-factor equalsd 

V cs LAK e  

(2)
 

the cross sectional area Acs multiplied by the encoder constant 

e L . KV has slight dependence on the fluid operating 

temperature and pressure and on the room temperature. At different operating conditions, thermal expansion and pressure 

loading change the cylinder diameter (D) and the shaft diameter (d), and consequently 

Acs

. Similarly, thermal expansion 

causes 

Le  

to change with the room temperature. Instead of characterizing 

KV

over the range of prover operating 

conditions, standard practice is to determine its value at a single reference temperature (Tref) and pressure (Pref ), and 

correct volumetric flow calculations for reference condition effects using 

   DD ref 1 st  TT ref    dd ref 1 st  TT ref

, (3a) 

, (3b) 

d The diameters of the shafts on either side of the piston are slightly different so that the cross sectional area differs slightly when the piston sweeps 

to the left versus to the right. To accommodate this difference it is not unusual to distinguish the value of the volumetric prover KV when the piston 

sweeps left (KV,left) from when the piston sweeps right (KV,right). In the case of the NIST LFSs, the differences between the left and right values are 

<0.01 % and can be neglected. 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   e LL e,ref 1 enen  TT ref     

(3c) 

-5 -1 -6 -1 where 

st 

1.7 × 10 K [9,10] and 

en

8 × 10 K [9] are the linear expansion coefficients for the stainless steel 

shafts and cylinder and for the glass encoder scale respectively. 

Ten

and 

T

are the temperatures of the encoder and the 

fluid respectively.e Elastic deformation caused by pressure stresses can be neglected because the cylinder’s crosssectional area changes by less 4 parts in 106 at the maximum operating pressure.f To minimize the uncertainties 

introduced by the linear temperature approximation used in Equation (3), the LFSs’ operating conditions should be 

maintained close to Tref and Pref. In this way, the theoretically corrected reference condition effects are small relative to 

the measured 

ref Kv

values. 

The three commonly used methods to determine the reference volumetric prover K-factor ( 

ref Kv

) are 1) a water draw 

procedure [11], 2) dimensional measurements of the cylinder diameter (Dref), the shaft diameters on both sides of the 

piston (dref), and the encoder constant ( 

Le,ref  

) [12], and 3) use of a transfer standard flow meter [11]. 

ref Kv

was 

determined using the water draw method for the both LFSs. Dimensional measurements for the 0.1 L/s LFS have also 

been made for comparison with the water draw method. The water draw method is explained in section 5.2. 

Flow at the MUT under Ideal Conditions 

When the LFS is operated at the reference conditions, the volumetric flow exiting the cylinder is 

ref

v

ref

e  tNKQcyl

, 

and the mass flow is 

mref  vref

ref

e tNK cyl  

where 

ref

is the fluid density evaluated at Pref and Tref. The objective of 

a piston prover standard is to determine the flow at the MUT using theses reference flows. However, the volumetric and 

mass flow at the MUT only equal the respective reference flows (i.e., ref

cyl

ideal

MUT  QQ

and 

ref

cyl

ideal

MUT  mm  ) under the 

following idealized conditions: 

1) steady flow, 

2) room temperature equal to Tref, 

3) fluid temperature equal to Tref throughout the cylinder and test section, 

4) fluid pressure equal to Pref throughout the cylinder and test section, and 

e The fluid temperature is assumed to be in thermal equilibrium with the cylinder and shaft, and the encoder temperature is assumed equal to the 

room temperature. 

f At the maximum flow of the 2.5 L/s LFS the pressure at the outlet of the cylinder reaches 500 kPa. For this pressure, the pe rcent of elastic 

deformation is calculated by: 100 × 2εeff (500 – 101.325), where εeff is the isothermal compressibility of stainless steel and has units of 1/kPa. 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5) no leaks into or out of the piston-cylinder and test section. 

NIST operates the LFSs as close as practical to these idealized conditions with the exception of the operating pressure. 

Steady flow conditions are obtained by using a tuned PID control to run the piston at a nearly constant velocity during 

data collection. Temperature uniformity of the fluid in the LFS assembly is established by cycling the piston back and 

forth until the multiple temperature sensors distributed throughout the test section and the 2 temperature sensors located at 

the left and right exits of the piston-cylinder assembly agree to within 0.5 C or better. The room housing the LFS is 

maintained to within ± 1 oC of the reference temperature to minimize heat transfer effects. The pressure is maintained 

slightly above Pref (i.e., 200 kPa or more, Pref = 101.325 kPa) to prevent measurement errors and possible damage caused 

by cavitation to customer turbine meters. 

Corrections for Non-Ideal Operating Conditions 

The ideal flow conditions listed above are never perfectly realized in practice. To improve flow measurement accuracy, 

corrections are made to 

ideal QMUT

and 

ideal mMUT



to account for small deviations from ideal conditions. In particular, corrections 

are made to account for non-idealities caused 1) by reference condition effects, 2) by gradient effects (i.e., spatial nonuniformities in the temperature and/or pressure) and 3) mass storage effects (i.e. liquid density changes in the connecting 

volume between the cylinder and the MUT). 

Corrections for reference condition effects are made when the operating conditions (i.e., fluid temperature, fluid pressure, 

and room temperature) differ from Tref and Pref. These corrections account either for changes in the cylinder volume or 

for changes in the fluid density. Reference condition corrections for fluid density are calculated using a linear function of 

temperature and pressure 

     ref 1  ref   PPTT ref

(4)
 

where 



is the thermal expansion coefficient and 



is the isothermal compressibility factor (or the inverse of the 

isothermal bulk modulus). 

Pressure and temperature differences between the fluid exiting the cylinder and the fluid at the MUT cause the volumetric 

flow at these two locations to differ. These gradient effects are caused by pressure loss mechanisms such as wall friction, 

elbows, fittings, etc., as well as by heat transfer caused by temperature differences between the fluid and the room. 

Gradient effects are corrected by measuring the temperature and pressure at the cylinder exit and at the MUT. The 

measured temperatures and pressures are used in Equation (4) to calculate the density at the cylinder exit (cyl) and at the 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MUT (MUT). Based on mass conservation, the volumetric flow at the MUT is taken to be equal to the volumetric flow at 

the cylinder multiplied by the density ratio (cyl/MUT). 

A third type of non-ideality results from mass storage effects in the connecting volume between the swept cylinder 

volume and the MUT. For example, if the temperature of the fluid in the connecting volume drops between the start and 

stop of the averaging period, the density of the fluid in the connecting volume increases giving so -called mass storage 

there. In this case, the mass flow exiting the cylinder is greater than the mass flow reaching the MUT.g NIST corrects for 

mass storage effects in the 0.1 L/s LFS from known temperature changes during a measurement, but not for pressure 

changes. However, for each calibration we estimate the magnitude of these pressure effects and include them in the 

uncertainty budget. The mass storage effects are fully corrected for in the 2.5 L/s LFS. For both of NIST’s LFSs, these 

corrections are < 4.3 parts in 106 

. 

Formulation of Governing Flow Equations 

D d

Mcyl

i

(a) Prover at t = t

i

Encoder Encoder

Vcyl

i

Mcv

i

MUT

i Vcv

i f Vcyl

D d

Mcyl

f

(b) Prover at t = t

f

Encoder Encoder

f Vcyl

Mcv

f

MUT

f

Vcv

Ls Le

i

Ls

f

Figure 4. Sketch showing the orientation of the piston before and after the piston stroke. 

g In the case of increasing connecting volume temperature the opposite occurs: more mass flow reaches the MUT than left the cylinder swept 

volume. 

13
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figures 4a and 4b show the location of the piston at the start of the measured time interval ( 

i

t

) and at the end of the 

measured time interval ( 

f

t

). The white dashed lines constitute the control volume where mass conservation is applied. 

The control volume includes the volume of fluid to the right of the piston inside the cylinder ( 

Vcyl

), and the fluid in the 

connecting volume between the exit of the cylinder and the MUT ( 

Vcv

). As the piston strokes rightward the size of the 

control volume decreases such that the time-averaged mass flow through the MUT is: 

leak

if

cv

if

cyl

MUT m

~

t

M

t

M

m

~

  











 , (5)
 

where 

f

cyl

i

cyl

if

cyl  MMM

is the difference between the initial and final mass in the cylinder, 

f

cv

i

cv

if

cv  MMM

is 

the difference between the initial and final mass in the connecting volume, 

if  ttt

is the measured time interval, and 

mleak

~



is net time-averaged mass flow leaking out of the control volume. Alternatively, the mass terms in Equation (5) 

can be expressed 

leak

f

cv

f

cv

i

cv

i

cv

f

cyl

f

cyl

i

cyl

i

cyl

MUT m

~

t

ˆ V ˆ V

t

ˆ V ˆ V

m

~

  













 

or (6) 

m MUT

~



cv

ffii

cyl

i ffi













































t

ˆ V ˆ V

t

ˆ V  ˆ V 

mleak

~

 

as density multiplied by volume (e.g., i

cyl

i

cyl

i

cyl M  

ˆ V , i

cv

i

cv

i Mcv

 

ˆ V

).h By adding and subtracting the terms 

f

cyl

i

cyl 

ˆ V

and 

f

cv

i 

ˆ

cvV

to the right side of Equation (6) the time-averaged mass flow (with no leaks) is 

m MUT

~



   

cv

fififfii

cyl

fififfii













































t

ˆ V ˆ V ˆ V ˆ V

t

ˆ V ˆ V ˆ V  ˆ V 

h Note that 



ˆ

is the spatially averaged density. 

14
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

cv

fffifiii

cyl

fffifiii













































t

ˆ V ˆ V ˆ V ˆ V

t

ˆ V ˆ V ˆ V  ˆ V 

cv

i i fi f f

cyl

i i fi f f













































t

ˆ V ˆ V

t

ˆ V ˆ V  

t

V ˆ

t

ˆ V

t

V ˆ

t

ˆ V

























i f

cv

f

cv

i f

cv

i

cv

i f

cyl

f

cyl

i f

cyl

i cyl   

m MUT

~



























































i f

cyl

i f

cv

i

cyl

i

cv

i

cyl

i f

cv

i f

cyl

f

cv

i

cyl

i f

cyl

i f

cyl

f

cyl

i f

cyl

i

cyl 1

V

V

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

V

V

ˆ

ˆ

V

V

t

ˆ V











 

(7) 

where 

f

cyl

i

cyl

if

cyl  VVV

is the volume swept by the piston during the measurement interval indicated by the dotted lines 

in Figure 4b. The terms in the square brackets account for mass storage in the portion of the cylinder volume not swept by 

the piston ( 

f

cyl V

) shown in Figure 4b, and in the connecting volume ( 

Vcv

).i Here, 

f

cyl

i

cyl

if

cyl  

ˆˆˆ

and 

f

cv

i

cv

if

cv  

ˆˆˆ

are the density differences in the unswept cylinder volume and in the connecting piping between the 

start and stop of a flow measurement. Similarly, 

f

cv

i

cv

if

cv  VVV

is the change in the connecting volume between the 

start and stop of a flow measurement.
 

