Efficiency Uncertainty GUIDE15final PDF

1
GUIDELINE
for the estimation of the individual
uncertainties related to the full and
part load efficiency measurement
for boilers
ANNEX to Final Report, Contract No. SAVE 4.1031/Z/99-306
Final Version July 2001
Danish Gas Technology Centre a/s

Cetiat
Gaz de France
2
Table of Contents Page
1 DEFINITIONS (ISO) ........................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Reference documents .......................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Definitions and explanations ............................................................................................... 6
1.4 Application ........................................................................................................................ 12
2 METHOD OF CALCULATION OF THE UNCERTAINTY ............................................ 14
3 THE DIFFERENT UNCERTAINTY SOURCES .............................................................. 15
4 OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENTS USED FOR THE DETERMINATION OF

BOILER EFFICIENCY ................................................................................................................ 16
4.1 Measurement on GAS ....................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Measurement on FUEL OIL ............................................................................................. 16
4.3 Measurement on WATER ................................................................................................. 17
4.4 Measurement on AIR ........................................................................................................ 17
4.5 Measurement on FLUE GAS ............................................................................................ 17
4.6 Test rig............................................................................................................................... 17
4.7 Measurement of STANDBY LOSSES.............................................................................. 18
5 THE DIFFERENT UNCERTAINTY SOURCES AND HOW TO CALCULATE THEM19

5.1 Uncertainty due to calibration ........................................................................................... 19
5.2 Drift between calibration................................................................................................... 20
5.3 Random drift ..................................................................................................................... 21
5.4 Resolution.......................................................................................................................... 21
5.5 Influence of various parameters (temperature, humidity, pressure) ................................. 21
5.6 Linearity ............................................................................................................................ 24
5.7 Hysteresis .......................................................................................................................... 24
5.8 Instruments ........................................................................................................................ 25
5.9 Other .................................................................................................................................. 25
5.10 Method and procedure to use the instruments............................................................... 25
5.11 Hardware ....................................................................................................................... 25
5.12 Representativity of the measurand ................................................................................ 26
5.13 Calculation of efficiency ............................................................................................... 26
5.13.1 Uncertainty on corrections (influence of ambient conditions) ............................ 26
5.13.2 Global repeatability of the efficiency (stability). Uncertainty due to the test rig.27
3
6 EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION TO THE DETERMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL

UNCERTAINTY BY METER ..................................................................................................... 28
6.1 Measurement on GAS ....................................................................................................... 28
6.1.1 Calorific value/Wobbe index .................................................................................... 28
6.1.2 Gas density ................................................................................................................ 32
6.1.3 Gas volume ................................................................................................................ 34
6.1.4 Gas flow .................................................................................................................... 37
6.1.5 Time .......................................................................................................................... 38
6.1.6 Temperature .............................................................................................................. 39
6.1.7 Pressure ..................................................................................................................... 43
6.2 Measurement on FUEL OIL ............................................................................................. 47
6.2.1 Calorific value ........................................................................................................... 47
6.2.2 Fuel oil flow .............................................................................................................. 48
6.2.3 Time .......................................................................................................................... 50
6.2.4 Pressure ..................................................................................................................... 50
6.3 Measurement on WATER ................................................................................................. 51
6.3.1 Flow ........................................................................................................................... 51
6.3.2 Water temperature ..................................................................................................... 56
6.3.3 Temperature difference ............................................................................................. 58
6.4 Measurement on AIR ........................................................................................................ 60
6.4.1 Temperature .............................................................................................................. 60
6.4.2 Humidity.................................................................................................................... 60
6.4.3 Pressure ..................................................................................................................... 60
6.5 Measurement on FLUE GAS ............................................................................................ 60
6.5.1 Temperature .............................................................................................................. 60
6.5.2 CO2 ............................................................................................................................ 60
6.5.3 Oxygen, O2 ................................................................................................................ 61
6.6 Test rig............................................................................................................................... 61
6.7 Measure of STANDBY LOSSES ..................................................................................... 61
6.7.1 Temperature .............................................................................................................. 61
6.7.2 Electrical power ........................................................................................................ 62
6.7.3 The pump................................................................................................................... 63
6.7.4 Overall determination of the uncertainty .................................................................. 63
7 UNCERTAINTY CALCULATION ................................................................................... 65
8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 68
4
ANNEX 1 Example of calculation

ANNEX 2 Drift between calibrations. How to determine if there is a trend or not?
ANNEX 3 The physical principle used for the instruments
ANNEX 4 The uncertainty due to the hardware (acquisition)
ANNEX 5 Variation of the gas quality during test (case of laboratories using natural gas):
example of protocol
ANNEX 6 Uncertainty for measurement of differential water temperature
ANNEX 7 Uncertainty for standby loss measurement. Influence of ambient temperature
measurement
ANNEX 8 Main relevant results of the project “IMPROVEMENT OF INTERLABORATORY
REPRODUCIBILITY FOR NOx AND CO MEASUREMETNS. CONTRACT SMT
4 - CT 95 1606” - WP 5
5
PRELIMINARY REMARK
This document is elaborated in the frame of the project
SAVE: CREATION OF A HARMONISED AND DETAILED CALCULATION METHOD FOR THE
EVALUATION OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENT. (Contract SAVE 4.1031/Z/99-
306)
The following organisations have participated in the preparation of the document:

CETIAT, Gaz de France, DGC.
The following organisations did participate in sending data and information about the instru-
ments used for testing boilers:
ARGB, BBRI, CETIAT, DGC, DVGW, GASTEC, G.d.F., ITALGAS, OMV, REPSOL, SP,
TNO, and VTT.
The reference testing methods for the full and part load efficiency measurement are those from
documents produced by CEN and also described in the GLP for efficiency measurements. (Good
Laboratories Practice documents for the measurement of boiler efficiency elaborated in the frame
of the project FULL AND PART LOAD EFFICIENCY MEASUREMENTS FOR BOILERS (Contract MAT 1 -
CT 92-0009) 1993-1996).
This document is written in a way that it can be (or part of it can be) used later on, as an
Appendix of the GLP.
INTRODUCTION
It was established through several inter-comparison tests that the boiler efficiency reproducibil-
ity is too bad for a correct application of the boiler directive 92/42.
One of the weak points is that laboratories do not well enough know their own uncertainties, and
in any case the methods used by laboratories for the determination of uncertainty differ too much
from each other. Laboratories putting more efforts in the determination of the uncertainty have
larger figures and seem to have a bad measurement accuracy compared to laboratories only pro-
ceeding with a quick approximation and thus neglecting a number of important factors.
This is why a detailed and harmonised method for the determination of the uncertainty is needed.
Such a method is now being developed in the framework of this project.
One of the main conclusions achieved is that the method cannot be and shall not be “frozen”.
Together with the permanent evolution in the instrument technology there are new factors to
include in the method and there are some existing ones that can be eliminated. The method de-
veloped is to a certain extent based on the growing experience of laboratories and new data shall
be implemented in the method as well.
Laboratories testing boilers are only instrument users and do not have an extended knowledge of
the instruments’ uncertainties (if not given by the manufacturers). Manufacturers of instruments
and calibration organisation shall as far as possible also make efforts in order the data we have to
use are reliable and comparable.
6
1 DEFINITIONS (ISO)
1.1 Introduction
The present section of the document aims at clarifying a number of statistical tools used for the
expression of the efficiency.
More definitions can also be found in [1], [2] and [3], which are the reference documents used
for the work carried out.
1.2 Reference documents
The methods used for the evaluation of the results of inter-comparison tests are:
 [1] ISO 5725: (Precision of test methods - Determination of repeatability and reproducibility
by inter-laboratory tests)
The background for the calculation of the uncertainties is from:
 [2] Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (ISO)

 [3] ISO 3534: (Statistics - Vocabulary and symbols)
Another relevant standard is the NF X 07 –001 (French standard)
1.3 Definitions and explanations
Some basic definitions of ISO 5725 are given below (in bold):
Repeatability [2]
The repeatability (r) is the value, below which the absolute difference between two single
test results obtained with the same method on identical test material, under the same con-
ditions (same operator, same apparatus, same laboratory, and short interval of time) may
be expected to lie within a probability of 95%.
The repeatability is a value indicating how one single laboratory can reproduce the same meas-
urement, for example when repeating the same efficiency test (e.g. in the morning and in the
afternoon).
The repeatability is calculated with the standard deviation (s) (See further below).
r = 2.83 s
Note that the repeatability is an amplitude. It is not expressed as ± value as are the uncertain-
ties.
Example
Suppose the boiler efficiency tested 5 times in the same laboratory:
7
Test Eff. (%)

1 87,1
2 87,5
3 87,8
4 86,9
5 87,5
The above test data lead to
Average value % 87,4

Standard deviation % 0,36
Repeatability % 1,01
Reproducibility [2]
The reproducibility (R) is the value, below which the absolute difference between two sin-
gle test results obtained with the same method on identical test material, under different
conditions (different operators, different apparatus, different laboratories, and different
time) may be expected to lie within a specified probability of 95%.
The reproducibility is a value indicating how measurements obtained by several laboratories can
compare, for example when repeating the same efficiency test on the same boiler. The notion of
outliers is used to detect measurements for which large mistakes have been done during tests
(e.g. test carried out with wrong heat input or wrong load).
The reproducibility is calculated with the standard deviation (s) (See further below).
R = 2.83 s
Note that the reproducibility (and the repeatability) are amplitudes. They are not expressed as ±
value as are the uncertainties.
Example: measurement of efficiency by 10 laboratories (fictive example)
Laboratory Efficiency 91.0

% 90.5
1 88 90.0
2 88.5 89.5
Efficiency (%)
3 89 89.0
4 88.4 88.5
5 89 88.0
6 90 87.5
7 87 87.0
8 87.4 86.5
9 88 86.0
10 88.3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Laboratory
8
The calculation results are the following:
Average value % 88,4

Standard deviation % 0,85
Reproducibility % 2,42
The reproducibility is 2.42% (absolute value). This means that the statistical absolute difference
between two single test results is 2.42%. There is, however, a probability of 5% that it is larger
(see further “confidence level”). This is the reason why the amplitude Max-Min seen on the
graph or table is larger.
91.0
90.5
90.0
Efficiency (%)
89.5
89.0
88.5 Max- Min R =2.43%
88.0 =3%
87.5
Max
87.0
86.5 Min.
86.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Laboratory
Outliers [2]
Outliers are entries among the original test results that deviate so much from comparable
entries that they are considered as irreconcilable with the other data. An outlier does not
properly belong to the experiment and is corrected or discarded in keeping with the expla-
nation obtained after investigations.
Outliers and stagger values can be investigated by using the Dixon tests or other tests described
in standards.
Experimental standard deviation [2]

Experimental standard deviation (s): For a series of n measurements of the same measur-
and, the parameters characterising the dispersion of the results is given by the formula:
n
1
s =
n -1
 
i=1
(Xi - X)2
X: average of Xi
9
The standard deviation used is always an experimental standard deviation unless otherwise
specified. Note that the "traditional" standard deviation is using a dividing factor of (n) instead of
(n-1).
Uncertainty [2]
Parameter associated with the result of a measurement that characterises the dispersion of
the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand.
Standard Uncertainty [2]

Uncertainty of the result of a measurement expressed as a standard deviation. The standard
uncertainty is calculated from the experimental standard deviation (s).
u =s
Expanded uncertainty [2]

Quantity defining an interval about the result of a measurement that may be expected to
encompass a large fraction of distribution of values that could reasonably be attributed to
the measurand.
Uncertainty given with a confidence level

Unless otherwise indicated, one may assume that a normal distribution (see definition further
below) is used to calculate the quoted uncertainty, and if the confidence level is not given we
assume it is about 95% (see definition further below).
In the present report - when not otherwise mentioned - we are dealing with uncertainty
with a confidence level of about 95% (we write "about" because the factor 2 chosen is in fact
the rounding of 1,96 corresponding to exactly 95%).
So instead of
u (95%) = 1,96.s
we use:
u (95%) = 2.s
Measurand [2]
Particular quantity subject to measurement [2].
Error [2]
Result of a measurement minus a true value of the measurement.
Normal distribution
Calculations are generally based on a hypothesis of a normal or approximately normal distri-
bution of the results. However, when another distribution is known, the appropriate formulas are
used (see further below).
Unless otherwise indicated, one may assume that a normal distribution was used to calculate the
quoted uncertainty [2].
10
Gaussian distribution
(STD= 1% abs. ;U= 2 % abs.)
0.50
0.45
0.40
Probability
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-4 -2 0 2 4
Eff m easured - Eff real
For a normal distribution, the quoted uncertainty defines an interval having 90, 95 or 99% of
confidence (see further below).
The factors corresponding to the above three levels are 1.64, 1.96 and 2.58, respectively.
This means that the standard uncertainty has to be multiplied by the corresponding factor.
Example
u (95%) = 1,96.s
But as already mentioned we will here use the approximation:
u (about95%) = 2.s
The confidence level (comment)

Gaussian distribution
(STD= 1% abs. ;U= 2 % abs.)
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
Probability 0.75
function 0.70
0.65
Probability
Probability 0.60
(Cumulated) 0.55
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Eff measured - Eff real
11
The uncertainty and the reproducibility are always given with a certain level of confidence. In
general, most of the laboratories are using a level of 95% of confidence (calculated as about two
times the standard deviation). This means that when the uncertainty given is 2%, there is a prob-
ability (5%) that the result is outside of the range of uncertainty. On the graph it can be seen that
the cumulated probability of having the result below -2% is 2.5% and the same probability ap-
plies for having the result over 2%.
Rectangular distribution [2]

In case it is possible to estimate only bounds (upper and lower limits) of a quantity we have a
rectangular distribution. This can be expressed by:
 the probability that the value of the quantity lies between a + (upper limit) and a - (lower lim-
it) is 100%
 the probability it lies outside the interval is zero
 In case the upper and lower bounds are not symmetric, the standard uncertainty is:
(a  a ) 2
u=
12
When the bounds are symmetric, the standard uncertainty is:
a2
u=
3
For simplification’s sake, we will assume that the distribution is either Gaussian or rectan-
gular. In the example worked out in this report it was seen that for the application to the
uncertainty calculation of boiler efficiency, the hypothesis is acceptable. For information
we also describe below other distribution types.
In the computer program developed we have only considered symmetric rectangular dis-
tribution and Gaussian distribution.
By not including the non-symmetric rectangular distributions, the method becomes much
simpler (only one parameter is used to describe a given distribution). As a result, the meth-
od becomes a bit less accurate, but the effect seems to be very small.
This choice is justified by the target of having an overall acceptance of the method by the
laboratories doing type testing of boilers. Therefore, we have chosen to have a simplified
method that might be slightly inaccurate, but used; instead of having an accurate, but very
complicated method that will not be used (because of the difficulties in applying the meth-
od).
Trapezoidal and triangular distribution [2]