The time-averaged volumetric flow at the MUT is determined by dividing Equation (7) by the time-averaged density at
 

the MUT ( 

 MUT

~

) 

MUT MUT MUT MUT MUT

leak

if

cyl

if

cv

i

cv

if

cv

if

cyl

f

cv

if

cyl

if

cyl

f

cyl

i

cyl

if

cyl

MUT

 















~

m

~

V

V

~

ˆ

~

ˆ

V

V

~

ˆ

V

V

~

ˆ

t

V

Q

~ 

























































 . (8) 

As expected, both Equation (7) and Equation (8) simplify to for the ideal operating 

ref

cyl

ideal

MUT  mm  and 

ref

cyl

ideal

MUT  QQ

conditions. 

Note that the unswept portion of the cylinder volume 

Vcv

f Vcyl

could be considered a portion of the connecting volume, but herein the quantity 

refers to only the fixed portion of the control volume. 

15
 

i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mass Flow and Volumetric Flow at the MUT 

Equations (7) and (8) for the MUT mass flow and volumetric flow can be compactly expressed by 

65432154321

ref

ref V

MUT SSSSSSRRRRR

t

NK

m

~





















 e

 (9a) 

and 

21654321321

ref

V

MUT GGSSSSSSRRR

t

NK

Q

~





















e

(9b) 

where the near unity correction factors indicated by the Ri’s, Gi’s, and Si’s account for reference condition corrections, 

gradient corrections, and storage corrections, respectively. The Ri’s, correct the fluid density and the measured cylinder 

volume to the reference conditions. The Gi’s correct the flow when pressure and temperature gradients exist between the 

piston-cylinder assembly and the MUT. The Si’s are mass storage corrections to account for differences in the unswept 

portion of the cylinder and connecting volume between the start and stop of a flow measurement. Expressions for these 

correction factors are given in Table 3 along with a description of their physical meaning. Note that the list of correction 

terms for the mass flow and volume flow in Equations (9a) and (9b) are not the same. 

Many of the correction factors listed in Table 3 are essentially unity for the NIST operating conditions and do not affect 

flow calculations. Nevertheless, these correction factors have been retained to provide guidance for applications when 

operating conditions cannot be maintained close to the reference conditions. For example, some operators of piston 

provers vary fluid properties by changing fluid (and prover) temperature. For clarity, we specify correction factors that 

can be neglected when using Equations (9a) and (9b) for room temperature applications in the remaining sections of the 

manuscript. 

The Si correction factors in Table 3 show the need to measure temperature and pressure at 

i

t

and at 

f

t

to correct for 

storage effects. Moreover, the time response of the pressure and temperature instrumentation should be sufficiently fast to 

resolve transients. However, for NIST operating conditions, the difference in density of the cylinder fluid from the 

reference conditions (R4) is by far the most significant correction factor for both LFSs. Its value is estimated by 

monitoring the temperature at the LFS cylinder outlet during a calibration. Typically, the temperature at the outlet of the 

cylinder is within 1 °C of the reference temperature (21 °C) such that R4 < 0.03 %. 

16
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Correction factors for mass flow in Equation (9a) and volumetric flow in Equation (9b). 

applies 

Region of LFS 

Type of where correction Equation Description correction 

)( ref en en 1 1

Encoder 

R    TT

Reference Axial change in encoder scale length from 

condition reference due to thermal expansion 

)( ref

i

st cyl

ˆ

21 2 R    TT

Radial change in the cylinder and the shaft Displaced volume j Reference diameter from reference conditions due to condition internal fluid pressure. 

)( ref

i

3 cyleff

ˆ

R  21   PP

Radial change in cylinder and shaft diameter 

Displaced volume Reference from the reference condition due to internal condition k fluid pressure

Change in the fluid density from the 

)( ref

i

cyl 1 4

Displaced volume 

R  

ˆ  TT

Reference reference density ( 

ref 

) due to thermal condition 

expansion 

Change in the fluid density from the 

)( ref

i

cyl 1

Displaced volume 

R5 

ˆ  PP

Reference reference density ( 

ref 

) due to pressure condition 

difference from Pref
 

Displaced
 

MUT )( 1

~ ˆ

1

i

cyl G    TT

Ratio density change between cylinder and l Temperature MUT attributed to temperature difference volume/MUT Gradient between the cylinder and MUT 

Displaced 

MUT )( 2

~ ˆ

1

i

cyl G    PP

Ratio density change between cylinder and Pressure MUT attributed to pressure difference volume/MUT Gradient between the cylinder and MUT 

j 

T

ˆ

and 

P

ˆ

are the spatially averaged temperature and pressure, respectively. 

k Note that εeff and εcv are parameters with units of inverse pressure to be determined using the appropriate pressure vessel equations in terms of th e 

material modulus of elasticity, Poisson ratio, and dimensions. 

T

~

and 

P

~

are the time averaged temperature and pressure, respectively. 

17
 

l 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ref KV

Vcyl S

 

Vcyl VCV

Continuation of Table 3. 

Region of LFS 

Type of where correction Equation Description
 correction
 applies
 

)(

f

cyl

i

st cyl ref

e V

f

cyl 21 1

T

ˆ Tˆ

KN

V

S 

















 

Radial change in the unswept region of the Upswept Volume of cylinder and shaft diameters due to a Mass Storage Cylinder temperature change between the start and 

stop of a calibration 

)(

f

cyl

i

eff cyl ref

e V

f

cyl 21 2 Pˆ Pˆ

KN

V

S 

















 

Radial change in the unswept region of the Upswept Volume of cylinder and shaft diameters due to a Mass Storage Cylinder pressure change between the start and stop 

of a calibration 

)(

f

cyl

i

cyl ref

e V

f

cyl 1 3

T

ˆ Tˆ

KN

V

S 

















 

Change in the fluid density in the unswept Upswept Volume of region of the cylinder due to a temperature Mass Storage Cylinder change between the start and stop of a 

calibration 

)(

f

cyl

i

cyl ref

e V

f

cyl 1 4 Pˆ Pˆ

KN

V

S 

















 

Change in the fluid density in the unswept Upswept Volume of Mass region of the cylinder due to a pressure Storage Cylinder change between the start and stop of a 

calibration 

Change in the connecting volume and the 

Connecting volume Mass density of fluid in this region due to a Storage temperature change between the start and 

stop of a calibration 

Mass storage in connecting volume Mass Storage attributed to pressure difference between 

start and stop of flow measurement 

Connecting volume 

  )(

f

cyl

i

cv cyl ref

e V

1 2

ref

cv

6 Pˆ Pˆ

KN

V

S 

















  

5.0 Uncertainty Analysis Overview 

The uncertainty components of the LFSs are discussed in detail in following sections. As seen in Equations (9a) and (9b), 

they include the uncertainty of the following elements: 

a. volumetric prover K-factor ( ), 

b. the displaced prover volume, , the linear thermal expansion coefficient for the piping, , 

c. temperature and pressure measurements at the MUT, the cylinder exit, and in the connecting volume, 

d. the LFS cylinder and connecting volume, 

  )(

f

cyl

i

c v cyl ref

V

e

ˆˆ 1 3

ref

cv

5

TT

KN

V

S 





















  

, , 

18
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e. the calibration interval, Δtc, 

f. the thermal expansion coefficient of the liquid, 



g. and the isothermal compressibility factor of the liquid, κ. 

Some component uncertainties listed above and in Equations (9a) and (9b) could not be measured directly. Their 

uncertainties are estimated from the uncertainties of their source measurements using the first order uncertainty 

propagation method to be discussed below. Figure 5 shows a graphic representation tree of the uncertainty analysis for the 

LFS. 

Figure 5. Graphic representation of the uncertainty analysis. The subscript “P” denotes the LFS’s cylinder. 

5.1 Techniques for Uncertainty Analysis 

Here we follow the guidelines for evaluating and expressing uncertainty provided in NIST TN 1297 [13], the ISO Guide 

to Uncertainty in Measurement [3], and elsewhere [14]. In general, if a measurement quantity, 

y

, is a function of 

variables 

i

x , 

19
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x,x(fy ,....., )x  21 n

(10)
 

its first-order Taylor series approximation is, 







i

i

i

dx

x

y

dy

(11)
 

Thus, the propagation of uncertainty yields 

2)( )()(

)( )(

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

2

ij ji

n

ij j

n

i i

i

n

i i

n

i

i

i

c

xuxur

x

y

x

y

xu

x

y

xu

x

y

yu

 







 











































 























































(12)
 

where 

c

)y(u

is the combined standard uncertainty of the measurement result 

y ,  i

xu

is the standard uncertainty of 

the variable 

i

x

, the partial derivatives 

i  x/y

are the dimensional sensitivity coefficients of 

i

x

on 

y

, and 

ij r

is the 

cross correlation coefficient between variables 

i

x

and 

j

x

. An alternative form of Equation (12), which expresses the 

uncertainty propagation in a dimensionless form, is shown below and it is often more useful. 

 



  



1

1 1

2

1

2 2

2

n

i

ij xx

n

ij

x xx

n

i

y x ii ji ji

ucu uurcc

(13)
 

In Equation (13), 



cy

y/)y(uu

is the combined dimensionless standard uncertainty of the measurement result 

y , 

  yxxycx ii

i

 //

are the dimensionless sensitivity coefficients of 

i

x

on 

y

, and 

  iix

x/xuu

i



is the dimensionless 

uncertainty of the variable 

i

x . Equation (13) is used here to estimate the combined uncertainty of the measurement. In 

many cases, the uncertainty of 

i

x

could not be measured directly. For those cases, the same uncertainty propagation 

given by Equation (13) is used for a sub-measurement process to estimate the combined uncertainty of the 

sub-measurement. This process is propagated throughout all the measurement components needed until the desired 

measured quantities are obtained. 