 In case it is more realistic to assume that values near the bounds are less likely than those
values near the midpoint, it is then reasonable to use a trapezoidal distribution having equal
sloping sides, a base width of a + - a - = 2a, and a top width of 2 · a ·, where 0<=<=1.
When  = 0, it is a triangular distribution. When  = 1, it is a rectangular distribution.
12
The standard uncertainty in this case is:
a 2 (1   ) 2
u=
6
In case = 0 (triangular distribution), the standard uncertainty is:
a2
u=
6
As mentioned above, we will not use such distribution in the method chosen, as it requires the
knowledge of the parameters a and , which are generally not known.
1.4 Application
The guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement [2] is giving details of how to inter-
pret the different uncertainty sources (in the annex F of the document [2]).
 Resolution of digital indication: this uncertainty has a rectangular probability distribution,

as a result the resolution x is leading to a standard uncertainty equal to:
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (resolution) =  = 0,29 . x
3 12
 Hysteresis : if the range of possible reading is x , the standard uncertainty equal to:
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (hysteresis) =  = 0,29 . x
3 12
 Uncertainty when correction from a calibration curve is not applied

This is a typical case when the correction or an influence factor is leading to a too small correc-
tion and this will cause an unacceptable expense for the laboratory (in developing the calcula-
tions). For example when the calibration curve (e.g. of a water flow meter) is only slightly de-
pending on a parameter (e.g. water temperature).
The guideline [2] stipulates the following:
1. Calculation of a single mean correction over a certain range of interest of the influencing
parameter (e.g. 40 to 60°C).
b is this mean value obtained by integration of the correction over the range of interest.
2. Calculation of the variance associated with the mean correction b over the range of interest
(this is the uncertainty of using a fixed value instead of the real correction).
T2
1
u 2 (b) = .  (b(T )  b) 2 .dT
T2  T1 T 1
3. Mean variance of the correction. This is the variance due to the actual determination of the
correction.
T2
1
2
u (b(T )) = .  u 2 [b(T )].dT
T2  T1 T 1
13
The correction is in most cases given by the calibration laboratories. So the above variance is
to be given by those.
14
2 METHOD OF CALCULATION OF THE UNCERTAINTY

A number of data are required for the calculation of the uncertainty. So far, the way to obtain
those data has not been very well described, which explains a number of differences when look-
ing at results of calculations carried out by laboratories. The interpretation of the requirement on
how to measure a given individual uncertainty may for example lead to such differences.
The target is to give the laboratories a tool they can use in order to calculate their own uncertain-
ty in a way that is comparable with other laboratories.
In the present situation, we cannot be sure that a laboratory claiming 2% accuracy is better than
the one claiming 2.5%. In the future, with the method proposed, this should be possible. As a
result, it will give better possibilities for laboratories for improving their own systems. Not only
will the global value of the accuracy be known, but also the details allowing to identify the weak
points of the system.
Often some of the data needed for estimation of the uncertainty are not known. Until now, those
were often not considered in the calculation (when not known, the error was not considered). In
the frame method proposed here, when the error or uncertainty is not known, a worst-case error
concept will be used.
For that sake, data from different sources are gathered in order to get statistics on the different
uncertainty factors. The worst case would typically be the highest uncertainty found within the
experience known.
The laboratory can set up its own strategy for improving its own accuracy. The less the laborato-
ry knows about its instruments, the more it will be penalised. Taking into account the cost, po-
tential gain in accuracy etc., it will be possible for each laboratory to perform partial or extended
test or investigation on the measurement instruments used.
Following accurately the requirements of the standards [1], [2] would lead to a very long and
difficult process for the estimation of efficiency uncertainty. A more pragmatic route has been
chosen here. When the correction or influence factor is small, it can cause an unacceptable and
unnecessary expense for the laboratory, so we will as far as possible voluntarily ignore the influ-
ences or uncertainty sources which, at the end, do not change the final result. This is typically
factors having less than 1% influence on the total uncertainty.
However, there are and there will always be factors that will need to be investigated before one
can conclude they are too small to be taken into account.
15
3 THE DIFFERENT UNCERTAINTY SOURCES

Independently from the measurement type, the uncertainty sources can be classified as follows:
Measure of physical parameters

1. Error of the calibration
 Cal 1 The uncertainty on reference material used
 Cal 2 The uncertainty due to the calibration method
 Cal 3 The influence of ambient conditions during the calibration
 Cal 4 The repeatability of the calibration
 Cal 5 The possible error due to the use of a calibration curve ("error due to the inaccuracy in the error
model")
2. Drift between calibration
3. Random drift
4. Resolution
5. Influence of various parameters (temperature, humidity, pressure, etc.)
6. Linearity
7. Hysteresis (can be calculated from calibration data)
8. Instruments
9. Other
10. Method and procedure to use the instruments
11. Hardware - The additional resolution due to the hardware. and the drift (time, temperature,
etc.) of hardware components
12. Representativity of the measurand
(E.g. influence of the position of the temperature probe)
Calculation of efficiency
1. Uncertainty on corrections on ambient condition influence
2. Global repeatability of the efficiency (stability)
The above uncertainties will be investigated for all instruments used for the measurement of
efficiency. They are explained in detail in Section 5 (see below).
16
4 OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENTS USED FOR THE

DETERMINATION OF BOILER EFFICIENCY
The list of instruments given has been established in 2000. The survey has been carried out with
voluntary laboratories from the LABNET network. The following laboratories participated in the
survey:
ARGB, BBRI, CETIAT, DGC, DVGW, GASTEC, Gaz de France, ITALGAS, OMV, REPSOL,
SP, TNO, VTT.
This goal of this survey is to make sure that the uncertainty calculation method developed is ap-
plicable to all laboratories, and that the specificity of each instrument is taken into account.
In this section we list the different instruments used by the laboratories. In the next section (5)
we will look at the instruments used, and for each instrument we determine the uncertainties to
be taken into account.
Explanations on the physical principle of the instruments are given in Annex 3. This is important
as one need to know how the instrument works in order to be able to determine the uncertainties.
4.1 Measurement on GAS
Calorific value/Wobbe index

Chromatography, calorimetry or use of pure gas are the different ways to measure and calculate
the calorific value or the Wobbe index of the gas.
Density
As above, chromatography, calorimetry or use of pure gas are used to measure and calculate the
density the gas. Densimeters can be used as well.
Gas flow
Dry volumic flow meters, wet volumic flow meters, massic flow meters are used
Balance is used exclusively for fuel oil (no flow meters are used).
Temperature
Either Pt (platinum) or TC (thermo-couples) temperature probes are used.
Pressure
U manometer, Bourdon tube or pressure transducer are used.
4.2 Measurement on FUEL OIL
Calorific value
An external laboratory (the laboratory performing the test sends a sample of fuel to an external
laboratory) generally provides the calorific value of the fuel.
Fuel oil flow

Balance is used exclusively for fuel oil.
17
Time
Chronometers are used, but also time given by the computer or acquisition system.
Temperature
Pressure (not relevant for fuel oil)

U manometer, Bourdon tube or Pressure transducer are used.
4.3 Measurement on WATER
Flow
Electromagnetic meters are mostly used but Coriolis effect meters, Faraday and Inductive effect
meter or turbines are sometimes used as well.
Temperature and temperature difference

4.4 Measurement on AIR
Temperature
Humidity
Psychrometer, capacitive sensors, semi-conductors or cooled mirrors are used.
Pressure
Barometer, capacitive or piezoresistive meters are used. Vibrating cylinder (?) was also men-
tioned.
4.5 Measurement on FLUE GAS
As the standards are today, the flue gas losses are not used in the calculation of the efficiency,
but this may change in the future and it is, therefore, also taken into consideration here.
Temperature
CO2
Infra red absorption meters are used exclusively.
O2
Paramagnetic meters are used exclusively.
4.6 Test rig
There are two principles of test rig: direct and indirect.

In the latter case, the heat output of the boiler is measured after a heat exchanger where in the
first case the heat output is measured directly at the boiler output. When measuring on an indi-
rect test rig, the losses of the test rig (between boiler output and point of measurement) are to be
18
determined for the correction of the heat output measured. Those losses are measured by means
of an electric method as for the stand by losses (see next point).
4.7 Measurement of STANDBY LOSSES
Some laboratories measure the standby losses for the calculation of the part load efficiency.
Temperature
Electrical power
Digital wattmeter measuring W, A, V, cos () is used.
Because of the experience gained with instruments by the laboratories, a number of weak points
are already known. In the following we have tried to list by instrument the points that need spe-
cial attention.
The physical principle used for the instruments is given in ANNEX 3.

19
5 THE DIFFERENT UNCERTAINTY SOURCES AND HOW TO

CALCULATE THEM
For all meters identified in section 4, we have established a list of relevant uncertainty sources and
the basic hypothesis for the calculations. Application to specific meters and details on calculation
with examples are given in Section 6.
We have tried to define procedures that can apply to all measurements and all technologies of
instruments. It is clear that this approach is probably not entirely satisfactory and that future
adaptations will be necessary.
The uncertainty/errors are related in general to the technology used; even identical meters might
not have identical errors. When data on a given instrument are available, it should be made clear
if (and how) they can be used on another instrument of the same technology, trademark, or mod-
el.
5.1 Uncertainty due to calibration
The needed values referred to below are in general all comprised in the report (calibration certifi-
cate) provided by the organisation in charge of the calibration.
 Cal 1 The uncertainty on reference material used.

It is in general including Cal 2, Cal 3 and sometimes Cal 4. Unless otherwise mentioned in the
calibration certificate, the error is considered having a normal distribution. The level of
confidence is given in the certificate (it is generally twice the standard deviation).
 Cal 2 The uncertainty due to the calibration method. See Cal 1.
 Cal 3 The influence of ambient conditions during the calibration. See Cal 1.
 Cal 4 The repeatability of the calibration. See also Cal 1.
In case it is not included in Cal 1: In order to make the calculation easier and simple, it is
suggested to consider on the range of utilisation only a maximum value of the calibration
repeatability error considered as a random error.
The standard uncertainty is in this case:

n
1
u= s=   (Xi - X)2
n - 1 i=1
with n being the number of calibration carried out.
 Cal 5 The possible error due to the use of a calibration curve. ("error due to the inaccuracy in the
error model").
The calibration curve is either given on the calibration certificate or calculated with the data
from the calibration certificate. A polynomial expression of the “reading error” is calculated. It is
advisable that the polynomial expression shall have a degree limited to 3 and even 2 if possible.
a) After correction, the meter error is not eliminated totally: because of the accuracy of the
polynomial expression, there is in general a little difference, but it is often possible to find a
polynomial expression which can quite accurately target the experimental deviations given by
the calibration institute. In most of the cases, we expect this factor should be much lower than
the error of the meter.
20
Again here the results might depend on the value measured. In order to make the work easier,
exactly the same approach as above is suggested. Over the range of utilisation the error lies
between one min. and max. value. It is assumed that this is a case of a rectangular distribution
[2], which means that:
 the probability that the value of the quantity lies between a + (upper limit) and a - (lower
limit) is 100%.
 the probability that it lies outside the interval is zero.
(a  a ) 2 a2
u= or u = if we consider a rectangular symmetric distribution.
12 3
b) If no correction is made, the instrument error remains. In order to make the work easier,
exactly the same approach as above is suggested. Over the range of utilisation the error lies
between one minimum and maximum value. It is assumed that we have a rectangular
distribution [2], which means that:
 the probability the value of the quantity lies between a + (upper limit) and a - (lower limit)
is 100%.
 the probability it lies outside the interval is zero.
(a  a ) 2 a2
u= or u = if we consider a rectangular symmetric distribution.
12 3
5.2 Drift between calibration
When not given directly by the calibration institute, the drift between calibrations can easily be
measured by comparing the new obtained calibration curve with the previous one. The data are,
therefore, available from the calibration reports. The drift could be a function of the value to be
measured.
The history of the drift is very important. The more data are available the more precise is the
determination of the drift.
The drift is a systematic error but which is not known in forehand and, therefore, cannot be
corrected.
As a result we have to consider the drift as a random error.
There can be two situations, generally depending on the physical principle of the instrument:
1. There is a trend of decreasing drift after each calibration
2. The drift is random
ANNEX 2 describes how to decide whether or not there is a trend of decreasing drift.
In order to make the calculation easier and simple, it is suggested to consider on the range of
utilisation one single maximum value of the drift. In this way, the sign of the drift will not be
taken into account. The value can be either relative or absolute, depending on the profile of the drift.
21
Taking into account the method proposed, the choice of the value (relative or absolute) which is the
most constant over the range of utilisation will be made.

a2
u=
3
with a being the drift as defined in ANNEX 2.
5.3 Random drift
The random drift (within a calibration period) is in general not known. It is supposed to be much
smaller than the calibration drift and can, therefore, be neglected.
5.4 Resolution
The resolution of the meters is to be taken into account in the uncertainty calculation. For exam-
ple gas meters are generally giving one pulse for each unit of gas volume which went through
the meter. The resolution is, therefore, an absolute value( x ) in l of gas. The absolute standard
uncertainty is:
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (resolution) =  = 0,29 · x
3 12
5.5 Influence of various parameters (temperature, humidity, pressure)
The meters used for the test are used in conditions that are not necessarily identical with the
calibration conditions.
Therefore, the influence of various factors as

 ambient temperature and variations in ambient temperature
 ambient humidity
 water temperature
 pressure
 voltage
 etc.
may influence the meter.
The table given below in this section indicates the potential influences of various parameters on
instruments. Note that this first version of the table will need to be updated in the light of new
experience and new instruments.
In general the influence factors have to be corrected.
a) In case the influence is known

 In case the influence is corrected, the remaining uncertainty after correction is considered as 0.
 In case the influence is NOT corrected, the uncertainty is calculated using a realistic range of
variation of the parameter considered.
b) In case the influence is NOT known
22
In case the influence is NOT known a worst case should apply; however, the development of this
is not possible in the frame of the present project and such worst case table has to be developed in
the future. It requires a detailed analysis of the instrument behaviour and this work shall
preferably be done in collaboration with the measurement instrument manufacturers.
Various parameters may influence the meters. The influence factors, if any, are to be de-
scribed in the technical documentation by the meter manufacturer. But sometimes the calibra-
tion data can be used to determine the influence of a given parameter, if this influence is
measured during the calibration (e.g. temperature of the water for water flow meters).
In most cases, the influence of the parameter is small and will, therefore, not be corrected. We
are, therefore, in the known case of [2], where the correction from a calibration curve is
not applied.
In most cases, the influence given is linear, e.g. in [l/°C] or [l/mbar] etc.
For example, the influence of ambient temperature on a gas flow meter is + 0.01 l/°C.
As seen previously, the guideline [2] stipulates the following:
 Calculation of a single mean correction over a certain range of interest of the influencing
parameter (e.g. 40 to 60°C). b is this mean value obtained by integration of the correction
over the range of interest. In case no correction is applied b = 0.
 Calculation of the variance associated with the mean correction b over the range of interest.
This is the uncertainty of using a fixed value (zero in this case) instead of the real correction.
T2
1
2
u (b) = .  (b(T )  b) 2  dT
T2  T1 T 1
In general, the correction is a linear function of the influence parameter.
b(T) - b =A.T + B where A and B are constants.
1 A2  T 3
u 2 (b) = .[  A  B  T 2  B 2  T ]TT 12
T2  T1 3
In case B= 0, the uncertainty is obtained with:
A 2  (T2  T1 )
3 3
1
u 2 (b) = .
T2  T1 3
The influence parameters

The table below shall be used with caution. The authors of this report have estimated most of the
influences, and updates would be useful in the future.
In the table A, B, C, D are defined as follows:
A = very influential
Or B = influential
Or C = little influence only
Or D = No influence
Or ? = Not known
PERTURBATING PARAMETER
Amb. T. T. variat. Water T. Atm. Voltage Humidity Other
Pressure
23
Pressure
GAS
Calorific value/Wobbe index
Chromatog. D C C C C
Calorimetry C/D C/D Gas composition
Use of Pure gas D Gas composition
Wobbe meter D
Density
Chromatog. D C C B C
Calorimetry C/D C/D C/D
Use of Pure gas
Densimeter
PAAR, Pyknometer
Gas flow
Vol. Dry C D (6) D C Calibration with
air instead of gas
Vol. Wet ? D (6) D D
Mass meter D B (5)D C? (6) D C/D Strong hysterisi
Fuel oil flow
Balance B/C (6) B? (6) D B/C (6)
Temperature
Pt D C/D C/D
TC D B (6) D
Pressure
Mano U C D D D
Bourdon tube C D D
Pressure Trans- A (6) B (6) D D
ducer
Vibrating cylinder A (6) B (6) D D
Piezoelectric (1) A (6)? (1) A D B (6)
transducers (6)?
Induction trans- (2) B (6) B (6) D C
ducers
WATER
Flow
Eletromagnetic D D C C/D C/D
Faraday Inductive
Coriolis Effect D D C D D
Turbine D D C D D
Ultra sound (3) C C B (6) D (4) D
(=acoustic ?)
Temperature
Pt D C/D C/D
TC D B (6) D
Temperature difference
Pt D C/D C/D
TC D B (6) D
AIR
Temperature
Pt D C/D C/D
TC D B (6) D
Humidity
Psychrometer A (6) B (6) A (6) D
Capacit. A (6) B (6) B (6) C
Semi- Cond. A (6) B (6) B (6) C
24
Pressure
Mirror D D C
Pressure
Barometer D D D
Capacit. A (6) A (6) C B (6)
Piezoresistive A (6) A (6) D B (6)
FLUE GAS See synthesis of

project NOx CO
[8] in ANNEX
STANDBY LOSSES
Electrical power
Digital Wattmeter
(1) Strong influence [a]

(2) Example 0,03%/C[a]
(3) Example 0,05%/C [a]
(4) Example 0,005%/V [a]
(5) According to GdF
(6) According to CETIAT
[a] Reguleringsteknik. Lars Jacobsen 1982, dK MTA
5.6 Linearity
The linearity error of a gas or water meter is the possible difference between the calibration
curve and the real value not measured (between calibration measurement point having being
used for establishing the calibration curve). In other words, it is the possible error due to the fact
that the curve might not be exactly adapted, not on the calibration points but in-between.
As the linearity error cannot be measured, it is suggested that the linearity is included in the error
of the instrument (calibration curve).
5.7 Hysteresis
The hysteresis is either given by the manufacturer of the instrument or by the calibration
organisation. The hysteresis is a systematic error, which can be corrected, but it is difficult to
handle simply. Therefore, in the (normally rare) cases where there is a hysteresis error, it is
suggested to consider on the range of utilisation a maximum error x . The standard uncertainty is
equal to
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (hysteresis) =  = 0,29 · x
3 12
25
Hysterisis
200
190
180
170
160
Y
150
140
130 x
120
110
100
0 2 4 6 8 10
X
In case the curve is not a typical hysteresis curve as the one above (see example of 6.3 water
flow), it can be concluded that there is no hysteresis or that there is a greater uncertainty source.
In both cases the hysteresis error will be considered as zero.
5.8 Instruments
This includes any error of the instrument given by the manufacturer and not included in the list
of errors already taken into account above.
5.9 Other
Some meters can have a specific error or uncertainty source.
5.10 Method and procedure to use the instruments
When not using an acquisition system, the "human" reading of the counter introduces an error (in
this case, this reading error shall be considered also in relation with the resolution of the meter).
Other aspects from the method and procedure are supposed to have no influence, but sometimes
a specific procedure can lead to an error.
5.11 Hardware
The hardware may introduce an error when the signal from the meter is treated in the acquisition
system.
The uncertainty due to hardware is supposed to have a normal distribution.
A study done by CETIAT (2000) shows that the uncertainty due to the hardware is very small
compared to the uncertainties due to the instruments themselves. Its is generally neglected.
However, the conclusion cannot apply to all cases, as it was also seen that some manufacturers
give rather large figures.
It is always preferable to consider the whole or complete measurement line (from the instrument
to the acquisition system) when it is possible to do so. (Reference CETIAT: NT99206, 99210,
99211).
But it is rather time consuming and complicated to get a fair value for the uncertainty, taking
into account the whole chain after the measurement probe, also taking into account whether the
calibration is performed with or without the probes connected.
26
As it seems that the error is in general less than about 0.1%, the effort of getting a fair value is
not justified, therefore, it is proposed to use a fixed value of 0,1% for the hardware drift (time,
etc.) unless the value of the manufacturer is known.
For the temperature measurement, a value of 0,2°C shall apply, unless the real uncertain-
ty/error is given in the technical documentation of the acquisition system. In future, a procedure
shall be developed in the GLP to describe how this error can be checked in practice in order to
be sure it is lower than the value proposed.
The resolution error due to the hardware shall be taken into account separately (see under “Reso-
lution”). See also additional details in ANNEX 4.
5.12 Representativity of the measurand
What we call “representativity” is the error that is caused by the fact that what the laboratory
measures is not exactly what is wanted or needed to be measured. This error is linked to the fact
that the meter or probe is not placed in the right place or that the measurement does not occur at
the right time for different reasons. It should also include the possible sampling time influence
on the measurement.
A typical example is the measurement of calorific value of the gas when using gas from the net-
work (the composition of which is subject to variations). Some laboratories carry out the analysis
of gas before the measurement, and the variations of the gas calorific value during the test shall
be estimated. When proceeding to several samplings during the test, the possible variations of
gas in between the analysis points shall be estimated as well.
In general, the representativity can be due either to a mistake of the laboratory (in this case it is
difficult to estimate the effect) or to an error because of simplification in a measurement proce-
dure (in this case the “cost” in accuracy of the simplification can be estimated). The representa-
tivity of the measurand can be the main factor of uncertainty or error. It is also the one the labor-
atory has the entire responsibility of (compared to instruments where laboratories depend on
instrument manufacturer’s data, calibration certificates, etc.).
The sampling time effect shall be carefully considered In case of a fluctuation of parameters (do
we have the fluctuation correctly integrated in the measurement?).
But a fluctuation of a parameter can also create some instability. This error is linked with the
repeatability of efficiency (does the fluctuation create an alteration of the efficiency to be meas-
ured?).
5.13 Calculation of efficiency
Two elements shall be considered here:

 The uncertainty on corrections on ambient condition influence and
 The global repeatability of the efficiency (stability)
5.13.1 Uncertainty on corrections (influence of ambient conditions)
In case corrections are carried out on the efficiency (correction of the influence of ambient con-
ditions according the GLP [4]), an error caused by the fact that a correction is generally not per-
fect is taken into account. As long as no detailed estimation of this error is made, we will sup-
pose it is 1/3 of the correction.
27
a2
u= (standard uncertainty)
3
"a" being the absolute value of the correction.
5.13.2 Global repeatability of the efficiency (stability). Uncertainty due to the test rig.
The efficiency measured every 10, 20 or 30 minutes is subject to variations that may be caused
by:
 fluctuation of boiler efficiency due to the influence of ambient conditions, gas quality, com-
bustion etc.
 dynamic effects on the boiler, measurement probes etc.
The ambient condition effect is already taken into account by the corrections, but in general, the
corrections are only carried out on the final result of efficiency and not on the efficiency meas-
ured every 10, 20 or 30 minutes. (In any case, the correction shall apply on a relative long time
period to eliminate possible errors due to the boiler time constant). So in practice, it is not con-
venient to dissociate the ambient condition effect from the other effects leading to perturbation
in efficiency constancy. Therefore, we suggest to use directly the value of the standard deviation
measured in order to get an overall figure for the efficiency repeatability, knowing that this value
is probably a bit overestimated.
The standard deviation is the value resulting from the application of the stability criteria as de-
scribed in the GLP [4]:
u= 2s
28
6 EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION TO THE DETERMINATION OF

INDIVIDUAL UNCERTAINTY BY METER
This section is an application of the above. We have selected an instrument for each of the meas-
urements needed for the determination of the efficiency. For each uncertainty source, general
comments (in italics) are made and a practical example is given (one per measurement).
IMPORTANT
Please note that this is only an example and not a universal uncertainty to be used for the
meter described. In each case, each laboratory shall calculate the uncertainty by instru-
ment and not take the values from this section, as the example is only given as a guidance
to show how the problem has been treated in one laboratory (here DGC, CETIAT or GdF,
depending on the example).
6.1 Measurement on GAS
6.1.1 Calorific value/Wobbe index
6.1.1.1 Chromatography
The chromatography technique is generally not used directly by the boiler test operators them-
selves, but by experts. The use of a chromatograph is more sophisticated than the use of a simple
water meter, the calculation of the accuracy is also much more complicated. In order to facilitate
the calculation we have proposed a number of simplifications so as to make the use of the meth-
od possible for non-experts. The method can be discussed and revised in the light of the contri-
bution of chromatograph users/experts. In the following we have proposed the same approach as
for the other errors.
The reference standard for the calculation of U is the ISO 6974-2: 2000 Natural gas - Determina-
tion of composition with defined uncertainty by gas chromatography.
Uncertainty due to calibration

This is given by the manufacturer of calibration gases (e.g. 99.9%). Unless otherwise mentioned
in the calibration certificate, the error is considered having a normal distribution. The level of
confidence is given in the certificate (it is generally two times the standard deviation).
When not pure gas (mixing of several different gases) is used (e.g. test with gas from the
grid), the various components have to be taken into account. This means that the uncertainty
in the analysis of each component shall be given (SO 6976). The overall uncertainty is
obtained by combining the individual uncertainties of components weighted with the
percentage of the components in the gas used.
 Cal 2 The uncertainty due to the calibration method.
 Cal 3 The influence of ambient conditions during the calibration.
 Cal 4 The repeatability of the calibration.
 Cal 5 The possible error due to the use of a calibration curve.
The above points (Cal 2 to Cal 5) are, in general, small compared to the calibration of the uncer-
tainty.
29
Drift between calibration

The drift between calibrations is not a relevant uncertainty when the calibration is carried out before
each analysis.
Random drift
The random drift is supposed to be much smaller than the calibration drift and can, therefore, be
neglected.
Resolution
The resolution is considered to be very small in comparison to other errors. It is not taken into
account.
Influence of various parameters (temperature, humidity, pressure) / Linearity / Hysteresis

The influence factors, if any, are to be described in the technical documentation of the meter
manufacturer. Unless the technical document mentions any, they are considered to be very small
in comparison to other errors and are not taken into account.
Instrument/Repeatability
When no specific data is available, the repeatability of test can be used to determine experimentally
the influence of the instrument errors. When impure gas is used, the overall uncertainty is obtained
by weighting as above (see Calibration).
Other
The stratification in calibration bottles shall be considered, but not so much is known on this
subject at present.
Method and procedure to use the instruments

There is for the time being no identified error.
Hardware
There is for the time being no identified error.
Uncertainty on corrections
Not relevant (no corrections).
Representativity of the measurand

This is a very important point as this uncertainty might very well be much higher than all the
other together.
In case the calorific value is calculated over the period of test (and used as an average), the fol-
lowing shall be considered:
 the variation of the gas quality during the test
 the possible delay caused by the gas volume between the analysis and the boiler
For the variation of the gas quality during the test (if laboratories are using natural gas) a specific
protocol needs to be developed (See example of in ANNEX 5).
30
6.1.1.2 Calorimetry (Wobbe meter)

The following example is provided by CETIAT.

Calibration of the WOBBE meters
To calibrate the apparatus, one calibration gas would be theoretically enough to give the indica-
tion of the apparatus. However, to take into account the effect of the measurement instruments, a
second gas is used to determine a linear function representing the variation of the WI (Wobbe
Index) as function of the electrical signal.
The use of the two calibration gases provides the values of the constants a and b of the linear law
of variation of the WOBBE INDEX. The gases used are:
WI  a U  b
CH4 (99,9%)
70% CH4 and 30%  0,6% N2

The drift between the calibration is evaluated with two different methods:
1 Control every two weeks using pure methane. A statistical study of these controls, shows
that the worst case corresponds to a variance of 1,6 10 -5
2 Control every two months by chromatography. This control is done using the distributed
gas. A statistical study of theses controls, shows that the worst case corresponds to a vari-
ance of 1,095 10 -5
The value obtained by the calibration gas (CH4) is used in the following calculations.
The WOBBE meter operates continuously. The value of the indication is always taken just be-
fore the efficiency measurement starts. The variation of the indication during the testing period is
controlled. We suppose that there is influence of this variation on the efficiency measured since
it is averaged over the testing period.
Random drift
Not relevant.
Resolution
The resolution of the voltmeter is the only error considered during the calibration of the WOBBE
meter with the two reference gases. This resolution is taken equal to 0,1 mV.
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (resolution) =  = 0,29 · x
3 12
Influence of various parameters (temperature, humidity and pressure)

The value given by the WOBBE meter depends more on the humidity and the pressure of the air
than on the temperature.
31
The pressure of the air and the gas are controlled and maintained constant by regulators. The
accuracy depends then on the sensitivity of the regulators used. The humidity affects directly the
values given because the amount of water present in the air does not undergo (participate) to the
combustion but it absorbs some of the heat generated.
The temperature does not affect the values read because the products of combustion are returned
to the ambient temperature.
Linearity
Not relevant.
Hysteresis
Not relevant.
Instruments
Not relevant.
Other
Not relevant.

Not relevant.
Hardware
Not relevant.
Not relevant.