20
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to [3], the sources of uncertainty used in assessing the combined standard uncertainty of the measurement 

process can be classified according to two types: Type A - those which are evaluated by statistical methods, and Type B ­

those which are evaluated by other means. Following this convention, each measured quantity has been classified 

accordingly as a 

u A

or 

u B

. 

5.2 Measured Quantities and Their Uncertainties 

The method of propagation of uncertainty was used to determine the uncertainties of: 1) 

ref KV

determined by the water 

draw procedure, 2) the volumetric flow at the MUT, and 3) the mass flow at the MUT. For each of these quantities the 

relevant uncertainty sources are taken to be uncorrelated. Standard uncertainties (i.e., 68 % confidence level) are 

multiplied by their normalized sensitivity coefficients and root-sum-squared (RSS) to determine the expanded 

uncertainties (or approximate 95 % confidence level). 

Determination of and Uncertainty of the Volumetric Prover K-factor ( 

ref KV

) 

The reference volumetric prover K-factor ( 

ref KV

) for both LFSs was determined using a water draw procedure at a 

reference temperature and pressure of Tref = 21 oC and Pref = 101.325 kPa. First, an empty collection vessel was weighed 

using the substitution method with reference masses calibrated by the NIST mass group. The vessel and reference masses 

were weighed five times. After temperature equilibrium was established in both the room and the fluid, the piston was 

slowly traversed through the cylinder and the displaced fluid was directed into the collection vessel instead of through the 

MUT. Following the collection, the vessel was again weighed five times using the substitution method with reference 

masses. Thus, we determine 

ref KV

using Equation (9a) for totalized mass flow. However, the total mass that would have 

passed through the MUT (i.e., tm

~



MUT 

) is replaced by the buoyancy corrected and calibrated substitution method 

weigh scale readings as shown in: 

  





































 

6

1

n

5

1

refe n

refair

if

V

1

ref

n n

SRN

WW

K





, (14) 

where 

i W

is the weight (or apparent mass) of the empty collection vessel and 

f W

is the final weight after filling the 

collection vessel, and the quantity 

  1  refair

is the buoyancy correction. The air density ( 

 air

) is calculated as a 

function of the pressure, temperature, and relative humidity in the room using the correlation developed by Jaeger and 

Davis [15]. During the 

ref KV

measurement, the room temperature was controlled to within ± 1°C of Tref, the fluid 

21
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

temperature was controlled to within ± 0.5°C of Tref, and the fluid pressure was 100 kPa ± 9 kPa. For these conditions 

1 ) ref

i

4 cyl R (

ˆ

 TT

is the only significant correction factor. All of the other reference condition and storage 

corrections attribute less than 5 parts in 106 to 

ref K V

. 

The 2.5 L/s LFS 

ref K V

was measured on multiple occasions via the water draw method (Figure 6). Measurements were done 

with the piston stroking to the left ( 

ref KV,left

) and then with the piston stroking right ( 

ref KV,right

). On each occasion, 

ref KV,left

and 

ref KV,right

were measured a minimum of 5 times each using Stoddard solvent or reverse osmosis water as the working 

fluid. The difference between is less than 50 parts in 106 for the multiple measurements, i.e., the two 

ref KV,left

and 

ref KV,right

shaft diameters are nearly equal. Based on this good agreement, the average 

ref KV

can be used for both directions without 

significant increase in the uncertainty, i. e. ( 2)

ref

V,left

ref

V,left

ref

V

  /KKK

. The KV of the 2.5 L/s LFS has been measured on 

eight occasions since 2008 and they all agree within 540 parts in 106 

. 

Figure 6. Plot showing measurements of KV 

ref for the 2.5 L/s LFS done in Stoddard solvent (April 2008) and in 

water purified by reverse osmosis. The upper and lower lines represent the 95 % confidence interval. 

The middle line represents the average of the measurements. 

22
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The 0.1 L/s LFS 

ref KV

was measured on two occasions, one via dimensional analysis in 2005 and one time via the water 

draw method in April of 2013 (Figure 7). The difference between the two values is < 140 parts in 106 . The details for the 

dimensional analysis can be found in the prior version of the NIST Special Publication for this calibration service [16]. 

During the 2013 water draw, five measurements were made with the piston stroking to the left ( 

ref KV,left

) and five 

measurements with the piston stroking right ( 

ref KV,right

) with reverse osmosis water as the working fluid. The difference 

between 

ref KV,left

and 

ref KV,right

was less than 40 parts in 106 and therefore negligible. It is worth noting that Figure 6 and 

Figure 7 show the average 

ref KV

from two linear encoders. However, in practice the two encoder length scales are not 

exactly equal (50 μm/pulse is the nominal value) and there are two 

ref KV

values used, one for each encoder. Because of the 

relative ease in performing a water draw compared to a dimensional analysis, the water draw method will be used in the 

future to verify 

ref KV

when needed. 

ref ref Figure 7. Plot showing measurements of KV for the 0.1 L/s LFS. The KV measurement in 2005 is from dimensional 

analysis. The KV 

ref measurements in April 2013 are via the water draw method using water purified by reverse osmosis. 

The upper and lower lines represent the 95 % confidence interval. The middle line represents the average of the 

measurements. 

23
 
 

 

 

 

 

The expression used to calculate the uncertainty of the measured 

ref KV

by the water draw method is given by 

Equation (15): 



















2

V

V

ref

ref

K

Ku )(

2

i

i

2

i

V

V

i

ref

ref 



































W

Wu

W

K

K

W )(

2

f

f

2

f

V

V

f

ref

ref 





































W

Wu

W

K

K

W )(

2

V

V

ref

ref 























 K

K

2

u 



 

   

( )

(15)

2

ref

ref

2

ref

V

V

ref

ref

ref 







































 K u )(

K

2

air

air

2

air

V

V

air

ref

ref 



































 uK )(

K

+ 

2

mass ref.

mass ref.

2

mass ref.

V

V

mass ref.

ref

ref 

































 uK )(

K

2

2 ref

e V e

ref e e V

N K u N

K N N

    

           

( )

2

i

cyl

i

cyl

2

i

cyl

V

V

i

cyl ref

ref 





































T

ˆ

T

ˆ u

T

ˆ

K

K

T

ˆ

)(

NN

2

W

2

Kv 



’ 

where σKv is the standard deviation of the repeated measurements and σW is the standard deviation of the repeated 

weighing’s of reference masses and the full and empty collection vessel. Tables 4 and 5 show the uncertainty budget for 

ref KV

for the 0.1 L/s LFS and the 2.5 L/s LFS respectively. 

24
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. Uncertainty budget for 

ref KV

corresponding to Equation (15) for the 0.1 L/s LFS. 

Vol. Prover K-factor 

Kv 

ref = 0.08099 [cm3

/pulse] 

Uncertainty Category 

Reference masses 

Reference mass density 

Room air density 

Water density, ρref 

Thermal Expan. Coeff. For 

water, β, [1/○C] 

Encoder Pulses, Ne, [pulse] 

Initial Fluid Temp, Ti 

cyl , [

○

C] 

Repeated measurement of 

"small" reference masses, σ/√n 

Repeated measurement of 

"large" reference masses, σ/√n 

Repeated measurement of 

empty container, σ/√n 

Repeated measurement of full 

container, σ/√n 

Repeated measurement of Kv 

ref , 

σ/√n 

Reproducibility of multiple 

Kv 

ref, σ/√n 

Combined Standard Uncertainty (k = 1) [%] 

Nom. Value 

1521 g
 

7.8 g/cm3
 

0.0012 g/cm3
 

0.99803 g/cm3
 

0.0002
 

12350
 

20.52 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

0.08099 

0.081 

0.009 

Rel. 

Unc. 

(k = 1) 

[%] 

0.0008 1 B 0.7 

1.0 × 10 -6 0.00015 B <0.001 

0.050 0.00105 B < 0.001 

0.005 -1 B 29.5 

0.003 -0.0001 A <0.001 

0.0023 -1 B 6.4 

0.02 0.059 B 1.0 

2.9 × 10 -4 1 A 0.10 

8.1 × 10 -5 1 A 0.008 

2.8 × 10 -4 1 A 0.09 

3.7 × 10 -4 1 A 0.16 

0.0019 1 A 4.3 

0.0070 1 A 57.8 

Norm. 

Sen. 

Coeff. (c) 

[-] 

Type 

A/B
 

Contribution 

[%] Comments 

From NIST Mass 

Group cal report 

From mass manufacturer
 

Instrument cal records
 

Density of water used
 

in draw.
 

From best fit line to cal 

data from 19 ○C to
 

23 ○C
 

Integer number of
 

pulses. One pulse may
 

be missed, rectangular
 

distribution assumed
 

From spatial average of
 

temperature sensors
 

Standard deviation of
 

mean, 5 measurements
 

Standard deviation of
 

mean, 5 measurements
 

Standard deviation of
 

mean, 5 measurements
 

Standard deviation of
 

mean, 5 measurements
 

Standard deviation of
 

mean, 10 measurements
 

Long term reproducibility of the measurement
 

25
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5. Uncertainty budget for 

ref KV

corresponding to Equation (15) for the 2.5 L/s LFS. 

Vol. Prover K-factor 

Kv 

ref = 0.35432 [cm3

/pulse] 

Uncertainty Category 

Reference masses 

Reference mass density 

Room air density 

Water density, ρref 

Thermal Expan. Coeff. For 

water, β, [1/○C] 

Encoder Pulses, Ne, [pulse] 

Initial Fluid Temp, Ti 

cyl , [

○

C] 

Repeated measurement of 

"small" reference masses, σ/√n 

Repeated measurement of 

"large" reference masses, σ/√n 

Repeated measurement of 

empty container, σ/√n 

Repeated measurement of full 

container, σ/√n 

Repeated measurement of Kv 

ref , 

σ/√n 

Reproducibility of multiple 

Kv 

ref , σ/√n 

Combined Standard Uncertainty (k = 1) [%] 

Nom. Value 

7900 g
 

7.8 g/cm3
 

0.0012 g/cm3
 

0.99836 g/cm3
 

0.0002
 

15000
 

20.5 

1230 g 

6590 g 

1229 g 

6590 g 

0.35455 

0.35445 

0.012 

Rel. Unc. 