See the previous point in 6.1.1.1.
In this example the error is supposed to be negligible.
Overall uncertainty
The calorific value of the gas is obtained from the WOBBE INDEX and the specific gravity,
which are both measured.
H = WOBBE x d 1/2
The uncertainty associated with the calorific value is composed of the uncertainties of the
WOBBE index and the specific gravity.
 The uncertainty associated with the specific gravity is given in 6.1.2.9 and lead to
U = 0,50%
32
 The uncertainty associated with the WOBBE index takes into account the calibration, the
drift and the resolution. It was calculated in a previous work done at CETIAT [6] and is
equal to 0,42%.
The uncertainty associated with the calorific value is then the combination of the WOBBE index
and the specific gravity.
[U(H)/H]2 = [U(WI)/WI]2 + [U(d1/2)/d]2
or
[U(H)/H]2 = [U(WI)/WI]2 + ¼ [U(d)/d]2
The calculated uncertainty is then equal to
U = [(0,5 ² ) + ¼ ( 0,42 ²) ]1/2 = 0,54%
6.1.1.3 Use of pure gas

In case the laboratory uses pure gas the gas shall have a certificate stipulating the tolerance on
the composition.
The laboratory guaranties that the CH4 component is at least equal to the value desired by the
testing laboratory. Some gas companies produce very high quality CH4.
6.1.2 Gas density
As above, chromatography, calorimetry or use of pure gas are used to measure and calculate the
density the gas. Densimeters can be used as well.
The gas specific gravity (density) is measured by introducing on the two sides of a paddle, the
gas and air at relative pressure equal to zero. The ratio of the pressures at the exit with no flow is
equal to the specific gravity of the gas.
d = Pg / Pa
The accuracy of the measurement depends on the adjustment of the zero pressure of the gas. This
adjustment is done at regular intervals and is controlled before each measurement of the specific
gravity.
The pressure of the air and the gas are read on the same inclined manometer.
The uncertainty on the specific gravity depends mainly on:
 the drift
 the resolution

33
The uncertainty due to calibration is negligible and is included in the drift.

The drift is estimated by making regular controls using calibration gases with known properties
or by analysing the gas with a chromatograph. It does not exceed 10-².
The calculation of the uncertainty gives U (drift and calibration) = 0,33%.
Random drift
Not relevant.
Resolution
The resolution when reading the pressure of the air is ¼ of a graduation and is due to the possi-
ble variation of the zero on the reading scale.
The calculation of the uncertainty gives U = 0,38%.

The gas density may be affected by the humidity if the air is not dried before the measurement,
which is not the case.
Linearity
Not relevant.
Hysteresis
Not relevant.
Others
Not relevant.

Not relevant.
Hardware
Not relevant.
Not relevant.

Same as for the Wobbe index.
34
6.1.3 Gas volume
The gas flow can be measured either directly (6.1.4) or the volume (number of impulses) (6.1.3)
and time (6.1.5) can be measured. The calibration results in an average volume corresponding to
one impulse.
The flow meter given in the present example is a gas meter ESTER G4/6.

The certificate of calibration stipulates a method uncertainty of Cal 1 to 3 (k=2) is 0,24%. As no

details are given we may suppose that the uncertainty includes Cal 2 and Cal 3.
Gas flow meter error

Calibration repeatability 98-03
96-11
Standard deviation of
the error measured
0,4
0,3
(%)
0,2
0,1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Flow (m3/h)
During calibration, each point has been measured 6 times and the figure above indicates the standard
deviation of the error obtained (data given by the calibration laboratory). The results are depending
on the flow measured. In order to make the work easier, it is suggested to consider the range of utili-
sation only (0.5 to 12 m3/h).

n
1
u= s=   (Xi - X)2
n - 1 i=1
with n being the number of calibration carried out. The standard uncertainty can be read directly on
the curve above.
The maximum repeatability error is, therefore, about ±0.1%. (amplitude 0.2%).
35
Gas flow meter error

98-03
Poly. (98-03)
1,5
1
Error (%)
0,5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0,5
y = 0,0125x3 - 0,2326x2 + 1,0673x - 0,0528
Flow (m3/h)
On the same meter as above.
Flow Q m3/h 0.057 0.11 0.51 2.06 4.57 10.48

Cal. Curve (%) 0.0073 0.0618 0.4327 1.268 1.16 -0.026
Result (%) -0.37 0.27 0.7 1.14 1.19 -0.04
Error (%) -0.377 0.2082 0.2673 -0.128 0.03 -0.014
Again the results are depending on the flow measured. In order to make the work easier, exactly the
same approach as above is suggested. Over the range of utilisation only (0.5 to 12 m3/h) the error
lies between 0.27% and -0.13%. It is assumed that this is a case of the a rectangular distribution
[2]:
 the probability the value of the quantity lies between a+ (upper limit) and a- (lower limit) is
100%
 the probability it lies outside the interval is zero
In this case the standard uncertainty is:
(a  a ) 2
u= = 0.115%
12
Gas flow meter drift
0,3
0,2
Drift (%)
0,1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-0,1
-0,2
Flow (m3/h)
36
Error of the meter in % (difference: value measured-reference)

Flow Q m3/h 0.057 0.11 0.51 2.06 4.57 10.48
98-03 -0.37 0.27 0.7 1.14 1.19 -0.04
96-11 -0.43 0.02 0.5 0.99 0.99 0.11
DRIFT (%) 0.06 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.2 -0.15
The figure above shows the example of the calibration drift for the gas meter (ESTER G4/6) over a
period of two years. To make the calculation simple, we suggest that over the range of utilisation
(0.5 to 12 m3/h), the drift lies between -0.2% and 0.2%. It is assumed that we have a rectangular
distribution.
In this case the standard uncertainty is:
a2
u= = 0.12%
3
As no previous calibration data is available, this value is used directly.
Random drift
neglected.
Resolution
The gas meters are generally giving one pulse for each unit of gas volume that went through the
meter. The resolution is, therefore, an absolute value ( x ) in l of gas. The absolute standard
uncertainty is:
u (resolution) = 0,29 · x
In the present example, the resolution of the meter is 1 l. So the absolute standard uncertainty is:
u (resolution) = 0,29 · x = 0.29 l
The relative uncertainty is calculated knowing the quantity of gas that went through the meter.

The gas meters can be influenced by various parameters. The influence factors, if any, are to be
described in the technical documentation of the meter manufacturer.
This example is not based on real data, but is given to illustrate how to treat a possible in-
fluence factor.
We suppose an influence of the ambient temperature of 0.01 l /°C.

When using the counter between 15 and 25°C, the standard uncertainty is given by:
A 2 .(T2  T1 )
3 3
1
u 2 (b) = . = 0.20 l
T2  T1 3
37
Linearity
Included in the calibration error.
Hysteresis
The hysteresis is supposed to be very small with all kinds of flow meters considered here. How-
ever, for certain types of meter it should be checked that there is no “start-stop” effect.
Other
There is no other known uncertainty with this meter, so u = 0%, but the following possible and
general problems with gas meters shall be listed:
 Errors due to the fact that the calibration is carried out with air and not gas
 Start-stop error (e.g. in case there is inertia)
 Specific problems when measuring boilers with pilot flame
 Absorption of gas in the oil of gas meter

When not using an acquisition system, the reading of the counter introduces an error (in this
case, this reading error shall be considered also in relation to the resolution of the meter). The
reading error is supposed to have a normal distribution.
Other aspects from method and procedure are supposed to have no influence.
u = 0%
Hardware
In case of gas metering the hardware is supposed to have only very small or no influence.
u = 0%
Not relevant.
u = 0%

In principle, a gas meter is not subject to this error, unless there is a gas leakage after the meter.
u = 0%
6.1.4 Gas flow
For the so-called “dry flow meters” the influence of the humidity of the gas can be a problem.
The solution of this problem is either to use a gas saturated in humidity (but in practice this is
difficult) or to use a dry gas in bottle (probably the best solution).
For the mass flow meters, the uncertainty due to the density of the gas should also be taken into
account (conversion to volume flow).
38
6.1.5 Time
Time is either measured by the computer used for the acquisition or with a chronometer.
In the first case, we will make the hypothesis that the uncertainty is small in relation to all other
uncertainties and so consider that U(t) = 0.
In the second case, the following examples is given:

In principle the calibration uncertainty is low and can be neglected.

Drift of the chronometer: 0,099 s (source: CETIAT).
Random drift
neglected.
Resolution
Generally, the chronometer resolution is not a problem (the electronic resolution is in any case
below 0,01s). For manual chronometers the absolute value ( x ) is about 0.5 s. The absolute
standard uncertainty is:
In the present example, the resolution of the meter is 0.5s. So the absolute standard uncertainty
is:
u (resolution) = 0,29 · x = 0.14 s.
The relative uncertainty is calculated knowing the time measured.

There is no known influence at this stage.
Linearity
Included in the calibration error.
Hysteresis
No hysteresis.
39
Other
There is no other source of uncertainty known at this stage.

The manual operation starting and stopping a chronometer introduces an error of about 0,25 s.
Hardware
Not relevant with the use of chronometers:
u = 0%
Not relevant.
u = 0%

Not relevant.
u = 0%
6.1.6 Temperature
6.1.6.1 Platinum Probes

Pt100 temperature probes are given in the following example.

U (2k) = 0.056°C
The certificate of calibration stipulates that the uncertainty includes the reference (Cal 1), the
calibration method and rig (Cal 2), the condition of calibration (Cal 3), but also the repeatability (Cal
4).
For Pt100 probes, a polynomial expression (degree 2) of the temperature is given by the calibration
laboratories (function of the resistance).
When no specific error is given in the calibration report, it is supposed that the uncertainty in
included is the one given above.
40
The calibration curve is to be implemented in the measuring chain (e.g. acquisition system).
However, In case that, instead of the calibration curve, an average polynomial expression is used,
the corresponding uncertainty shall be calculated.

The drift between calibration is varying from probe to probe, and the same type of probe can have
very different drift profiles. Sudden and unexplained drift has been seen, as well a slow and regular
drift. Therefore, it is important to keep a good historic of the drift.
The drift may depend on the temperature level and, therefore, it shall be considered in relation to the
temperature level the probe is used for.
Pt-100 nr. 02624 DGC

Calibration: 1999.07.26
[ T Gas ]
0,20
0,15
Variation [°C]
0,10
0,05
0,00
-0,05
-0,10
-0,15
-0,20
0 25 50 75 100
Temperature [°C]
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
The figure above shows the example of the calibration drift of a DGC Pt100 used for the gas
temperature metering. Over the range of utilisation, the drift is always lower than 0.05°C.

a2
u= = 0.0289%
3
Random drift
neglected.
Resolution
The resolution of the temperature metering is related to the acquisition system.
( x ) is lower than 0.01°C according to the specification of the instruments.
The absolute standard uncertainty is:

41
u (resolution) = 0,29 · x = 0.0029°C.

The influence factors, if any, are to be described in the technical documentation of the meter
manufacturer. For the temperature probes (Pt100) there is no known influence for the time being.
Linearity
This error is included in the calibration curve error.
Hysteresis
The hysteresis is supposed to be very small within the range of utilisation of Pt100 (< 400°C in
any case).
Other
The time constant of the probe can introduce an error when there is a sudden change in the gas
temperature. However, this does not occur in principle.
u = 0%
(Time constant of the probes: GdF 1,6 mm To95%= 3 to 4 seconds).

u = 0%
Hardware
In case of temperature metering the hardware can have a rather important influence. It is sug-
gested to start with:
u = 0.1°C (standard uncertainty)
The laboratories shall further discuss this value.
Not relevant.
u = 0%

The measurement of the gas temperature can give a problem in case the environment of the
probe influences the value of the gas temperature measured. This is especially true when the
temperature of the gas is very different from the temperature of ambient air, or if the gas temper-
ature is measured too far away from the gas meter. We suggest to use a "standard value" until
this is clarified.
u = 0.1°C
42
6.1.6.2 Application to thermocouple (CETIAT)

This information comes from a study done at CETIAT concerning the use of Pt and TC for water
temperature measurements.
It was found that the uncertainty of the thermocouples depends mostly on:
 non-homogeneity of the temperature of the water flowing in the pipe (representativity)
 calibration of the thermocouple
 stability and fluctuations of the temperature
and to a lesser degree on:

 non-homogeneity of the thermocouple itself
 non-homogeneity of the bath temperature and any external heat (during calibration)

Uncertainty due to calibration:
u(2k) = 0,2°C
The influence of the non-homogeneity of the thermal bath (cold point) and heat (Joule effect) is
estimated from previous investigations to be:
U = 0,03°C

Drift between calibrations:
U = 0,06°C
Random drift
neglected.
Resolution
The resolution of the acquisition system used for resistance measurement is 0,01 mA
U = 0,003°C

No other sources are known.
Linearity
The linearity is included in the calibration error.
Hysteresis
The hysteresis is negligible.
Instruments
43
Repeatability of the measurements:
u = 0,02°C
Non-homogeneity of the thermocouple itself:
u = 0,014°C
Other
Stability is determined by a thermocouple installed in the centre of the unsteady state flow dur-
ing the first 10 seconds of measurements. The uncertainty component related to the stability is
estimated to:
U = 0,45°C

Not relevant.
Hardware
The manufacturer gives the influence of the ambient temperature on the acquisition system.
U = 0,014°C (example by CETIAT)
Not relevant.

See 6.1.6.1.
6.1.7 Pressure
U-manometer (e.g. with barometers), Bourdon tube or pressure transducer are used. The absolute
pressure (range 1000 mbar) or the relative pressure (range 20 mbar) can be measured.
6.1.7.1 U-manometer (relative pressure)

Input from Gaz de France.

The uncertainty including the reference material, the resolution and repeatability is 0,1 mbar (k =
2)

It is very small.
Random drift
Not relevant.
44
Resolution (reading)
Resolution = ±0,05 mbar

(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (resolution) =  = 0,29 · x = 0,029 mbar
3 12

The ambient temperature influences the volume of the liquid in the tube (volumic dilatation coef-
ficient of 0,0007 / K. This is very small. On the Plexiglas of the tube (0,09 mm/m.K: this is 0,1%
for 10 K),
However, the same laboratory (GdF) indicates a correction of 0.7% of full scale per °C for
temperature above 25°C.
 The viscosity of the liquid will influence the response time, but not the measured value.
 The uncertainty on the density of the liquid (0,88 kg/l is very small).
Linearity
The linearity error is very small.
Hysteresis
The hysteresis is about 0,1 mbar
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (hysteresis) =  = 0,29 · x = 0,029 mbar
3 12
Instruments
This includes any error of the instrument given by the manufacturer and not already taken into
account.
 The manufacturer gives a freedom from bias (See 5.29 of NF X 07 001) of full scale (k = 2).
 Repeatability error / fidelity: 0,1 mbar (u = 0,1 . 0,29)
Other
No other sources are known.

This error is supposed to be very small.
Hardware
Not relevant.
Not relevant.
45

Not relevant.
6.1.7.2 Bourdon tube

No example available.
6.1.7.3 Pressure transducer

The pressure transducer is generally used to measure absolute or relative pressure of the gas. This
means that the range of use is typically about 1000 mbars (100000 Pa)
The pressure transducer given in the example is a JUMO 4 AP 30-010.

The certificate of calibration indicates in a table the calibration uncertainty as a function of the
pressure. The certificate stipulates that the uncertainty (2k) includes the reference (Cal 1), the
calibration method and rig (Cal 2), the condition of calibration (Cal 3), but also the repeatability (Cal
4).
The uncertainty depends very much on the pressure measured:
P ref U U
(Pa) (Pa) (%)
0 30
32001 42 0.13
64002 51 0.08
96003 52 0.05
128005 51 0.04
160006 47 0.03
However, in the range of use (about 1000 mbar) the uncertainty can be considered as constant for
100.000 Pa.
U (2k) = 52 Pa = 0.05%
46
JUMO 4 AP 30 010 Pressure transducer
y = 12.51x 2 + 15888x + 365.59

180000
160000
140000
Pressure (Pa)
120000
100000
80000
60000 P ref (Pa)
40000 Poly. (P ref (Pa))
20000
0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0
Ui (V)
The error is about 0.01%.
Taking into account the relative influence of the pressure on the final uncertainty of the efficiency,
this error can in general be neglected. When considering the variation of the voltage signal with the
pressure (almost linear), it is certainly always possible to find a calibration curve fitting well with the
calibration point when taking a degree 2 polynomial expression.
In case the real calibration curve of the pressure transducer is not used (this can be the case when the
pressure is read directly on the display of the device instead of measuring it through the voltage
signal) the above is not true anymore. Either a correction is applied (example for DGC meter 00101,
correction1997 = -4 hPa when 1000 hPa is on display, this is 0.4%); or if no correction is made, the
uncertainty is calculated with:
(a  a ) 2
12
In the present example we are using the calibration curve and U = 0%.

The drift can easily be calculated by comparing the new obtained calibration curve with the previous
one. The data are, therefore, available from the calibration reports. In case of absolute pressure, a
single value of the drift is calculated for about 1000 mbar.
We have no data for the example of the JUMO pressure device, but data from DGC (DRUCK)
suggest that drift in the range of 0.8% is not unrealistic (over 2 years).
a2
u= = 0.46%
3
47
Random drift
neglected.
Resolution
The resolution including the acquisition system is 0.1 mbar. The absolute standard uncertainty
is:
u (resolution) = 0,29 · x = 0.029 mbar
The relative uncertainty is about 0.029/1000 = 0.0029% !

No known effect for the time being.
Linearity
The linearity error of pressure transducers is without doubt very small (the calibration curve is
close to being linear). We will, therefore, not consider this error.
Hysteresis
The hysteresis is supposed to be very small with all kind of pressure transducers considered here.
Other
No other sources of uncertainty are known at this time.

No known effect for the time.
Hardware
The hardware is supposed to have only very small or no influence
u = 0%
Not relevant.
u = 0%

The pressure is measured on the gas meter and it is, therefore, in principle no such error.
u = 0%
6.2 Measurement on FUEL OIL
6.2.1 Calorific value
See also Section 6.1.1.

48
An external laboratory generally provides the calorific value of the fuel.

Accredited laboratories perform the oil analysis according to different standards. The analysis
gives the oil’s main properties, which are the composition (C, H, N), the specific gravity, the
viscosity and the calorific value.
The calorific value is determined using different standards according requirements of repeatabil-
ity and reproducibility. The following table presents the standards, the method used for the de-
termination of the calorific value and the repeatability and reproducibility of the measurements
required by each standard.
Reproducibility
Repeatability
Standard Method used
(MJ/kg)
(MJ/kg)
ASTM D 4868- CV = f( density, %S, %H2O and ash) 0,05 0,15
90
ASTM D 4809- Bomb calorimeter which gives GCV and NCV 0,096-0.1 0,2-0,45
95
ASTM D 240-92 Bomb calorimeter 0,13 0,4
NF M 07-030 Bomb calorimeter: gives GHV 0,2 0,4
6.2.2 Fuel oil flow
Balance is used exclusively for fuel oil.
Contribution/example by CETIAT.
The balance used for the weighting of the oil presents the following uncertainties:
U(k=2) = ± 0,02%
This value takes into account the systematic error, the repeatability, the calibration and the reso-
lution.
The uncertainty of the determination of a mass, M, using a balance consists of the main follow-
ing components (it appears that according to CETIAT the other sources are very small):
 calibration of the masses (references)
 calibration of the balance
 reading on the balance (resolution)
Component of the uncertainty related to the masses (calibration)

The masses are calibrated with a maximum uncertainty of ±1.10-3kg.
To calibrate the balances 5 masses can be used simultaneously. To calculate the total uncertainty
of the mass u1(M), it is necessary to evaluate the correlation coefficient of two any mass meas-
urements (mi, mj) among the given 5 masses.
The calibration uncertainty is so small compared to the calibration (or reference) masses
The correlation coefficient can be taken equal to 1.
49
We then have:
1 10 3
u 1 M   5   2,5  10 3 kg
2
Component related to the balance calibration

The balances are set in such a way that systematic error is equal to zero.
The correction is, therefore, equal to zero and the standard uncertainty of this correction is equal
to the experimental standard deviation of the observed values. A maximum value of this standard
uncertainty for all balances is:
s 2 M   110 3 kg
Component related to the reading of the balance

The scale is 1.10-3kg, which gives
110 3
u 3 M    2,9 10  4 kg
2 3
Remark
When using CETIAT’s liquid flow meter calibration bench, other specific components, such as
the correction for the evaporation and the component related to the non-symmetrical movement
of the “partiteur” (the manual system used to start and stop the measuring of the fuel oil weight),
are also considered.
The standard uncertainty of the measurement of the mass M is:
u M   u 12 M   s 2 M   u 2 M 
2 3

The uncertainty due to calibration of the masses is U = 2,5 10-3 kg

The uncertainty due to calibration of the balance is U = 1 10-3 kg

The drift is estimated by making regular controls and is too small to be taken into account.
Random drift
Not relevant.
Resolution
The resolution of the balance ( x ) is 10-3 kg which gives
50
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
 u (resolution) =  = 0.29 · x
3 12

The influence of the atmospheric pressure on the balance is negligible.
Linearity
The linearity of a balance is also checked. In this example it has a very small influence only.
Hysteresis
Same as above. When there is a non-negligible value it is treated as follows.
(x / 2) 2 (x) 2
u (hysteresis) =  = 0,29 · x
3 12
Instruments
This includes any error of the instrument given by the manufacturer and not already taken into
account. No other points are to be added in this example.
Other
No other points are to be added in this example.

No other points are to be added in this example.
Hardware
Not relevant as the hardware is not used.
Not relevant.

Not relevant.
6.2.3 Time
Chronometers are used (see under 6.1).
6.2.4 Pressure
Not relevant for fuel oil.

51
6.3 Measurement on WATER
6.3.1 Flow
Electromagnetic meters are mostly used, but Coriolis effect meters, Faraday and Inductive effect
meter or turbines are sometimes used as well.
In the following, the general remarks apply for all meters above.
The flow meter given in the example is a water flow meter MASSFLO Mass 2100 (Danfoss). It is a
Coriolis effect meter.

The certificate of calibration stipulates that the relative uncertainty related to the calibration rig at
calibration condition is Cal 1 to 3 (k=2) = 0,09% (2 standard deviation). The report mentions that
the uncertainty includes the reference (Cal 1), the calibration method and rig (Cal 2), the condition
of calibration (Cal 3), but also the repeatability (Cal 4).

The repeatability is included in the global uncertainty of calibration (see above)

The calibration data are used to determine the polynomial expression of the flow (here a linear
expression).
Calibration at 40 deg. C
0.30
y = 0.018762x - 0.075078
0.25
Flow (kg/s)
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
I (m A)
The difference between the flow calculated and the flow measured during the calibration is
considered as the error of the meter, for which correction should be made.
52
Calibration at 40 deg. C
error calibration curve
0.02
0.02
0.01
Flow (kg/s)
0.01
0.00
-0.0110.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
-0.01
-0.02
I (m A)
The calibration data for a water temperature of 60°C shows that the formula is slightly different.
This point is treated further under the influence of various parameters.
The results depend on the flow measured, but in order to make the work easier, it is suggested to
take only the two extreme values of the error, which lies between -0.010 and 0.015%.
It is assumed that it is a case of rectangular distribution [2]:

(a  a ) 2
u= = 0.0072%
12

Over the range of utilisation (200 to 1700 kg/h), the drift between calibration of this meter lies
between -1.5 and -3.5 kg/h. (DGC data 1998-1997). There is no clear correlation between the drift
and the flow, so here we express the drift in absolute value as it will give a more realistic
uncertainty at the end. It is assumed that we have a case of rectangular distribution.
The standard uncertainty is:

a2
u= = 2.02 kg/h
3
Random drift
For all types of water meters, the random drift is supposed to be much smaller than the calibration
drift and can, therefore, be neglected.
Resolution
The water flow meters are generally having a very small resolution. However, in case the resolu-
tion is not small, the absolute standard uncertainty is:
53

The water flow meters can be influenced by various parameters. The influence factors, if any, are
to be described in the meter manufacturer’s technical documentation. The calibration reports
might also give some indications. The water temperature is a parameter which might have an
influence on the signal given by the meter. In case the calibration curve of the meter is not taking
into account this effect, an uncertainty shall be calculated as illustrated in the example below
(the effect discussed here is also on mass flow meters and is not the effect linked with water den-
sity variation).
The technical documentation of the meter contains no information on the influence of ambient
conditions, but the calibration has been performed at two different water temperature.
Using the calibration curve formula at 40°C for another temperature set is leading to a systematic
error.
Example 1, the error is not flow depending and a fixed value of correction is used.
We suppose a correction:
b(T) = 0.13 (T-40)/20.
If the correction of the calibration curve is not applied, but an average correction used instead,
the uncertainty due to this simplification is the following:
Over the water temperature range 40-60, we will use the average correction b = 0.13 · 10/20 =
0.065 (this is the correction which in principle applies to 50°C.)
The variance associated with the mean correction over the range of interest is:
T2
1
T2  T1 T1
u 2 (b) =  (b(T )  b) 2  dT
2
1  0,13  A2  T 3
2
u (b) =   [  A  B  T 2  B 2  T ]TT 12
T2  T1  20  3
with
A=1
B = 50
Application
u 2 (b) = 0.00141
u (b) = 0.0375
is the uncertainty because we use a fixed value instead of the real water temperature correction.
U = 2.s = 0.084%
54
Example 2, the error is flow depending.
The error is depending on the flow (e.g. effect of 0.18% for 20 K at 400 kg/h).
Suppose a correction:
b(Q,T) = A(T) · Q+B(T)
with
A(T) = (T-40) · C/20; (C= -1.29E-04)
B(T) = (T-40) · D/20; (D= 2.32E-01)
b(Q,T) = ((T-40) · C/20) · Q+(T-40) · D/20

= (C · Q+D) · (T-40)/20
at 60°C; Correction = -1.29E-04 · Q + 2.32E-01
Error on the flow w hen calibration curve at 40deg C is used

to calculate the flow at 60 deg. C
0.200
0.150
Error (%)
y = -1.29E-04x + 2.32E-01
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0
Flow (kg/h)
Supposing that a unique value of correction is used; over the water temperature range 40-60, the
average correction b = 7.73E-02 will be used (this is the correction at 50°C. and 600 kg/h)
The variance associated with the mean correction over the range of interest is:
1
Q2
 1 T2

u 2 (b) =     (b(T )  b) 2  dT dQ
Q2  Q1 Q1 T2  T1 T 1 
It is obvious that in this case the variance associated with the mean correction will be much more
complicated to calculate than the error itself!
Therefore, in this case it is suggested to proceed with the real correction.
In this case we need to know what is the uncertainty remaining after the correction.
Supposing we use the model of correction above the correction will be given by the expression
b(Q,T) = (C · Q+D) · (T-40)/20

55
From the previous figure it is clear that the model is not perfect and that the errors at 60°C
are as follows:
Error due to the correction model
0,010
0,005
Error (%)
0,000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
-0,005
-0,010
Flow (kg/h)
So, n case the influence is corrected, the remaining uncertainty after correction (at 60°C) is
given by:
a2
3
a is about 0.008%.
u = 0.0046% at 60°C (standard uncertainty)
In principle, the uncertainty is water temperature depending (at 40°C there is no correction and
the uncertainty is 0) so that
u(T) = 0.0046 · (T-40)/20%
In the present case, the uncertainty is so small that is not even necessary to carry out this adjust-
ment.
Hysteresis
The hysteresis is supposed to be very small with all kinds of flow meters considered here.
56
Water flow meter.

Calibration repeatability at 40 deg. C
Hysteresis
0 0,05 0,1 0,15 0,2 0,25 0,3

0,00
-0,01
-0,02
Error (%)
-0,03 Up
-0,04
-0,05 Up
-0,06
-0,07 Down
-0,08
-0,09
-0,10
Flow (kg/s)
In the present example, the calibration has been carried out with increasing flows (Up) and de-
creasing flow (Down). If there is a hysteresis it is much lower than the repeatability of calibra-
tion and can, therefore, not be detected.
Instruments
No other uncertainty to add at this stage.
Other

When not using an acquisition system, the reading of the counter introduces an error (in this
case, this reading error shall be considered also in relation to the resolution of the meter). The
reading error is supposed to have a normal distribution.
Other aspects from the method and procedure are supposed to have no influence.
Hardware
In case of water flow metering the hardware is supposed to have only very small or no influence.
Not relevant.

A water meter is in principle not subject to this error unless there is a water leakage after the
meter. In case of volumetric flow meters, the density of the water shall be calculated with the
water temperature measured as closed as possible of the meter.
6.3.2 Water temperature

57
The temperature measurement has been treated in Section 6.1.4. There are, however, some points
for which 6.1.4 is not directly applicable:
Other
The water temperature probe response time and the sampling time are adding errors [7].
A model has been developed in order to make the calculation of this error possible (U = f (re-
sponse time, sampling time, load, etc.)). See ANNEX 6.
Probe type Pt 6 mm Pt 3 mm TC 1 mm
U1: Offset error 0.05 0 0
U2 Max error 10s sampling 0.05 0.04 0.03
U2 and U2 are combined as follows:
(U 1 )  (U 2 / st)
2 2
U (total ) =
with
st = sampling time

The value of the measurement of the water temperature may depend a lot on the location of the
probe and the efficiency of the mixing system aiming at giving a homogenous temperature.
The non-homogeneity of the water temperature at the measurement point may be due to the dif-
ference between the water temperature and the pipe wall temperature or when crossing a heat
exchanger. It can reach values up to about 1°C and can, therefore, be an important factor in the
uncertainty of the temperature measurement.
A solution would be to improve the homogeneity of the temperature in the pipe. This is done
naturally in the pipe, but the value of the straight length necessary is very high. The ratio
length/diameter shall be above 100. However, “mixing device” as diaphragms or nozzles (ventu-
ris) can be used to reduce this ratio to about 10.
We suggest using a "standard value" until this effect is clarified.
u = 0.05°C
If no mixing device is used, the value is u = 0.2°C
However, a CETIAT study on TC indicates that the influence of the non-homogeneity of the
water temperature in the duct is found using thermocouples at unsteady state regimes. It is esti-
mated to be:
U = 0,89°C
Note that in principle, the influence of the mixing system is higher on the forward temperature
(just after the boiler). The return temperature should in principle be more homogenous as the
58
water has been circulating in the pipes before returning to the boiler. For the sake of simplicity
and also because we do not have elements of information we will not treat the two temperatures
differently.
FROM CETIAT:
In a pipe with a mixing device, the maximum gap between the average tempera-
ture and the farthest temperature is 0,05 K. Without mixing, this gap depends
essentially on the design of the system used and it is difficult to give any value.
Also the contact probe-water shall be carefully considered. Between 40 and
80°C, the gap observed between the measured values in a "not in direct contact
with water" probe and the temperature measured by a temperature intruding
probe is non-significant or negligible if the system is well adapted and if a well
adapted conducting substance is used.
6.3.3 Temperature difference
In some cases, instead of using the two water temperatures in the calculation, only one is used in
combination with the temperature difference. The advantage of such a system is that the global
uncertainty on the heat output of the boiler can be quite low if the laboratory proceeds with a
“verification” of the temperature difference. This is done by verifying the temperature difference
when having the two probes merged in the same bath.
Pt100 temperature probes are given as an example.