(k = 1) 

[%] 

0.0006 

1.0 × 10 -6 

0.050 

0.005 

0.003 

0.0019 

0.04 

7.9 × 10 -5 

7.0 × 10 -5 

5.8 × 10 -4 

1.1 × 10 -4 

0.0031 

0.01 

Norm. 

Sen. 

Coeff. (c) 

[-] 

1 

0.00015 

0.00105 

-1 

-0.0001 

-1 

0.059
 

1
 

1
 

1
 

1
 

1
 

1
 

Type 

A/B
 

B 

B 

B 

B 

A 

B 

B 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

A 

Contribution 

[%] 

0.3 

<0.001 

0.002 

17.2 

<0.001 

2.6 

4.1 

0.004 

0.003 

0.23 

0.01 

6.6 

69.0 

Comments 

From NIST Mass 

Group cal report 

From mass manufacturer
 

Instrument cal records
 

Density of water used
 

in draw.
 

From best fit line to cal 

data from 19 ○C to
 

23 ○C
 

Integer number of
 

pulses. One pulse may
 

be missed, rectangular
 

distribution assumed
 

From spatial average of
 

temperature sensors
 

Standard deviation of
 

mean, 5 measurements
 

Standard deviation of
 

mean, 5 measurements
 

Standard deviation of
 

mean, 5 measurements
 

Standard deviation of
 

mean, 5 measurements
 

Standard deviation of
 

mean, 10 measurements
 

Long term reproducibility of the measurement
 

26
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Temperature Measurement 

The uncertainty of the temperature measurements made throughout the LFS will contribute to the uncertainty of the 

calibrator. Platinum resistance temperature detectors (RTDs) are used for all temperature measurements, with twelve and 

ten of them placed at various locations along the liquid flow path on the 0.1 L/s and the 2.5 L/s LFS respectively. At 

locations deemed critical, the systems have duplicate sensors to improve measurement accuracy. 

The model used for the reduction of the various temperatures in the system affects the uncertainty of the LFS results. At 

initial and final conditions, the average connecting volume fluid temperature, 

TCV

, is assumed to be the average value of 

the five temperature readings (each LFS has five RTDs along the connecting volume) made along the fluid path. 

CV  P CV CV CV 321  MUT /TTTTTT 5. (16)
 

Typical temperature variation in the connecting volume of the 2.5 L/s LFS during a meter calibration is shown in Figure 8. 

The LFS starts the calibration at the flow (2.0 L/s) such that the friction within the LFS warms the fluid by approximately 

0.2 K, following this warming as the flow decreases the temperature change diminishes. This and other test data show 

that the maximum temperature change over time or difference between any two sensors among the sensor locations is 

0.4 K or less during a data collection interval. The NIST LFSs have the capability of taking the temperature (and pressure 

for the 2.5 L/s LFS) at the beginning and at the end of a data collection and corrections for gradient effects and mass 

storage effects are made, making uncertainties due to temporal variations in temperature negligible. Since 5 temperature 

sensors are distributed in the connecting volume, spatial temperature uncertainties are negligible too. However, if the 

initial and final temperatures (and pressure) are not known, the temporal uniformity of the temperature sensors during a 

calibration can be used as a guide to assign an uncertainty to gradient and mass storage effects. That is, the temperature 

change between data collection intervals can give insight to the values of the initial and final temperatures. For example, 

if temperature control in a standard is poor and only the average temperature during a flow point is recorded, the rate of 

change of the temperature between data points can be used as a guide in determining what the initial and final 

temperatures are. For illustration purposes, Figure 9 shows the temperature in a fictitious flow standard that is not well 

controlled. Data points are taken every 30 seconds and the temperature is changing by 2 K between consecutive flow 

points. Therefore, it can be assumed that the temperature change during the collection of a flow point is as high as 

0.07 K/s. The time of the flow point collection multiplied by this rate of change will give an approximation of the change 

in initial and final temperatures during the collection and hence an uncertainty can be assigned. 

The RTDs are calibrated annually in an isothermal bath by comparing their response to that of a standard thermometer 

calibrated by the NIST Thermometry Group. The three to four calibration coefficients and the temperature uncertainty for 

each RTD are obtained using a linear regression method. The uncertainty in the reference temperature, which is 0.002 K, 

27
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

is classified as a Type B uncertainty for each RTD. During calibration of the RTDs, a minimum of five data points are 

collected at each temperature set point. The root-sum-square of the uncertainties from the reference sensor, the sample 

standard deviation of the measurements at each set point, the data regression, and the sensor drift over its calibration 

interval gives the combined uncertainty of each RTD. In the worst case, the RTDs have 

u A

= 0.041 K and 

u B

= 0.031 K. 

Pressure Measurements 

Unlike the 2.5 L/s system, the 0.1 L/s LFS does not have pressure transducers in multiple locations that allow corrections 

for the spatial and temporal changes in mass throughout the system. Therefore, pressure effects are treated as uncertainty 

components for the 0.1 L/s LFS. However, the 2.5 L/s LFS has been upgraded to have pressure transducers at the outlet 

of both sides of the cylinder, upstream of the MUT, and downstream of the MUT. These measurements allow us to make 

connecting volume and spatial non-uniformity corrections. Therefore, uncertainty of the pressure measurements made 

throughout the LFS will contribute to its overall uncertainty. 

The pressure transducers are calibrated every five years against a pressure reference that is traceable to the NIST group 

responsible for pressure calibrations. The three to four calibration coefficients and the pressure uncertainty for each 

transducer are obtained using a linear regression method. The uncertainty in the reference pressure (0.01 %) is classified 

as a Type B uncertainty for each transducer. The root-sum-square of the uncertainties from the reference sensor, data 

regression, and estimated drift between calibrations gives the combined uncertainty of each transducer. In the worst case, 

the transducers have 

u A

= 0.05 % and 

u B

= 0.033 %. 

Figure 8. Temperature measurements made by the 10 sensors in the 2.5 L/s LFS during a calibration of six flow points 

with five repeats for each flow point. Temperature uniformity along the flow path is < 0.1 K and temporal stability at each 

location is < 0.4 K. 

28
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9. Temperatures in a fictitious flow standard to illustrate how to use the average temperature measurements made 

in a series of flow collections to predict initial and final temperatures for input to an uncertainty analysis. 

The Connecting Volume
 

The connecting volume is modeled using the following equation:
 

4

2

CV   CVCV

/ldV

(17)
 

In Equation (17), 

dCV

is the averaged internal diameter of the connecting pipe and 

CV l

is its length. There is significant 

uncertainty associated with the estimation of the quantities needed to compute the connecting volume: piping inside 

diameters, piping lengths, internal volumes of the valves and elbows, the unswept volume in the LFS, the extra connecting 

volumes associated with the piping used for different MUTs, etc. However, as shown in Tables 6 and 7 below, the 

sensitivity of the volumetric flow through the MUT to the connecting volume is quite small. The large uncertainty of the 

connecting volume will result only 0.1 part in 106 of flow uncertainty in the case of the 0.1 L/s LFS. This is because the 

change in density of the fluid in the connecting volume during a flow measurement is small (the temperature profile is 

quite stable) and because the connecting volume is small in size compared to the volume swept out by the piston. 

Furthermore, the uncertainties related to dimensional changes of the control volume due to thermal expansion are even 

smaller and are neglected. 

29
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time of Piston Displacement 

The uncertainty of the measurements of time can be separated into two parts: a) that due to the reference clock (including 

calibration errors and temperature effects) and b) that due to quantization errors. The time base oscillators are periodically 

calibrated by two reference counters that are traceable to NIST time and frequency standards. The Type A uncertainty of 

the LFS oscillators used in this uncertainty analysis is 0.31 μHz/Hz and the Type B uncertainty is 1.55 μHz/Hz. These 

oscillator calibration uncertainties are larger than the quantization uncertainties discussed below. 

Figure 10 illustrates that the quantization error for a generic timed interval will be smaller than or equal to one time 

reference unit (± Δt). The true time, ttrue, is marked by the start and stop times, t1 and t3. The data acquisition system 

obtains the measured time, tmeas, by counting the number of rising edges, n, from the reference clock (nominally 2.5 MHz 

in this case) between t2 and t4 and multiplying n by the reference time unit (0.4 μs). The timing errors at the start and end 

of the measurement (δs and δe) can each be between zero and one time unit in magnitude. The resulting difference 

between the true and measured times is ± one time reference unit. The start and end timing errors each have rectangular 

probability distributions and the difference between them (the quantization error) has a standard uncertainty of 

t 6 . 

Although the example uses rising edges for triggering, this analysis is equally valid for falling edges. It does assume that 

no pulse is missed by the counter. 

Figure 10. A sketch showing how reference clock pulses are used to time a generic interval and how the timing procedure 

leads to a quantization error of ± one time reference unit (± Δt). 

Figure 11 illustrates the application of the reference clock to measurement of the time for the piston to travel a selected 

distance, as indicated by a selected number of pulses output by one of the encoders. The figure also illustrates the 

measurement of the frequency output by a MUT. Once the test conditions have reached steady state (at time t0), the next 

rising edge output by the encoder is used to commence the counting of rising edges from the reference clock. After the 

predetermined number (Ne) of encoder pulses has been registered by a counter, the counting of reference clock pulses is 

30
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

stopped, and the total (N) is multiplied by Δt to obtain the time required by the piston to travel the prescribed distance 

(tEmeas). As for the generic case, this time has a standard uncertainty due to quantization of 

t 6 . 

The frequency of the flow meter output, fT, is calculated by dividing the total number of pulses output (NT) by the time 

between two rising edges of the flow meter output (tTmeas) that occur immediately after the encoder rising edges that mark 

the start and stop of the piston travel time. Note that the encoder time is measured independently from the flow meter 

time and while they are very nearly coincident, they are not necessarily equal in duration. As for the previous cases, the 

flow meter pulse totalization time has quantization uncertainty of 

t 6 . 

The LFSs have redundancy in the encoders and oscillators in order to avoid miscounting pulses and to allow internal 

validation of measurements. Each LFS system uses two encoders (1 and 2), each providing two pulse outputs (A and B). 