The uncertainty of the verification is given by the standard deviation of the value T1-T2 meas-
ured during the verification.
DGC experience give s = 0.004 K or lower
It does NOT include:

 Cal 2 The uncertainty due to the verification method and verification rig (e.g. possible influence
of the location of the probe in the oil). Some experiences have been carried out U(2k) is
estimated at 0.05 K or lower
 Cal 3 The influence of ambient conditions during the calibration.
This influence is supposed very small.
Drift between calibration/verification

The drift between calibration/verification is about 0.02 K at maximum.

a2
u= = 0.0115
3
Random drift
neglected.
Resolution
59
The resolution of the temperature metering is related to the acquisition system.

( x ) is in any case lower than 0.01°C.
u (resolution) = 0,29 · x = 0.0029°C

Hysteresis
The hysteresis is supposed to be very small within the range of utilisation of Pt100 (< 400°C in
any case.
Repeatability
Other
The water temperature probe response time and the sampling time are adding errors [7].
A model has been developed in order to make the calculation of this error possible (U = f (re-
sponse time, sampling time, load, etc.)). See ANNEX 6.
U2 and U2 are combined as follows:
(U 1 )  (U 2 / st)
2 2
U (total ) =
with
st = sampling time

Hardware
In case of temperature metering, the hardware can have a rather important influence. When tem-
perature difference is concerned, the error might be lower than the one for the absolute tempera-
ture. As the electronics is the same, if there is an influence of e.g. the ambient temperature etc.,
the error will be similar and the effect on dT not seen. However, a number of errors linked to
hardware are random and, therefore, the uncertainty due to hardware is not 0. It is suggested to
start with half of the value proposed for the absolute temperature:
u = 0.05°C (standard uncertainty)

60
Not relevant.

As for absolute water temperature, the water temperature difference may depend a lot on the
location of the probe and the efficiency of the mixing system aiming at giving a homogenous
temperature. However, as a number of those error are systematic, the global error is probably
lower.
We suggest to use a "standard value" equal to half of the value used for absolute temperature
until this effect is clarified.
u = 0.05°C
6.4 Measurement on AIR
6.4.1 Temperature
Either Pt (platinum) or TC (thermo-couples) temperature probes are used. The temperature

probes are the same as used for gas or water, so we do not repeat the examples already given.
6.4.2 Humidity
Psychrometer, capacitive sensors, semi-conductors or cooled mirrors are used. This is not a very
important measurement as the result is only used for correction in some situations with condens-
ing boilers. As a result it is not treated here.
6.4.3 Pressure
Barometer, capacitive or piezoresistive meters are used. The appliances used are the same as for
gas absolute pressure (see above).
6.5 Measurement on FLUE GAS
but this may change in the future and it is, therefore, also taken into consideration here. (see also
ANNEX 8).
6.5.1 Temperature
Either Pt (platinum) or TC (thermo-couples) temperature probes are used. The temperature

probes are the same as used for gas or water, so we do not repeat the examples already given.
6.5.2 CO2
Infra red meters are used exclusively.

The uncertainty calculation has already been developed in detail under the project [5] "Improve-
ment of Interlaboratory Reproducibility for NOx and CO Measurements" - Annex II: Uncertainty
calculation on NOx and CO measurements.
61
6.5.3 Oxygen, O2
Paramagnetic meters are used exclusively.

The uncertainty calculation has already been developed in detail under the project [5].
6.6 Test rig
There are two principles of test rig: direct and indirect.

In the second case, the heat output of the boiler is measured after a heat exchanger where, in the
first case, the heat output is measured directly at the boiler output.
When measuring on an indirect test rig, the losses of the test rig (between the boiler output and
the measurement place) are to be determined for correction of the heat output measured. The
measurement of those losses is done with an electric method as for the standby losses (see next
section).
6.7 Measure of STANDBY LOSSES
Some laboratories measure the standby losses for the calculation of the part load efficiency.
6.7.1 Temperature

More than the uncertainty of measurement linked to the instruments used, the location of the
probe in the air and in the water are determinant. The location in the water should pose no prob-
lem, but again we have the same constraints as for the measurement of efficiency. Perhaps less
attention has also been given to the mixing of water, and we may fear that, in general, the water
is not as well mixed as it is on the rig used for efficiency.
But the sensible point is really the measurement in the air. Where is the point best representing
the temperature around the boiler, and how to measure this point without getting an influence of
the boiler cases? The GLP is not giving any requirement on this point and this has been investi-
gated [8].
Both when the rig losses are determined and when the boiler standby losses are determined we
have this uncertainty. We expect, however, that the rig losses are measured with more attention
(they are measured once and, in principle, are not measured again).
The measurements realised show that large differences in air temperature can be expected be-
cause of the lack of instruction on where to measure this temperature.
Supposing a laboratory will do the measurements at about the middle height of the boiler and
approximately 15 to 75 cm from the rig, we may expect variations up to 2° or even more. Note
that this could be strongly reduced by appropriate guideline, on where to measure ambient tem-
perature.
For this example we suggest a global uncertainty on temperature of about 1° for the rig losses
determination and 2° for the boiler standby losses.
62
For the water we suggest 0,25 and 0,5°C, respectively. The figures given include the uncertainty
of measurement.
The effect of this uncertainty on the losses measured is given by the following expression:
Losses  k .(Twater  Tair ) n
The absolute error on losses is:
k  (Twater  Tair ) n  k  (Twater  Tair  dT ) n
Where k is a coefficient proportional to the losses and n a coefficient taking into account the
radiative-convective character of those (n= 1.25).
6.7.2 Electrical power
Digital wattmeter measuring W,A,V,cos () are used.
The following example is from DGC Kainoumform power meter:
Watt meter REL. ABS.

in % in W
1. Error of the calib. Method 1.000

Repeatability
Calibr curve
2. Drift between calib. 0.100
3. Random drift
4. Resolution
5. Influence param. Temperature
Pressure
Humidity
Other 0.100
6. Linearity 0.200
7. Hysterisis
8. Instrument
9. Other
10. Meth. and proc.
11. Hardware
12. Unc. on corrections
13. Representativity
The above confirms CETIAT data mentioning that the relative uncertainty associated with the
wattmeter is about 10-3 (0,1% on reading and 0,1% scale).
63
6.7.3 The pump
The pump of the rig has in principle no influence in case the conditions for measuring the test rig
losses are the same as the ones used to measure the boiler losses. However, the water tempera-
ture - but especially the water flow - can be rather different and an effect up to 10 W can be ex-
pected.
6.7.4 Overall determination of the uncertainty
Below we have developed a simplified method for the determination of the standby losses
measurement. As some factors seem to be determinant, it is not necessary at this stage to carry out a
more detailed analysis.
64
STANDBY LOSSES: Uncertainty estimation
CALCULATION
U on LOSSES OF THE SBY RIG ALONE (Loss rig)

1) Electric power measurement DATA
SBY value measured (pel) W 225
Relative uncertainty on Pel % 1.04
2)Uncertainty where to measure Tamb, Twater DATA

Representativity and Uncertainty on C 1
Tamb
Representativity and Uncertainty on C 0.25
Twater
Max total error on dTl C 1.25
d Water temperature C 50
Coefficient "n" Check 1.25? 1.15
Error on losses % 2.88
U LOSSES OF THE SBY RIG ALONE TOTAL = % 3.06

U LOSSES OF THE SBY RIG ALONE TOTAL = W 6.89
U on SBY measurement (SBY=Pel-Loss rig)

1) Electric power measurement DATA
Value measured (pel) W 400
SBY = Pel - Loss W 175
Relative uncertainty on Pel % 1.04
Relative uncertainty on Pel W 4.16
-
2) Uncertainty where to measure Tamb, Twater DATA
Representativity and Uncertainty on C 2
Tamb
Representativity and Uncertainty on C 0.5
Twater
Max total error on dTl C 2.5
d Water temperature C 50
Coefficient "n" Check 1.25? 1.15
Error on losses % 5.77
Error on W 23.09
losses
3) U due to pump effect variation (flow, temper- DATA

ature)
U W 10
4) U due to determination of rig losses DATA

U W 6.89
TOTAL UNCERTAINTY ON SBY W 26.41

TOTAL UNCERTAINTY ON SBY % 15.09
65
7 UNCERTAINTY CALCULATION
The formulae for the uncertainty variance for full and part load are given in the following tables.
The relative variance of efficiency is given by:
V(  ) V( Qin ) V( Qout )
= +
 2 2
Qin Q2out
The relative uncertainty of efficiency at a confidence level of 95% is given by
V ( )
u    2
2
Table 1
FULL LOAD HEAT EXPRESSION RELATIVE VARIANCES

Gas flow qv,g Pg  Patm TN V (qv , g ) V ( Pg ) V ( Patm ) V( Tg ) V( H iv )
H iv    2 
PN Tg  TN qv2, g ( Pg  Patm ) 2 ( Pg  Patm ) 2 (Tg  TN ) H 2iv
Heat Input: Qm Oil flow qv,ooHim V( q v , o )

v(o (15)) v(o )
  Bo2
V(To ) V( H im )

q 2v , o o2 o2 o2 H im 2
Fuel weight Mt V( M f ) V( t ) V( H im )
H im  2 
t M 2f t H im 2
Heat exchang- qv,ww[H(T2) - H(T1)] V( q v , w ) V(Tw ) V( w ) V(T1 )  V(T2 ) V( H 1 )  V( H 2 )
 B2w   
er primary q 2v , w 2w 2w (T2  T1 ) 2 C 2p (T2  T1 ) 2
circuit qv,ww [H (T + T1) - H(T1)] V( q v , w ) V(Tw ) V( p w ) V( T) V( H ( T  T1 ))  V( H (T1 ))
 B2w   
q 2v , w 2w 2w T2 C 2p ( T) 2
2 2
Heat output: Qout Heat exchang-  C p (T2  T1 )  V( t )  M W Cp 
er secondary   V(M W )  2    (V(T1 )  V(T2 )
 M W C p (T2  T1 )  L  t  M W C p (T2  T1 )  L 
circuit M W  H (T2 )  H (T1 )  L 2
+  MW 
t  M C (T  T )  L  (V(H 1 )  V(H 2 ))
Direct recircu-  W p 2 1 
lation + B2L V( L)
( v(TW )  V(Ta )) 
( M W C p (T2  T1 )  L) 2 ( M W C p (T2  T1 )  L) 2
Table 2
PART LOAD 30% HEAT EXPRESSION RELATIVE VARIANCES

Gas flow Vg Pg  Patm TN V( Vg ) V( t ) V( Pg ) V( Patm ) V(Tg ) V( H iv )
H  2    
t PN Tg  TN jv Vg2 t ( Pg  Patm ) 2 Pg  Patm ) 2 (Tg  TN ) 2 H 2iv
Heat Input: Qm Oil flow Voo H im V( Vo ) v(o (15)) v(o ) V( To ) V( H im ) + V(t )
  2  Bo2 
t Vo2 o2 o o2 H 2im t2
Fuel weight Mt V( M f ) V( t ) V( H im )
H im  2 
t M 2f t H im 2
Heat exchang- q V(  w ) V(T1 )  V( T2 ) V( H 1 )  V( H 2 )
v,w  w[H( T 2) - H(T1)]
V( q v , w ) V(Tw )
 B2w   
er primary q 2v , w w 2
w 2
( T2  T1 ) 2
C 2p (T2  T1 ) 2
circuit V( q v , w ) V(Tw ) V( w ) V( T) V( H ( T  T1 ))  V( H (T1 ))
 B2w   
T2 C 2p ( T) 2
2
q 2v , w w Pw 2
qv,w  w [H (  T + T1) -
H(T1)]
Heat output: Qout Heat exchang-
er secondary  
M W H (T 2 )  H (T1 )  L 

C p (T2  T1 ) 

2
V( t ) 

M WCp 

2
circuit t  M C ( T  T )  L  V( M W )  t 2   M C ( T  T )  L  ( V(T1 )  V(T2 ))

 W p 2 1   W p 2 1 
2
+  MW 

 M C (T  T )  L  ( V( H 1 )  V( H 2 ))
Direct re-  W p 2 1 
Circulation + B2L V( L)
( v(Tw )  V(Ta ))  2
( M w C p ( T2  T1 )  L) ( M w C p ( T2  T1 )  L)
67
denne side er en snydeside - indtil videre

68
8 REFERENCES
[1] ISO 5725 : (Precision of test methods - Determination of repeatability and reproducibility
by inter-laboratory tests)
The background for the calculation of the uncertainties is from:
[2] Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in measurement (ISO)
[3] ISO 3534 : (Statistics - Vocabulary and symbols).
[4] Good Laboratory Practice for Full and Part Load Efficiency Measurement for Boilers Re-
vision of the document 1998-2000 Version 07
[5] Improvement of Interlaboratory Reproducibility for NOx and CO Measurements. Contract
SMT 4 – CT 95 1606.
[6] CETIAT document Wobbe index
[7] TEST OF THERMOMETERS FOR WATER TEMPERATURE ON TEST RIG Response
on temperature change Lars Jacobsen DGC, 2001
[8] Uncertainty estimation when measuring ”Stand By Loss”. Henrik Andersen. DGC, 2001
69
ANNEX 1. Example of calculation

ATMOSPHERIC
PRESSURE
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 998 mbar U (2k) % of
Distribution Distribution factor factor (2k) U (2k) U (2k) total
(%)
1. Error of the calib. Method A Normal 1.00 1 0.0500 0.0000 0.05 0.2 -
Repeatability A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Calibr curve B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
2. Drift between calib. B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.9238 0.0000 0.92 55.9 -
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0577 0.01 0.0 -
5. Influence param. Temperature B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0116 0.0000 0.01 0.0 (Worst case used)
Pression B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
Humidity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.5785 0.0000 0.58 21.9 (Worst case used)
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.5785 0.0000 0.58 21.9 (Worst case used)
6. Linearity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0029 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
8. Instrument A Normal 1.00 1 0.0050 0.0000 0.01 0.0 (Worst case used)
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
10. Meth. and proc. A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
11. Hardware A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
12. Unc. on corrections A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
13. Representativity A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 1.24 %
Abs. 12.33 mbar
GAS FLOW or GAS
VOLUME (*)
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 200 DO NOT FILL IN U (2k) % of
(%)
Repeatability A Normal 1.00 1 0.1000 0.0000 0.10 0.2 -
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0006 0.00 0.0 -
5. Influence param. Temperature B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0001 0.00 0.0 -
8. Instrument A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
9. Other Time (*) A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (*) Not relevant
10. Meth. and proc. A Normal 1.00 1 0.9980 0.0000 1.00 20.4 (Worst case used)
11. Hardware A Normal 1.00 1 0.0025 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
12. Unc. on corrections A Normal 1.00 1 0.9980 0.0000 1.00 20.4 (Worst case used)
13. Representativity A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
(*) Case the flow is not measured directly, but where UNCERTAINTY
the volume
and time are measured separately. The Uncertainty Rel. 2.21 %
calculated
here is on the FLOW Abs. 4.42
GAS PRESSURE
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 1018.07 mbar U (2k) % of
(%)
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0577 0.01 0.0 -
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.93 %
Abs. 9.42 mbar
Gas Temperatu-
re
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 22.96 deg. C U (2k) % of
(%)
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0058 0.03 0.2 -
Pression B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Humidity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0436 0.0000 0.04 0.5 (Worst case used)
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.60 %
Abs. 0.14 deg. C
TIME (Case of gas volume or fuel 235.17 J/kg
oil)
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 3000.00 U (2k) % of
(%)
Calibr curve B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
2. Drift between calib. B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
6. Linearity B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.2000 0.01 80.0 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.01 %
Abs. 0.22
T water2
Rel. Abs.
(%)
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0058 0.01 0.2 -
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.17 %
Abs. 0.14 deg. C
T water1
Rel. Abs.
(%)
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0058 0.01 0.2 -
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.23 %
Abs. 0.14 deg. C
dT
Rel. Abs.
(%)
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0058 0.03 0.4 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.45 %
Abs. 0.09 deg. C
WATER FLOW
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 735.76 kg/h U (2k) % of
(%)
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0392 0.0000 0.04 0.3 (Worst case used)
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.69 %
Abs. 5.08 kg/h
WATER
DENSITY
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 983.02 kg/m3 U (2k) % of
(%)
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.02 %
Abs. 0.20 kg/m3
WATER ENTHALPY
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 252676.75 335950.90 J/kg U (2k) % of
(%)
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
Other B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
7. Hysterisis B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
9. Other A Normal 1.00 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.07 %
Abs. 176.87 J/kg
BALANCE (fuel oil)
Rel. Abs.
Value measured 45.00 kg U (2k) % of
(%)
Calibr curve B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
2. Drift between calib. B Rect. Sym. 0.58 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 (Worst case used)
3. Random drift 0 0.00 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 0.0 -
4. Resolution B' 0.29 2 0.0000 0.0002 0.00 0.0 -
UNCERTAINTY
Rel. 0.11 %
Abs. 0.05 kg
82
ANNEX 2. Drift between calibrations. How to determine if there is a

trend or not?
Drift
0.6
0.5
0.4
Value
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Calibration Nr
Case of less than 5 values(*) available.

In this case the maximum value has to be used.
Case of 5 or more values are available.

In this case the uncertainty is calculated on basis of the average.
In both cases, we suppose a rectangular distribution (see example in Section 6.1.3 Gas Volume) of
the drift.
(*) A value is obtained during one calibration. The next value is obtained after the calibration carried
out at the "normal" calibration frequency of the meter. (e.g. the drift obtained during 5 calibrations
carried out the same day are NOT valid in this case).
83
ANNEX 3. The physical principle used for the instruments
Note: In this Annex (prepared by CETIAT) we have deliberately kept some French words in
brackets, as the translation was not clear at this stage. The document will be updated in
the future (e.g. in the framework of LABNET activities).
A3.1 Calorific value/Wobbe Index Instruments

Chromatography, calorimeters or use of pure gas are the different ways to measure and calculate
the calorific value (or the WOBBE index of the gas if the specific gravity is known.)
Gravimeters are used to measure the specific gravity of the gas if it is not known.
Principle of Chromatography: (Calorific value and specific gravity)

The gas chromatograph is an instrument, with which all gas mixtures can be analysed. It consists
of a column filled with a stationary phase packing material, through which a steady flow of a
carrier (reference) helium or air gas is passed. A small sample of the gas to be analysed is inject-
ed into the carrier gas stream and passed through the column, where the components of the mix-
ture are selectively retarded according to their individual affinities to the stationary phase pack-
ing.
Each component will, therefore, escape from the column at its characteristic time. Detectors such
as thermal conductivity sensing elements or a catalytic combustion cell are installed downstream
of the column in the carrier gas stream. The presence of each component is detected as it leaves
the column with the carrier gas.
The composition of the mixture is represented by a chromatogram, which is a strip chart record
of the detector output. The time of appearance of each peak is a characteristic of a particular
component, and each peak’s height and area are proportional to the quantity of that component in
the mixture.
New chromatographs use advanced technological innovations. They can be connected to com-
puters and can directly print out the composition of the gas to be analysed.
From the gas composition one can calculate directly the calorific value of the gas and its specific
gravity. The calorific value and the specific gravity of the gas give the WOBBE index.
Calorimetry (Calorific value)

Calorimeters are used to measure the calorific value of the gas. They use water or air to absorb
the heat released by the combustion of the gas.
 Water flow calorimeters:

They are widely used for the determination of the calorific value of the gas. The heat released by
the complete combustion of a measured amount of gas is absorbed by a measured quantity of
water flowing through the instrument. Measurements of the amounts of gas burned, weight of
water heated and the temperature rise are used to calculate the calorific value of the gas by using
an energy balance.
ASTM D 900-55 requires a reproducibility of 0,5% and a repeatability of 0,3% on such calorim-
eters.
84
 Air -cooled recording calorimeters

The operating principle involves the burning of a gas at a constant rate and the absorption of the
heat developed by an air stream.
Flow rates of gas and combustion air, and heat absorbed by cooling air, are regulated through
electrically driven metering devices that are geared together so that a constant air/gas ratio is
maintained. The combustion products from a specially developed burner are kept separate from
the cooling air and are cooled almost to initial temperature of the combustion air.
Two resistance thermometers forming part of a Wheatstone bridge circuit measure the increase
in temperature of the air. It is automatically recorded in terms of calorific value of the gas.
The accuracy of such calorimeters given by the manufacturer is 0,5% from half to full scale.
The influence parameters are the ambient temperature, the humidity.
 WOBBE meters
The WOBBE meters are air-cooled recording calorimeters.
These instruments are used to measure the calorific value of the gas if the specific gravity is
known (usually measured as well).
A WOBBE METER consists of a small burner supplied by a combustible (the gas to be ana-
lysed) and combustion air at constant pressure. Dilution air is used to absorb all the heat of com-
bustion. The heat released by the combustion is equal then to the increase in enthalpy or temper-
ature of the dilution air.
This increase in temperature is represented by an electrical signal, which is proportional to the
volumetric WOBBE INDEX at the normal conditions of pressure and temperature.
A3.2. Specific gravity of the gas

The specific gravity (densité) of the gas is the ratio of its density (masse volumique) under the
observed conditions of temperature and pressure to the density of dry air at the same temperature
and pressure. The pressure is usually around the atmospheric pressure. Different techniques are
used to determine the specific gravity of the gas.
 Instruments based on weighting (balances).

Direct weighting: this type of instrument is not practical for field and laboratory measurements.
The principle is based on the differential weighting using a very accurate balance equipped with
two containers of as nearly as possible equal weights and volumes, each filled successively with
air and gas under similar conditions of pressure and temperature. The samples are reversed and
re-weighted, thus doubling weight difference and eliminating errors.
Gas gravity balances: These instruments of the pressure balance type are used for laboratory and
field measurement. A beam (balancier) carrying a vessel and a counterweight is brought to bal-
ance successively in air and in gas by adjusting the pressure in the vessel. According to Boyle’s
law, the specific gravity is then equal to the ratio of the absolute pressure of air and gas meas-
ured.
Recording gravimeters: These meters use mechanisms transforming the physical principles used
into a value recorded and read using a pointer. The first type compares the weights of the same
volumes of air and gas at the same conditions of pressure and temperature. If well installed and
maintained, the accuracy is about 0,003 specific gravity.
The second type compares the torque produced by two wheels coupled together by two lever
arms and a connecting link. The wheels are installed opposite to two fans used for air and gas
85
admission, respectively, into two separate identical chambers. The difference between the torque
causes a limited movement of the system that is transmitted to a pointer indicating the ratio of
the torque produced by the gas flow to the torque produced by the air flow which are proportion-
al to the specific gravity.
The manufacturers claim 0,5% accuracy.
A3.3 Flow rate measurements

The flow rate of gas and water is measured by different methods based on volume or mass meas-
urements. The main meters and their principles of operation are outlined below.
 Turbine meters
These meters use a wheel. The axis of the wheel either coincides with the axis of the flow (axial
turbines) or is perpendicular to the flow axis (tangential turbines). The wheel is made to move by
the action of the fluid flow. The measurement of the spinning speed of the wheel gives the vol-
ume flow rate.
 Ultra(sonic) sound meters

There are two principles of using sound waves.
Transient time flow meters measuring the difference in an ultrasonic sound wave when flowing
in the direction of the flow and then in the opposite direction of the flow. These meters can be
installed inside or outside the pipe.
DOPPLER effect meters: These meters measure the frequency variation of the ultrasonic sound
wave reflected by the particles or the air bubbles transported by the fluid flow. The meters are
installed on the pipe.
 Electromagnetic flow meters

These flow meters use FARADAY induction law stating that a conducting material of length, L,
moving at a velocity, V, in a plane perpendicular to the force lines of a magnetic field of density,
B, will receive an induced voltage e equal to the product ( B · L · V).
When this is applied to electromagnetic flow meters, the fluid represents the electrical conduct-
ing medium with a length equal to the diameter of the sensor. Since the induction is kept con-
stant, the induced voltage will be proportional to the average speed of the flow crossing the sen-
sor.
 Volumetric flow rates

The principle of such flow meters is based on filling a very well defined volume of fluid from
the inlet. This volume is then transmitted to the outlet of the flow meter. Many techniques are
used for such flow meters.
 paddle (à palettes) flow meters
 piston ( à piston) flow meters
 screw flow meters
 geared oval wheels (à roues ovales dentées) meters
 bellows (à soufflets) meters
The metering is influenced by pressure fluctuations of the flow. These meters may use roll indi-
cators (indicateurs à rouleau), needle indicators or may be equipped with a frequency outlet (im-
pulse) or an electrical current.
 Vortex meters
86
A streamlined obstacle installed in the flow produces a vortex with a frequency proportional to
the flow velocity allowing the measurement of the flow rate.
They are installed in the pipe and produce a small pressure drop. They can be used for water, gas
or steam.
 CORIOLIS effect meters

The principle of these meters is based on the use of the phase difference produced by the
CORIOLIS force on the two sections of a U-tube artificially vibrating and crossed by the fluid to
be metered. The meter is to be inserted into the pipe and can be a single or double U-tube.
They are the only flow meters, which are sensitive to the mass flow and can be used for any type
of fluid.
The following table gives the main characteristics of the different flow meters.
Parameters and characteristics

Uncertainties (%)
P maximum (bar)
T maximum (°C)
Comments and
Pressure drop
Liquid usage
Flow meters
Gas usage
remarks
Turbine 0,5 500 200 ** ** High accuracy impulse signal
Volumetric 0,5 150 100 ** ** High accuracy - costly

Electromagnetic 1 300 100 X * Electrical Conducting fluids
0
Ultra sound 2 150 100 X ** Small pressure drop
0
DOPPLER effect 2 150 100 X **
0
Vortex 1,5 200 200 * ** Impulse signal
CORIOLIS effect 0,75 150 100 * ** Costly- reduced size
**: Convenient for - * : Acceptable - X : Not adapted for
A3.4. Pressure measurements

There are two categories of pressure measurements:
 Fundamental systems directly related to physical and mechanical laws

These fundamental systems are mainly U-tube manometers where the pressure is measured by
reading the level difference between two columns of liquid. The manometers are cheap, simple
to use and very sensitive. However, they present few disadvantages such as:
 reading uncertainties
 capillary
 liquid refill
The uncertainty of such meters is about 0,1 to 0,4 mm of liquid column.

87
 Indirect or derived from fundamental systems or based on the variation certain properties
of the sensing material under pressure action.
Inclined columns
U-tube manometers allowing an enlargement of the range of pressure measurement (length of the
column). This is very well adapted for low-pressure measurement. The uncertainties vary from
2% to 12% depending on the scale used.
Numerical balance using a piston

The upper tray of the balance is replaced by a piston cylinder assembly that allows the measure-
ment of the force applied by the gas on the surface of the piston and then converted to a pressure.
These balances are used for wide range of pressure measurement due to the multiplying and di-
viding systems.
The relative uncertainty varies from 2 10-5 to 2 10-4%.
Changing shape systems

The sensible element is a metal changing in shape under the pressure effect.
The main pressure measurement systems are:

 BOURDON tube
 Membrane
 Diaphragm
 Bellows
The shape changing is transformed into an indication of the pressure using a transducer.
Metallic manometers
Commonly used with in a range of 5 to 10000 bars.
The uncertainties vary from 0,01 to few percents.
Pressure probes
The force developed by the pressure to be measured and applied to bellows is balanced by an
electrodynamics return force created by an electrical current crossing an induction coil installed
inside a permanent magnet. The pressure is read as an electrical signal.
The range of utilisation is 0 to 5 bars. The outlet signal is from 0 to 5 V. The response time is
low and the repeatability and reproducibility are very good.
Piezoresistive probes
These probes use a sensible material which specific resistance (résistivité) varies with the pres-
sure change. The sensible element is installed on the membrane to which the pressure is applied
or spread on the membrane itself.
The pressure gage is installed as a Wheatstone bridge so that one can measure the unbalance as a
function of the pressure. The signal is either in mA or in mV.
Capacity detection probes

These probes measure the capacitance unbalance between two capacitors, caused by the dis-
placement of a membrane. The output signal varies from 4 to 20 mA or 0 to 5 V.
Inductive detection probes

88
These probes measure the unbalance of the inductance between two inductive coils, caused by
the displacement of a membrane. They are used for low-pressure measurements and the output
signal varies from 4 to 20 mA or from 0 to 5 V.
Piezoelectric probes
These probes are systems based on the variation of the physical properties of the material. The
system uses a crystalline material, which electrically polarise under the effect of the pressure.
The outlet signal is a linear function of the pressure.
Are used for measurement of rapidly changing pressures.
Application: Quartz pressure probes

The pressure measured and then transformed into a force is applied to a quartz resonator, the
frequency of which depends directly on the mechanical force applied.
A3.5. Temperature measurement

Resistance thermometers
The resistance thermometers are based on the variation of the specific resistance (résistivité) of a
metal with the temperature. Different metals can be used.
The resistance measurement of the sensible element is performed with a an ohmmeter or meas-
urement bridge. In all cases, the simple connection (use of 2 wires) introduces an error on the
value of the resistance. This is because the resistance of the connection cables is installed in se-
ries with sensible element.
In practice, it is preferable to use 3 or 4 wires to get rid of the connection resistance which intro-
duces an error on the measurement.
Platinum (Pt) is mostly used for its following characteristics:
 Quasi-linear variation of the resistance with the temperature