Output A originates from the leading edges of the encoder pulses and output B indicates the trailing edges. Therefore, a 

total of four chronometries (1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B) are used to measure the piston travel and thereby improve the accuracy 

of the measured collection time. Additionally, the LFSs use two oscillators each to measure the piston travel interval. The 

first oscillator is used to measure time for chronometries 1A and 2A and the second oscillator operates on 1B and 2B. The 

Type B uncertainties of the clocks are assumed to be fully correlated between clocks operated by the same oscillator. 

Increasing the number of chronometries or measurements does not improve the measurement uncertainty when the 

uncertainties are fully correlated. 

The fact that the intervals over which the encoder and flow MUT frequencies are measured are not perfectly coincident is 

a negligible uncertainty contributor because the time difference is < 0.001 % and the flow is steady within 0.2 %. 

31
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 11. Diagram of the process for counting and timing the pulses from the encoder that measures piston displacement 

and from a pulse generating MUT (e.g., a turbine meter) and their quantization errors. 

Fluid Properties 

As indicated in Equation (9b), the thermal expansion and isothermal compressibility of the fluid, and not the density itself, 

affects the volumetric flow determination. The physical property values involved in the expression for fluid density as a 

function of temperature are periodically determined off-line, using an oscillating tube densitometer (calibrated with air, 

distilled water, and NIST Standard Reference Materials). Likewise, the fluid kinematic viscosity does not directly affect 

the flow results in this type of LFS. However, depending on the type of MUT, the fluid kinematic viscosity can affect the 

flow meter output [5,6]. For the report of calibration, the fluid viscosities are periodically measured using a falling ball 

viscometer which measures the time required for a ball of known dimensions to pass by two detectors a known distance 

apart through the fluid in a capillary tube of known diameter. 

5.3 Propagating Components of Uncertainty 

Referring to the graphic representation of the uncertainty analysis, given in Figure 5 and the uncertainty propagation 

Equation (13) given above, the uncertainty of the sub-measurements must be assessed before the flow uncertainty can be 

32
 
 

 

 

estimated. This process is propagated throughout all the measurement components until the uncertainties of the desired 

quantities are obtained. After the uncertainties of the sub-measurements are obtained, the one-standard-deviation, (k = 1), 

uncertainty for the volumetric flow as given in Equation (9b), is obtained via the square of the combined standard 

uncertainty of the volumetric flow at the MUT and is calculated by: 

  2

MUT

MUTc













Q

~

Q

~

u     2 2

MUT

MUT

2 2

MUT

MUT

~

~

~

~

ref

V

ref

V

ref

V

ref

V









































































e

e

e

e

N

Nu

N

Q

Q

N

K

Ku

K

Q

Q

K

(18) 

    2

MUT

MUT

2

MUT

MUT

MUT

MUT

2

2

MUT

MUT

~

~

~

~

~

~ ~

~ 































 





































T

Tu

T

Q

Q

T

t

tu

t

Q

Q

t

  2

en

en

2

en

MUT

MUT

en 

































T

Tu

T

Q

~

Q

~

T   2

i

cyl

i

cyl

2

i

cyl

MUT

MUT

i

cyl

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

~

~

ˆ







































T

Tu

T

Q

Q

T

 

2

f

cyl

f

cyl

2

f

cyl

MUT

MUT

f

cyl

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

~

~

ˆ















































T

Tu

T

Q

Q

T  

2

i

cv

i

cv

2

i

cv

MUT

MUT

i

cv

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

~

~

ˆ







































T

Tu

T

Q

Q

T

 

2

f

cv

f

cv

2

f

cv

MUT

MUT

f

cv

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

~

~

ˆ







































T

Tu

T

Q

Q

T   2

MUT

MUT

2

MUT

MUT

MUT

MUT 

































P

~

P

~

u

P

~

Q

~

Q

~

P

~

  2

i

cyl

i

cyl

2

i

cyl

MUT

MUT

i

cyl







































Pˆ

Pˆ u

Pˆ

Q

~

Q

~

Pˆ  

2

f

cyl

f

cyl

2

f

cyl

MUT

MUT

f

cyl

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

~

~

ˆ











































P

Pu

P

Q

Q

P

 

2

i

cv

i

cv

2

i

cv

MUT

MUT

i

cv

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

~

~

ˆ







































P

Pu

P

Q

Q

P  

2

f

cv

f

cv

2

f

cv

MUT

MUT

f

cv

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

~

~

ˆ







































P

Pu

P

Q

Q

P

  2

ref

ref

2

ref

MUT

MUT

ref

~

~













































 Q u

Q

  2 2

MUT

MUT









































 Q u

~

Q

~

  2

en

en

2

en

MUT

MUT

en 







































 uQ

~

Q

~

  2

st

st

2

st

MUT

MUT

st 







































 uQ

~

Q

~

  2

2

MUT

MUT

~

~ 







































 uQ

Q

  2

eff

eff

2

eff

MUT

MUT

eff

~

~ 







































 uQ

Q

  2

cv

cv

2

cv

MUT

MUT

cv

~

~ 







































 uQ

Q

  2

cv

cv

2

cv

MUT

MUT

cv

~

~ 

































V

Vu

V

Q

Q

V

. 

33
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6 itemizes each component of uncertainty for the 0.1 L/s LFS and Table 7 for the 2.5 L/s LFS. 

Table 6. Uncertainty budget for volumetric flow at the MUT for the 0.1 L/s LFS corresponding to Equation (9b). 

Vol. Flow; QMUT [L/s] 

QMUT = 0.04 [L/s] 

Uncertainty Category Comments 

Volumetric prover K-factor, Kv 

[cm3/pulse] 

Encoder pulses, Nen [pulse] 

Duration of piston stroke, Δt [s] 

Linear thermal expansion 

coefficient of piston, cylinder, 

shafts, st [1/°C] 

Linear thermal expansion 

coefficient of encoder material, 

en [1/°C] 

Fixed connecting volume (not 

including unswept cylinder 

volume), Vcv [cm3] 

Linear thermal expansion 

coefficient of fixed connecting 

volume, cv [1/°C] 

Variable connecting volume (i.e., 

unswept cylinder volume), Vf 

cyl 

[cm3] 

Encoder (and room) 

temperature, Ten [

○

C] 

Initial liquid temperature in the 

cylinder, Ti 

cyl [

○

C] 

Final liquid temperature in the 

cylinder, Tf 

cyl [

○

C] 

Initial liquid pressure in the 

cylinder, Pi 

cyl [kPa] 

Final liquid pressure in the 

cylinder, Pf 

cyl [kPa] 

Nom. 

Value 

0.0810 

5000 

9 

0.000017 

0.000008 

260 

0.000017 

1906 

20.25 

20.52 

20.53 

110 

115 

Rel. 

Unc. 

(k = 1) 

[%] 

0.009 

0.0058 

0.0002 

5 

5 

10 

5 

5 

0.030 

0.017 

0.017 

4.5 

4.3 

Norm. Sen.
 

Coeff. (Sc) [-]
 

1 

1 

-1 

-1.6x10 -05 

-6x10 -06 

-4.2 x10 -06 

8.54x10 -07 

-9.3x10 -06 

0.0024 

-0.29 

0.24 

0.00028 

34 

-0.00024 

Contribution 

[%] 

50.9 

21.0 

0.025 

0.0042 

< 0.001 

0.0011 

< 0.001 

0.0014 

0.003 

15.1 

10.1 

1.0 

0.70 

From water draw 

Integer number of redundant 

pulses, one may be missed 

Control charts for freq. cal. 

See reference [9, 10] 

See reference [9, 10] 

Calculated from LFS 

geometry measurements 

See references [9, 10] 

Calculated from LFS 

geometry measurements 

Temperature cal records and 

data from LFS 

Temperature cal records and 

data from LFS 

Temperature cal records and 

data from LFS 

Pressure cal records and data 

from LFS 

Pressure cal records and data 

from LFS 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Continuation of Table 6. 

Uncertainty Category Nom. Rel. Unc. Norm. Sen. 

Coeff. (Sc) [-] 

Contribution 

[%] Comments Value 

Initial liquid temperature in the 

fixed connecting volume, Ti 

cv 

[

○

C] 

Final liquid temperature in the 

fixed connecting volume, Tf 

cv 

[

○

C] 

Initial liquid pressure in the 

fixed connecting volume, Pi 

cv 

[kPa] 

Final liquid pressure in the fixed 

connecting volume, Pf 

cv [kPa] 

Liquid temperature at the MUT, ○ Tmut [ C] 

Liquid pressure at the MUT, Pmut 

[kPa] 

20.90 

20.87 

110 

115 

20.61 

105 

(k = 1) 

[%] 

0.017 

0.017 

4.5 

4.3 

0.017 

4.8 

-0.030 

0.030 

3.3x10 -05 

-3.5x10 -05 

0.062 

-4.8x10 -05 

0.17 

0.17 

0.014 

0.014 

0.71 

0.033 

Temperature cal records and 

data from LFS 

Temperature cal records and 

data from LFS 

Pressure cal records and data 

from LFS 

Pressure cal records and data 

from LFS 

Temperature cal records and 

data from LFS 

Pressure cal records and data 

from LFS 

Liquid volumetric thermal 

expansion coefficient, β [1/°C] 0.00021 3.3 2x10 -05 0.003 Derived from Temperature/density relationship 

determined by NIST. 

Liquid isothermal 

compressibility factor, k [1/kPa] 4.6x10 -07 20 -9.5x10 -06 0.023 

Calculated via REFPROP 

[17] at T and P of measurement 

Pressure expansion coefficient 

for the cylinder, εeff [1/kPa] 5.2x10 -09 20 -1.4x10 -07 < 0.001 Reference [10] 

Pressure expansion coefficient 

for the connecting volume, εcv 

[1/kPa] 

5.2x10 -09 20 -3.3x10 -08 < 0.001 Reference [10] 

Combined Standard Unc. (k = 1) 

[%] = 0.013 

35
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7. Uncertainty budget for volumetric flow at the MUT for the 2.5 L/s LFS corresponding to Equation (9b). 

Vol. Flow; QMUT [L/s] 

QMUT = 0.06 [L/s] 

Rel. Norm. Sen. Nom. Unc. Contribution Uncertainty Category Coeff. (Sc) Comments Value (k = 1) [%] [-] [%] 

Volumetric prover K-factor, Kv 3 0.35445 0.012 1 18.4 From Water Draw [cm /pulse] 

Encoder pulses, N Integer number of redundant en [pulse] 2000 0.014 1 26.4 

pulses, one may be missed 

Duration of piston stroke, Δt [s] 4 0.005 -1 3.2 Control charts for freq. cal. 

Linear thermal expansion 

coefficient of piston, cylinder, 1.7x10 -05 5 -1.7x10 -05 < 0.001 See reference [9, 10] 

shafts, st [1/°C] 

Linear thermal expansion 

coefficient of encoder material, en 8x10 -06 5 -6.0x10 -06 < 0.001 See reference [9, 10] 

[1/°C]
 

Fixed connecting volume (not
 Calculated from LFS geometry including unswept cylinder 260 10 -1.7x10 -06 < 0.001 

measurements volume), Vcv [cm3

] 

Linear thermal expansion 

coefficient of fixed connecting 1.7x10 -05 5 4.9x10 -07 < 0.001 See reference [9, 10] 

volume, cv [1/°C]
 

Variable connecting volume (i.e.,
 Calculated from LFS geometry unswept cylinder volume), Vf 

cyl 12592 10 -2.1x10 -05 0.005 

measurements [cm3

] 

Encoder (and room) temperature, Temperature cal records and 20.25 0.15 0.0023 0.015 Ten [

○

C] data from LFS 

Initial liquid temperature in the Temperature cal records and i ○ 20.52 0.017 -0.86 27.4 cylinder, T cyl [ C] data from LFS 

Final liquid temperature in the Temperature cal records and f ○ 20.53 0.017 0.82 24.5 cylinder, T cyl [ C] data from LFS 

Initial liquid pressure in the Pressure cal records and data i 527 0.06 0.0046 0.01 cylinder, P cyl [kPa] from LFS 

Final liquid pressure in the Pressure cal records and data f 530 0.06 -0.0044 0.009 cylinder, P [kPa] cyl from LFS 

36
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uncertainty Category 

Continuation of Table 7. 

Rel. 

Nom. Unc. 

Value (k = 1) 

[%] 

Temperature cal records and 20.90	 0.017 -0.015 0.008 

data from LFS 

Final liquid temperature in the Temperature cal records and f ○ 20.87 0.017 0.015 0.008 fixed connecting volume, T cv	 [ C] data from LFS 

Initial liquid pressure in the fixed Pressure cal records and data i	 512 0.06 8.8x10 -05 < 0.001 connecting volume, P [kPa] cv from LFS 

Final liquid pressure in the fixed Pressure cal records and data f	 514 0.06 -8.8x10 -05 < 0.001 connecting volume, P cv [kPa] from LFS 

Liquid temperature at the MUT, Temperature cal records and ○ 20.61 0.017 0.056 0.1 Tmut [ C] data from LFS 

Liquid pressure at MUT Pressure cal records and data , Pmut [kPa] 520 0.06 -0.00024 < 0.001 

from LFS 

Liquid volumetric thermal Derived from Tempera0.00019 0.003 1.3x10 -05 < 0.001 ture/density relationship expansion coefficient, β [1/°C] determined by NIST. 

Liquid isothermal compressibility Calculated via REFPROP [17] 4.6x10 -07 20 -2.2x10 -05 0.024 factor,  [1/kPa] at T and P of measurement 

Pressure expansion coefficient for 5.2x10 -09 20 3.9x10 -06 < 0.001 Reference [10] the cylinder, εeff [1/kPa] 

Pressure expansion coefficient for 5.2x10 -09 20 -7.6x10 -09 < 0.001 Reference [10] the connecting volume, εcv [1/kPa] 

Combined Standard Unc. (k = 1) 0.028 [%] = 

Initial liquid temperature in the 

fixed connecting volume, Ti 

cv [

○

C] 

Norm. Sen. 

Coeff. (Sc) 

[-] 

Contribution 

[%] Comments 

5.4 Combined and Expanded Uncertainty of the Meter Factor 

The uncertainties given in the prior section are for the average volumetric flow at the MUT. NIST normally uses the LFSs 

to calibrate pulse generating flow meters, e.g. turbine meters. For a turbine meter, calibration results are often presented 

using the dimensionless parameter Strouhal number St: 

3

MUT

4

f d

St

Q

  

      

.	 (19)
 

37
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, to determine the uncertainty of a meter factor for a pulse generating MUT, we determine the sensitivity 

coefficients for each component by partial differentiation of Equation (19). The uncertainty terms are then combined by the 

root-sum-squares method (RSS) to obtain the relative combined uncertainty, , which in turn, is multiplied by a coverage 

factor (k) determined by the Welch-Satterthwaite method [3, Section G.4] to give the relative expanded uncertainty, 

uc

 ukU ce

at a confidence level of approximately 95 %. 

Ue(St) uC (St) u(f) 2 u(Q) 2 

= k ( ) = k√(sf ) + (sQ ) + u 2 (20) (R)BED St St f Q 

The uncertainty components for a calibration include the relative standard uncertainty of the frequency measurements, 

/)( ffu

, the relative standard uncertainty of the actual volumetric flow, 

u Q Q ( ) /

, and the reproducibility of the MUT, 

u(R)BED 

2 . 

m For uncertainty claims presented here, the MUT is defined as the best existing device (BED) on the LFS [18]. 

Partial differentiation shows that the sensitivity coefficient for frequency (Sf) is 1.0 and the sensitivity coefficient for 

volumetric flow (SQ) is -1.0. The relative standard uncertainty of the frequency measurements is less than 0.01 % and the 

relative standard uncertainty for volumetric flow is given in Table 6 and Table 7 for the 0.1 L/s and the 2.5 L/s LFS, 

respectively. To measure the flow meter reproducibility, the sample standard deviation of ten measurements at flow points 

that span the range of operation of each LFS were used. Ten measurements were chosen because that is the number of 

repeat measurements recommended to customers during a NIST calibration. The MUT for the 0.1 L/s LFS reproducibility 

evaluation was a 1⁄4”-diameter Coriolis meter. To cover the flow range of the 2.5 L/s LFS, two meters were used. For 

flows below 0.33 L/s a 1⁄4”-diameter Coriolis meter (the same as used for the 0.1 L/s LFS) was used and for flows above 

this a dual-rotor turbine meter of 1”-diameter was used. The flow meter reproducibility is within 0.015 % and 0.010 % for 

the 0.1 L/s and the 2.5 L/s LFS, respectively. Figure 12 shows a comparison of the Coriolis meter’s calibration of both 

LFSs. The error bars are the k = 2 uncertainties for each LFS. 

Taking into consideration each component of Equation (20) leads to a combined standard uncertainty of 0.022 % and 

0.032 % for the 0.1 L/s and the 2.5 L/s LFS, respectively. The effective degrees of freedom ( eff ) that determines the k 

value that gives a 95 % confidence level was determined by the Welch-Satterthwaite Method [3]: 

m Note that the uncertainty in flow meter diameter can be neglected as long as the same reference diameter is used. 

38
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uC(St) 4 ( ) St 

= eff 4 4 (21) u(Q) u(f) 4 (sQ ) (sf ) u(R)BED Q f + + ! , ! ∞ ∞ 

The effective degrees of freedom for the 0.1 L/s LFS is 42 and for the 2.5 L/s LFS is 978, which for a 95 % confidence 

level corresponds to k values of 2.01 and 2.0, respectively. Therefore the expanded uncertainty for the 0.1 L/s LFS is 

0.044 % and for the 2.5 L/s LFS is 0.063 %. 

Figure 12. A comparison of the calibration of the Coriolis meter used as a “best existing device” for both LFSs. 

6.0 Uncertainty of Meter Under Test 

The uncertainty analysis reported above is for the 0.1 L/s and 2.5 L/s LFSs, including the associated connecting volumes 

and a repeatability component based on the most reproducible device or “check standard” available. The uncertainty 

analysis for a customer’s MUT will depend on the flow meter type and the associated instruments used and therefore the 

39
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uncertainty claims for a customer’s MUT may be larger than those reported here because the customer’s MUT may not be 

as repeatablen or reproducibleo as NIST’s best existing device. 

The uncertainties given in a NIST calibration report are for the calibration factor of the meter. When the flow meter is 

applied by the customer to measure flow, uncertainties beyond the NIST calibration must be considered. These 

uncertainty components include: installation effects, long term calibration changes, temperature effects on the meter, etc. 

The long term stability of the MUT is important as are reproducibility when turned-off and turned-on, and the day to day 

changes in its performance. These types of reproducibility errors can be an order of magnitude larger than the MUT’s 

repeatability errors. The replicated uncertainty of the MUT is ascertained from multiple calibration results. By using this 

method, the total uncertainty of the calibration data for the test meter will include both contributions from the calibration 

system and MUT. 

7.0 Summary 

This document provides a description of the 2.5 L/s and 0.1 L/s liquid flow calibration standards operated by the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Fluid Metrology Group to provide flow meter calibrations for customers. 

The 0.1 L/s and 2.5 L/s flow standards measure flow by moving a piston of known cross-sectional area over a measured 

length during a measured time. The 0.1 L/s standard uses a passive piston prover technique where fluid is driven by a 

pump that in turn moves the piston. The 2.5 L/s standard uses a variable speed motor to move the piston and thereby 

move the fluid through the system. This facility is presently operated using a propylene glycol and water mixture that has 

kinematic viscosity of approximately 1.2 cSt at 21 °C but the ratio of propylene glycol to water can be altered to offer a 

different range of fluid properties. The 0.1 L/s standard has an uncertainty of ± 0.044 % over the flow range 0.003 L/s to 

0.1 L/s (0.05 gal/min to 1.5 gal/min) and the 2.5 L/s standard has an uncertainty of ± 0.064 % over the flow range 0.02 L/s 

to 2.0 L/s (0.3 gal/min to 31 gal/min) (approximately 95 % confidence level uncertainties). 

In this document, we provide an overview of the liquid flow calibration service and the procedures for customers to 

submit their flow meters to NIST for calibration. We derive the equation for calculating flow at the MUT, including the 

corrections for: 1) deviations from reference conditions, 2) gradient effects (i.e., spatial non-uniformities in the temperature and/or pressure) and 3) mass storage effects (i.e. due to connecting volume between the cylinder and the MUT). In 

n Repeatability is defined as the closeness of the agreement between the results of successive measurements of the same measurand carried out 

under the same conditions of measurement [1]. 

o Reproducibility is defined as the closeness of the agreement between the results of measurements of the same measurand carrie d out under 

changed conditions of measurement [1] 

40
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NIST’s systems, the most significant correction terms are for deviations from reference conditions (R4 and R5) for the fluid 

temperature and pressure. 

Finally we analyze the uncertainty of the flow standards, give supporting data, and provide a sample calibration report. 

8.0 References 

[1] International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology, 2nd ed. International Organization for Standardization. 1993; Geneva, Switzerland. 

[2] Mattingly, G.E. Flow measurement proficiency testing. ISA Flow Measurement, 2nd ed. Practical Guides for 

Measurement and Control, Instrument Society of America. 2001; Ch. 28. 

[3] Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. International Organization for Standardization. 1993; Geneva, 

Switzerland. 

[4] Yeh, T. T., Espina, P.I., Mattingly, G.E., and Briggs, N.R. An uncertainty analysis of a NIST hydrocarbon liquid flow 

calibration facility. Proceedings of HT/FED’04, HT-FED2004-56790, 2004 Heat Transfer/Fluids Engineering 

Summer Conference. 2004; Charlotte, NC. 

[5] Pope, J.G., Wright, J. D., Johnson, A. N., and Moldover, M. R. Extended Lee model for the turbine meter and 

calibrations with surrogate fluids. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation. 2012; 24: 71 – 82. 

[6] Pope, J.G., Wright, J. D., and Sheckels, S. D. Tests of the extended Lee model using three different turbine meters. 

Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement. 2012; Colorado Springs, CO. 

[7] Wright, J. D., and Mattingly, G. E. NIST calibration services for gas flow meters: piston prover and bell prover gas 

flow facilities: NIST Special Publication SP 250-49, 1998. 

[8] Manual of petroleum measurement standards: proving systems - small volume provers, 1st ed. American Petroleum 

Institute. 1993; Ch. 4.3. 

[9] Lide, D. R. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 73rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Inc.; 1992. 

[10] Benson W., Harris, J., Stocker, H., Lutz, H. Handbook of Physics. New York, NY: Springer; 2006. 

[11] Mattingly, G. E. The characterization of a piston displacement-type flow meter calibration facility and the calibration 

and use of pulsed output type flow meters. Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology. 1992; Vol. 97, No. 5, Pg. 509. 

[12] Aguilera, J. J., Yeh, T. T., and Wright, J. D. Inside diameter measurements for the cylinder of a 20 L piston prover. 

Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Fluid Flow Measurement. 2006; Queretaro Mexico. 

41
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[13] Taylor, B. N., and Kuyatt, C. E. Guidelines for the evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement 

results. 1994; NIST TN-1297. 

[14] Coleman, H. W. and Steele, W. G. Experimentation and uncertainty analysis for engineers. 3rd ed. Ney York: John 

Wiley and Sons Inc.; 2009. 

[15] Jaeger K. B., Davis R. S. A primer for mass metrology. NBS (U.S.) Special Publication SP 700-1, Industrial 

Measurement Series, 79 p. 5, 1984. 

[16] Yeh, Tsyh T., Aguilera, Jesus J., Wright, John D. Hydrocarbon liquid calibration service: NIST Special Publication 

SP 250-1039, 2009. 

[17] Lemmon, E. W., Huber, M. L., and McLinden, M. O. NIST reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties – 

REFPROP. NIST Standard Reference Database 23, Version 9.0 User’s Guide. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Standard Reference Data Program. 

Gaithersburg, MD. November 2010. 

[18] Calibration and Measurement Capabilities in the Context of the CIPM MRA, CIPM MRA-D-04 Version 2, September 2010, www.bipm.org/utils/common/CIPM_MRA/CIPM_MRA-D-04.pdf. 

42
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A Sample Calibration Report 

REPORT OF CALIBRATION
 

FOR
 

A LIQUID FLOW METER
 

July 2, 2013
 

Dual Rotor Turbine Flow Meter
 

Brand X, Model XX/XX
 

S/N: xxx
 

submitted by
 

Company X
 

666 Calibration Dr. West
 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899
 

(Reference: Purchase Order Number xxx, January 22, 2013)
 

NIST has two primary standards that are used to calibrate Liquid Flow meters: 1) The 0.1 Liter Per Second 

Liquid Flow Standard (0.1 L/s LFS); and 2) The 2.5 Liter Per Second Liquid Flow Standard (2.5 L/s LFS). The 

standards used in this calibration are traceable to the System International through national standards. 

To cover the entire flow range, the meter under test was calibrated using both of the Liquid Flow Standards. 

The 0.1 L/s LFS was used for flows below 0.02 L/s (0.3 gallons/min) and the 2.5 L/s LFS was used for higher 

flows. To ensure consistency between the two standards the high flow data from the 0.1 L/s LFS (i.e., flows 

between 0.02 L/s and 0.1 L/s) are included in the report. 

NIST Test Number: Y/YY/ 4 Service ID No.: 18020C 

Calibration Dates: June 1 – June 9, 2013 by Sherry Sheckels and Jodie Pope Page 43 of 55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT OF CALIBRATION 

Dual Rotor Turbine Flow Meter, Brand X, Model XX/XX, S/N: xxx 

The LFSs are piston provers that work on a volumetric principle. They determine the volumetric flow by 

displacing a known volume of liquid in a measured amount of time. During the calibration the output of the 

meter under test was gathered over the same time interval used by the primary standards to determine flow. The 

95 % confidence level uncertainties of the 0.1 L/s LFS and the 2.5 L/s LFS are 0.044 % and 0.064 %, respectively. 

Calibration results for the meter under test are presented in the tables and figures in this report in the form of 

Strouhal number, 

St

, versus Roshko number, 

Ro . 

p The Strouhal number was calculated from the expression: 

V

Df

St  4

3





(1)
 

where 

f

is the rotor frequency of the meter under test, 

D

is the diameter of the meter under test, and 

V



is the 

actual volumetric flow at the meter under test. The Roshko number was calculated from the expression: 



2 Df

Ro 

(2)
 

where 



is the liquid kinematic viscosity, obtained using the equations given below. The thermal expansion of 

the meter diameter was accounted for using the expression: 

1 20 )T(DD  20  

(3)
 

where, 

D20

is the reference diameter of the meter under test at 20oC (in this case, 1.25 cm or 0.5 in), 



is the 

thermal expansion coefficient of the flow meter body material, taken to be 

5

71 10. 

/oC, and 

T

is the fluid 

temperature in oC. 

Both of the NIST flow standards use a 5% by volume propylene glycol and water mixture. The fluid density 

and kinematic viscosity in each flow standard are calculated from temperature measurements using the 

following functions: 

p Mattingly, G. E. The Characterization of a Piston Displacement Type Flow meter Calibration Facility and the Calibration and Use 

of Pulsed Output Type Flow meters. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Tech.: 1992; 97, pp. 509. 

NIST Test Number: Y/YY/ 4 Service ID No.: 18020C 

Calibration Dates: June 1 – June 9, 2013 by Sherry Sheckels and Jodie Pope Page 44 of 55 
 

 

 

 

 

REPORT OF CALIBRATION 

Dual Rotor Turbine Flow Meter, Brand X, Model XX/XX, S/N: xxx 

      21   1 21   T

(4)
       10

T

(5)
 

where, 



is the fluid density, in kg/m3 , νis the kinematic viscosity, in centistokes, and 

T

is the fluid 

temperature in C. These empirical correlations assume that the effect of pressure on the properties is 

negligible. The coefficients used in Equations 4 and 5 are listed in Table 1. 

Table 1. Coefficients used to calculate the liquid properties of each flow standard. 

Flow Standard 

21   0  1

[kg/m3] [1/°C] [Centistokes] [Centistokes/°C] 

0.1 L/s LFS 1003.04 2.45E-04 1.8715 -2.976E-02 

2.5 L/s LFS 1003.04 2.45E-04 1.8745 -2.976E-02 

The meter installation in both the 0.1 L/s LFS and the 2.5 L/s LFS are shown in Figure 1 and in Figure 2, 

respectively. As shown in the figures the same inlet and outlet tubes were used in both setups. Any extra pipe 

length upstream from the meter under test was of the same nominal diameter as the inlet tube. 

Figure 1. A photograph of the meter under test installed in the 0.1 L/s LFS 

NIST Test Number: Y/YY/ 4 Service ID No.: 18020C 

Calibration Dates: June 1 – June 9, 2013 by Sherry Sheckels and Jodie Pope Page 45 of 55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT OF CALIBRATION 

Dual Rotor Turbine Flow Meter, Brand X, Model XX/XX, S/N: xxx 

Figure 2. A photograph of the meter under test installed in the 2.5 L/s LFS. 

An analysis was performed to assess the uncertainty of the calibration factors obtained for the meter under test.q, r 

This process involves identifying all of the significant uncertainty components and quantifying each of them at the 

68 % confidence level. Additionally, we determine the sensitivity coefficients for each component by partial 

differentiation of Equation 1. The uncertainty terms are then combined by the root-sum-squares method (RSS) to 

, which in turn, is multiplied by a coverage factor (k ≈ 2) to give the 

relative expanded uncertainty, at a confidence level of approximately 95 %. 

obtain the relative combined uncertainty, 

uc

 ukU ce

2

2 2

e c

)(

)()( )()(

Ru

V

Vu

s

f

fu

sk

St

u St k

St

U St

f V

 















 























(6) 

The uncertainty components for this calibration include the relative standard uncertainty of the frequency 

measurements, 

f/)f(u

, the relative standard 

)R(u

uncertainty of the actual volumetric flow, 

VVu



/)(

, and the 

reproducibility of the meter under test, . s Partial differentiation shows that the sensitivity coefficient for 

frequency is 

St

f

f

St

sf







is 1.0 and the sensitivity coefficient for volumetric flow is 

St

V

V

St

sV





 







is -1.0. The 

relative standard uncertainty of the frequency measurements is less than 0.01% while the relative standard 

uncertainty for volumetric flow is larger and depends on the flow standard used. For the 2.5 L/s LFS the 

expanded (95 % confidence level) volume flow uncertainty is 0.056 %t while for the 0.1 L/s LFS the standard 

volume flow uncertainty is 0.025 %. 

q	 Taylor, B. N. and Kuyatt, C. E. Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results . NIST TN 

1297; 1994 edition. 

r	 Coleman, H. W. and Steele, W. G. Experimentation and Uncertainty Analysis for Engineers. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 

1989. 

s	 Note that the uncertainty in flow meter diameter can be neglected as long as the same reference diameter is used. 

t	 For the 2.5 L/s LFS the relative expanded uncertainty for the volumetric flow at a meter under test is 0.06 % (k = 2) so that its 

relative standard uncertainty is 0.03 % (k = 1). 

NIST Test Number: Y/YY/ 4 Service ID No.: 18020C 

Calibration Dates: June 1 – June 9, 2013 by Sherry Sheckels and Jodie Pope	 Page 46 of 55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT OF CALIBRATION 

Dual Rotor Turbine Flow Meter, Brand X, Model XX/XX, S/N: xxx 

To measure the flow meter reproducibility, the standard deviation of 10 measurements was used to calculate the 

relative standard uncertainty (i.e., the sample standard deviation divided by the average and expressed as a 

percentage) at each of the nominal flows. The flow meter reproducibility is a type A uncertainty, while all of 

the other uncertainty components are type B. Using the uncertainty values given above and Equation 6 yield 

the relative expanded uncertainties for the meter factors listed in the data tables and shown as error bars in the 

figures. 

The calibration and uncertainties presented here are only valid over the range of the NIST calibration for this 

flow meter. When the flow meter is used at flows below the bearing dependent rangeu (typically 10 % of 

maximumv) additional uncertainties due to kinematic viscosity of the fluid being metered must be considered. 

These uncertainties arise from the use of the flow meter in a fluid of different kinematic viscosity than the fluid 

used during calibration and from the kinematic viscosity changing during use due to temperature changes. 

Turbine flow meters are insensitive to kinematic viscosity at flows above the bearing dependent range. The 

uncertainties given here are for the calibration factor of the meter. When the flow meter is applied by the 

customer to measure flow, uncertainties beyond the NIST calibration must be considered. These uncertainty 

components include: installation effects, long term calibration changes, temperature effects on the meter, etc. 

u Pope JG, Wright JD, Johnson AN, Moldover MR. Extended Lee Model for the Turbine Meter and Calibrations with Surrogate 

Fluids. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation: 2012; 24: 71 – 82. 

v	 10 % of the maximum flow is a rough estimate of when kinematic viscosity effects turbine meter calibrations. The maximum flo w 

at which kinematic viscosity introduces extra uncertainty is specific to a meter and can only be determined by calibration in a 

minimum of two fluids with different kinematic viscosities. 

NIST Test Number: Y/YY/ 4 Service ID No.: 18020C 

Calibration Dates: June 1 – June 9, 2013 by Sherry Sheckels and Jodie Pope	 Page 47 of 55 
 

 

 

 

REPORT OF CALIBRATION 

Dual Rotor Turbine Flow Meter, Brand X, Model XX/XX, S/N: xxx 

5.90

5.95

6.00

6.05

6.10

6.15

6.20

0 20 40 60 80 100

Stup

Roup x 10-4

Upstream Rotor SN 0718

Cox (6/10/2009)

20L (6/10/09)

Cox (5/2/06)

Figure 3. Calibration results for the upstream rotor of meter SN: xxx. (Older data shown for 

comparison purposes only. Note the 20-L is now the 2.5 L/s LFS and the COX benches have 

been de-commissioned). This figure is for illustration purposes only. To date, no turbine meter 

has been calibrated on both LFSs. 

6.80

6.85

6.90

6.95

7.00

7.05

7.10

7.15

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Stdown

Rodown x 10-4

Downstream Rotor SN 0718

Cox (6/10/2009)

20L (6/10/09)

Cox (5/2/06)

Figure 4. Calibration results for the downstream rotor of meter SN: xxx. (Older data shown for 

comparison purposes only. Note the 20-L is now the 2.5 L/s LFS and the COX benches have 

been de-commissioned). This figure is for illustration purposes only. To date, no turbine meter 

has been calibrated on both LFSs. 

NIST Test Number: Y/YY/ 4 Service ID No.: 18020C 

Calibration Dates: June 1 – June 9, 2013 by Sherry Sheckels and Jodie Pope Page 48 of 55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT OF CALIBRATION 

Dual Rotor Turbine Flow Meter, Brand X, Model XX/XX, S/N: xxx 

12.7

12.8

12.9

13.0

13.1

13.2

13.3

0 50 100 150 200

Stup + down

Roup + down x 10-4

Upstream + Downstream Rotor SN 0718

Cox (6/10/2009)

20L (6/10/09)

Cox (5/2/06)

Figure 5. Calibration results for the upstream rotor plus the downstream rotor of meter SN: xxx 

where St = Stup + Stdown and Ro = Roup + Rodown .(Older data shown for comparison purposes only. 

Note the 20-L is now the 2.5 L/s LFS and the COX benches have been de-commissioned). This 

figure is for illustration purposes only. To date, no turbine meter has been calibrated on both 

LFSs. 

2.5 L/s LFS DATA 

Table 2. Tabulated results from the 2.5 L/s LFS for the upstream rotor of meter SN: xxx. 

V



f Ro x 10 -4 Tliq   St Uk=2 

[C] [kg/m3] [m2/s] [cm 3/s] [1/s] [-] [-] [%] 

22.32 1002.71 1.21E-6 27.654 27.506 1.47 12.803 0.26 

22.36 1002.70 1.21E-6 62.877 65.352 3.50 13.378 0.09 

22.38 1002.69 1.21E-6 83.011 86.756 4.64 13.452 0.10 

22.40 1002.69 1.20E-6 110.681 115.845 6.20 13.472 0.11 

22.40 1002.69 1.20E-6 138.339 144.454 7.74 13.440 0.07 

NIST Test Number: Y/YY/ 4 Service ID No.: 18020C 

Calibration Dates: June 1 – June 9, 2013 by Sherry Sheckels and Jodie Pope Page 49 of 55 
 

 

 

 

REPORT OF CALIBRATION 

Dual Rotor Turbine Flow Meter, Brand X, Model XX/XX, S/N: xxx 

Table 3. Tabulated results from 2.5 L/s LFS for the downstream rotor of meter SN: xxx. 

V



f Ro x 10 -4 Tliq   St Uk=2 

[C] [kg/m3] [m2/s] [cm 3/s] [1/s] [-] [-] [%] 

22.32 1002.71 1.21E-6 27.654 27.506 1.47 12.803 0.26 

22.36 1002.70 1.21E-6 62.877 65.352 3.50 13.378 0.09 

22.38 1002.69 1.21E-6 83.011 86.756 4.64 13.452 0.10 

22.40 1002.69 1.20E-6 110.681 115.845 6.20 13.472 0.11 

22.40 1002.69 1.20E-6 138.339 144.454 7.74 13.440 0.07 

Table 4. Tabulated results from the 0.1 L/s LFS for the upstream rotor plus the downstream rotor of meter SN: 

xxx. 

V



f Ro x 10 -4 Tliq   St Uk=2 

[C] [kg/m3] [m2/s] [cm 3/s] [1/s] [-] [-] [%] 

22.32 1002.71 1.21E-6 27.654 27.506 1.47 12.803 0.26 

22.36 1002.70 1.21E-6 62.877 65.352 3.50 13.378 0.09 

22.38 1002.69 1.21E-6 83.011 86.756 4.64 13.452 0.10 

22.40 1002.69 1.20E-6 110.681 115.845 6.20 13.472 0.11 

22.40 1002.69 1.20E-6 138.339 144.454 7.74 13.440 0.07 

0.1 L/s LFS DATA 

Table 5. Tabulated results from the 0.1 L/s LFS for the upstream rotor of meter SN: xxx. 

V



f Ro x 10 -4 Tliq   St Uk=2 

[C] [kg/m3] [m2/s] [cm 3/s] [1/s] [-] [-] [%] 

22.32 1002.71 1.21E-6 27.654 27.506 1.47 12.803 0.26 

22.36 1002.70 1.21E-6 62.877 65.352 3.50 13.378 0.09 

22.38 1002.69 1.21E-6 83.011 86.756 4.64 13.452 0.10 

22.40 1002.69 1.20E-6 110.681 115.845 6.20 13.472 0.11 

22.40 1002.69 1.20E-6 138.339 144.454 7.74 13.440 0.07 

NIST Test Number: Y/YY/ 4 Service ID No.: 18020C 

Calibration Dates: June 1 – June 9, 2013 by Sherry Sheckels and Jodie Pope Page 50 of 55 
 

 

 

 

REPORT OF CALIBRATION 

Dual Rotor Turbine Flow Meter, Brand X, Model XX/XX, S/N: xxx 

Table 6. Tabulated results from the 0.1 L/s LFS for the downstream rotor of meter SN: xxx. 

V



f Ro x 10 -4 Tliq   St Uk=2 

[C] [kg/m3] [m2/s] [cm 3/s] [1/s] [-] [-] [%] 

22.32 1002.71 1.21E-6 27.654 27.506 1.47 12.803 0.26 

22.36 1002.70 1.21E-6 62.877 65.352 3.50 13.378 0.09 

22.38 1002.69 1.21E-6 83.011 86.756 4.64 13.452 0.10 

22.40 1002.69 1.20E-6 110.681 115.845 6.20 13.472 0.11 

22.40 1002.69 1.20E-6 138.339 144.454 7.74 13.440 0.07 

Table 7. Tabulated results from the 0.1 L/s LFS for the upstream rotor plus the downstream rotor of meter SN: 

xxx. 

V



f Ro x 10 -4 Tliq   St Uk=2 

[C] [kg/m3] [m2/s] [cm 3/s] [1/s] [-] [-] [%] 

22.32 1002.71 1.21E-6 27.654 27.506 1.47 12.803 0.26 

22.36 1002.70 1.21E-6 62.877 65.352 3.50 13.378 0.09 

22.38 1002.69 1.21E-6 83.011 86.756 4.64 13.452 0.10 

22.40 1002.69 1.20E-6 110.681 115.845 6.20 13.472 0.11 

22.40 1002.69 1.20E-6 138.339 144.454 7.74 13.440 0.07 

For the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

Dr. Jodie G Pope Sherry Sheckels 

Mechanical Engineer, Calibration Technician, 

Fluid Metrology Group Fluid Metrology Group 

Sensor Science Division Sensor Science Division 

Physical Measurement Laboratory 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NIST Test Number: Y/YY/ 4 Service ID No.: 18020C 

Calibration Dates: June 1 – June 9, 2013 by Sherry Sheckels and Jodie Pope Page 51 of 55