 No hysteresis
 Stable
 Pure
Characteristics Pt resistance thermometers

Type Resistance at 0°C Sensibility
Pt25 25 Ohm 0,1 Ohm /° C
Pt100 (mostly used) 100 Ohm 0,4 Ohm /° C
Pt1000 1000 Ohm 4 Ohm /° C
Advantages and disadvantages

 Range of utilisation: de –250°C à +630°C.
 Response time: de 0,1 s à 10 s depending on the coating of the sensible element
 High accuracy, stability and simple utilisation
 dT measurements needs two probes (compared to TC)
 Signal limited to 1 to 2 mA because of the calorific effect
Long-term deterioration can be caused by the humidity, the temperature and vibrations.
89
Thermocouples
Any circuit composed by different electrical conducting metals, and with the presence of tem-
perature differences, gives rise to an electromotive force which depends only on the material and
the temperature distribution in the circuit. Many physical applications are deduced.
 PELTIER effect: the connection of two different metals A and B at the same temperature T
generates an electromotive force proportional to the temperature T.
 THOMSON effect: The connection of 2 point on the same metal at different temperatures
generates an electromotive force which depends on the metal and the temperatures of the 2
points.
 SEEBECK effect: is a combination of PELTIER and THOMSON effects and is the principle
of the thermocouple.
A thermocouple is then an electrical closed circuit composed of two junctions of two different
metals at different temperatures. The hot junction is the measurement junction and the cold junc-
tion is the reference junction. The generated electromotive force is measured by a millivoltmeter.
The metals mostly used are:

 Copper/Constantan –
 Iron/Constantan –
 Chromel/Alumel –
 Platinum/Rhodium
 Rhenium/Tungsten.
The choice of a thermocouple depends on:

 electromotive force generated / degree of temperature change (high ratio and linear relation-
ship preferred)
 temperature range
 resistance to corrosion by moisture, oxidation or media in which the thermocouple is used
 tolerance and reproducibility
 sensitivity
The electromotive force generated is independent of conductor size and its resistance.
A3.6. Humidity measurements

Mechanical Hygrometers
The length of some filaments like hair, cotton, nylon varies with the quantity of water they can
absorb in the medium where they are. This quantity of water depends on the ratio of the partial
pressures of water and dry air or the relative humidity.
The length increase is transmitted to a pencil to record the relative humidity.
The range of operation is from 20 to 100% for temperature varying from -10°C to 70°C. The
uncertainty of such meters is about 10% and their use is very limited.
Psychrometry
A psychrometer is composed of two thermometers. The first one measures the ambient dry tem-
perature while the second one is covered by a wet clothing and is cooled by the evaporation of
the water contained in the clothing and measures the temperature of the wet bulb. The evapora-
90
tion is high when the water content of the ambient air is small. The difference between the two
thermometer readings gives an indication about the air humidity.
The wet and dry temperatures are used to determine the relative humidity of the air from 0°C to
100°C.
The uncertainty is around few percent and depends mainly on the accuracy of the thermometers
used.
Psychrometry is always considered the reference method for humidity determination.
Electrolytic hygrometers
The water vapour in the ambient air is absorbed by a phosphoric anhydride solution where are
placed two electrodes, then separated by electrolysis. The intensity of the electrical current pass-
ing in the film depends on the amount of water absorbed in accordance with FARADAY law.
This type of instrument measures the concentration of water vapour in the air in g/cm3 expressed
later as a volumetric ratio.
The uncertainty is in the order of 5% of the value expressed in a concentration form in the
range of 1 to 30 000 ppm volume, equivalent to a dew point temperature of -75°C to +25°C.
Therefore, this instrument is more adapted to the measurement of low humidity values.
Impedance variation Hygrometers

The electrical properties of several elements vary with the humidity. The change of the electrical
resistance or the capacitance with the humidity is the principle used in this type of instruments.
In the case of a capacitance hygrometer, the probe is a condenser or capacitor sensible to water
content. In case of a resistance hygrometer, the probe is a resistance. In both cases the variation
of the capacitance or the resistance is converted to an indication representing the relative humidi-
ty.
The uncertainty of such meters is about 2 to 5% for a dry temperature between 0°C and
100°C.
Condensing Hygrometers
Condensing Hygrometers measure the dew point temperature of air. It is the temperature at
which water contained in air starts to condense.
The measurement instrument is consists of:

 a mirror on which a temperature probe is installed
 a transmitter
 an optical receiver
The mirror reflects the ray or beam transmitted to the receiver. An instrument usually operating
on PELTIER effect cools the mirror. When the mirror temperature is equal to the dew point tem-
perature of the air, water condenses on the surface of the mirror. The condensed water attenuates
the reflected beam and the optical receiver detects the reduction of the reflected signal.
The temperature at which the condensation appears is then equal to the dew point temperature of
the air.
The cooling of the mirror is controlled by the optical detection in such a way that it conserves a
constant layer of condensed water.
91
These meters can operate over a very wide range of temperature –90°C to +90°C with an uncertainty of
0,2°C to  0,5°C.
This meter is very sensitive and presents a good reproducibility (0,05°C) as given by the manu-
facturers. This is why it is used for intercomparison between reference laboratories.
A3.7 Measurement on FUEL OIL

Calorific value
An external laboratory (the laboratory performing the test sends a sample of fuel to an external
laboratory) generally provides the calorific value of the fuel oil.
The calorific value is determined by calorimeters as described for the gas.
Density
Only relevant with use of volume flow meters. It is also given by an external laboratory with the
calorific value and the composition of the fuel oil.
Fuel oil flow

Balances are used exclusively for fuel oil. Flow meters are used for the setting up of the test to
find the closest calorific input of the boiler. During the efficiency measurement, the balance is
used. The flow rate is the difference between the amount of fuel oil at the beginning of the test
and the amount of the fuel oil at the end of the test divided by the time measured using a chro-
nometer. The balance is more accurate than the flow meter.
Time
Chronometers are used.
A3.8. Measurements on FLUE GAS

but this may change in the future and it is, therefore, also taken into consideration here.
The main parameters are the composition of the products of combustion and the temperature.
The temperature measurement is done as for the gas or the water as described before.
The products of combustion consist of CO2, O2, H2O, CO, N2, CnHm and NOx. For the purpose of
this project, only CO2 or O2 is used for the calculation of the efficiency by using the losses in the
combustion products.
CO2
Infra red meters are used exclusively for CO2 concentration measurement.
The infra red radiation emitted by a filament heated to a high temperature is divided into two
beams which cross two chambers.
The first chamber is filled with the gas to be analysed and the second one with a reference gas
(N2). At the outlet of these chambers the two beams reach a receiver composed of two other
chambers filled with the gas to be analysed.
If the component is present in the compartment or the chamber, the infra red radiation entering
the detector is attenuated with respect to that coming from the reference chamber or compart-
ment. The equilibrium established in the receiver is then perturbed. This perturbation is recorded
and depends on the concentration of the component to be measured.
O2
Paramagnetic meters are used exclusively for O2 concentration measurement.
92
The principle of paramagnetic meters is based on the fact that a gas installed in a non-
homogeneous magnetic field is subjected to a force which is parallel to the magnetic field and is
the increasing direction of the fields if the gas is paramagnetic. This force is proportional to the
magnetic susceptibility of the gas.
Oxygen has a very high magnetic susceptibility compared to the other gases. The following fig-
ures give an indication of the magnetic susceptibility of the common gases.
O2: 100- CO2: -0,27-N2: 0- CO: 0,01- NO: 43- NO2: 28.
93
ANNEX 4. The uncertainty due to the hardware (acquisition)
The information on hardware gathered during this project shows large differences and sometimes
contradictions.
From GdF data for Pt100 (techn. characteristics 3535), the uncertainties given for a platinum
RTD measurement is less than 0,2°C for a temperature range between –200 and 300°C in com-
pliance with IEC 751.
The value given i is a maximum value of the uncertainty, including all elements, from the hard-
ware acquisition system to the probe, It includes contributions such as, drift, linearisation, reso-
lution etc. If the calibration correction is not known, it is recommended to use this value.
But if the calibration certificates as well as the certificates for the hardware are available, and if
we apply the calibration corrections and not the linearisation of the standard, it is important to
evaluate the uncertainties of calibration, drift, resolution and others of the Pt100 as well as the
hardware.
The error due to the hardware must be evaluated from the specifications of resistance measure-
ment of the 100 Ohm reference.
In case hardware like HP 3852A (as for CETIAT) is used, the uncertainties of the resistance
measuring instruments are very small compared to the Pt100 uncertainties.
In the case of the system used by GDF (3535), a quick estimation gives a non negligible uncer-
tainty due to resistance measurement.
94
ANNEX 5. Variation of the gas quality during test (case of laboratories

using natural gas): example of protocol
The following protocol is used at DGC.
The natural gas is analysed every 45 minutes by chromatography. An average calorific value is
used during the test and the real value is calculated as soon as the data are available (a few days
later).
A unique value is taken over the whole testing period (typically a few days) and the calorific
value max.-min. deviation is calculated over the testing period. This standard deviation is based
on the 45 minutes samplings.
If the deviation is too large, the test will be divided into several periods so that the calorific value
standard deviation for each period is below an acceptable value.
The possible short variations within a sampling period are considered to be much smaller than
the variation from sampling period to sampling period. Therefore the standard deviation as de-
fined above is also supposed to integrate those short time variations.
95
ANNEX 6. Uncertainty for measurement of differential water tempera-

ture
The work of this ANNEX is the result of investigations by DGC in March 2001. The results of the
test and measurements shown in this paper are corrected from the systematic error after calibra-
tion (the probes have been checked in an oil bath before the tests).
During on/off drift for light wall-hung boiler the forward temperature will change rapidly. When
using temperature probes with a certain time constant the measured temperature will only to
some extent show the real water temperature. For actual temperature probes following time con-
stants are measured:
Temperature probe Time constant Time constant

Type 63.2% 90%
Open TC type K 0.2 s 0.3 s
1 mm TC type K 0.5 s 0.6 s
3 mm RTD type Pt100 2.6 s 5.0 s
6 mm RTD type Pt100 38 s 81 s
As a result of this, temperatures measured during an on/off period are shown in the 2 following
diagrams for measurements with 1 mm + 3 mm probes and 1 mm + 6 mm probes. The results are
compared with TC probes.
FLOW TEMPERATURE FROM LIGHT WALL-HUNG BOILER
Boiler: 11 kW, water flow 320 kg/h, on: 48 s, off: 552 s, output: 0.96 kW
55
6mm Pt100 [°C]

50
1mm TC type K [°C]
45
Flow temperature [°C]
40
35
30
25
50 100 150 200 250 300
Time [sec]
96
Note that the results are measured for about the same conditions (flow a bit different).
As seen from these diagrams the measured temperature rise and the highest temperature are quite
different for measurements with different temperature probes.
FLOW TEMPERATURE FROM LIGHT WALL-HUNG BOILER
Boiler: 11 kW, water flow: 350 kg/h, on: 48 s, off: 552 s, output: 0.96 kW
55
3 mm Pt 100 [°C]
50
1 mm TC type K [°C]
45
Flow temperature [°C]
40
35
30
25
650 700 750 800 850 900
Time [sec]
To analyse the stability (from cycle to cycle) of temperature profiles the measurements are nor-
malised in this way:
 Temperature measured with 1 mm TC type K just before start of boiler is called 0% (we con-
sider that the TC is the reference: it is the probe which has the smaller time constant)
 Highest temperature measured with 1 mm TC type K is called 100%
 Temperature profile is recalculated to percent of this range
 Temperature measured with other temperature probe is calculated in percent of temperature
range for 1 mm TC type K
 Temperature profiles for 1 mm TC type K are synchronised to reach highest temperature at
the same time
 Corresponding temperatures measured with other probe are not changed in time
In this way the temperature rise and fall can be compared in development from start of boiler
until the next start.
97
ON/OFF LIGHT WALL-HUNG BOILER

110
100
90
80
70
Temperature change [%]
60
50
40
1mm K,1 [%]

30 1mm K,2 [%]
1mm K,3 [%]
1mm K,4 [%]
20
3mm Pt,1 [%]
3mm Pt,2 [%]
10 6mm Pt,3 [%]

6mm Pt,4 [%]
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time [sec]
As shown in this diagram the temperature profiles are rather stable.
Even though measured temperature profiles are different due to the time constant for the differ-
ent temperature probes, the calculated mean temperature for flow temperature should theoretical-
ly be the same.
Measurements shown are based on measurements every 1 sec., but many laboratories are unable
to do this, and want to carry out measurements with a lower frequency, e.g. every 5 sec. or even
lower.
A comparison can be made by picking out measured values for other intervals from the file for
measurements every 1 sec.
Before comparing measurements the two probes are calibrated and corrected for systematic er-
ror, so they will show the same temperature when they have been kept at the same water temper-
ature for several minutes.
98
The comparison is made on a boiler running in on/off mode with an on period of 48 sec. and an
off period of 552 sec. That is close to "worst case" during testing of a boiler (this is about 10%
load; in DK tests are carried out down to 1kW part load, which is 5% load).
The next two diagrams are showing consequence of difference in probe and in sampling fre-
quency.
INFLUENCE FROM SAMPLING FREQUENCY
Effect: 11 kW, water flow: 370 kg/h, on: 48 sec, off: 552 sec
Reference: sampling interval 1 sec with 1mm type K probe
0,5
0,4 3mm Pt 100 [°C]

1mm TC type K [°C]
3mm Pt 100 [°C]
Mean temperature difference measured [°C]
0,3
1mm TC type K [°C]
0,2
0,1
0,0
-0,1
-0,2
-0,3
-0,4
-0,5
1 10 100
Sampling interval for temperature [sec]
99
INFLUENCE FROM SAMPLING FREQUENCY

Effect: 11 kW, water flow: 300 kg/h, on: 48 sec, off: 552 sec
Reference: sampling interval 1 sec with 1mm type K probe
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
-0,1
-0,2
6mm Pt100 [°C]
-0,3 1mm TC type K [°C]
6mm Pt100 [°C]
-0,4 1mm TC type K [°C]
-0,5
1 10 100
Sampling interval for temperature [sec]
These diagrams show that sampling interval in this case can be up to 10 sec. without having an
error on mean temperature difference of more than ±0.05°C. As we cannot be sure this error is
systematic, we can consider it as a maximum uncertainty.
The question is whether we can accept such an error. It is indeed about 0.8% of efficiency for the
30% part load test and is as a result among one of the largest uncertainty sources. Therefore,
special attention shall be given to that point (see below).
The following tables show the values of measurement (for two sets of results with different
flows), as they would be with different sampling intervals.
100

Time interval 1mm type K 3mm Pt100 1mm type K 3mm Pt100
1s 2,11 2,10 2,36 2,35
2s 2,11 2,09 2,36 2,35
5s 2,10 2,08 2,35 2,34
10 s 2,08 2,06 2,33 2,32
20 s 2,09 2,03 2,34 2,28
30 s 2,12 2,04 2,38 2,28
60 s 2,10 2,07 2,41 2,37

Time interval 1mm type K 6mm Pt100 1mm type K 6mm Pt100
1s 2.59 2.63 3.09 3.14
2s 2.58 2.63 3.09 3.14
5s 2.57 2.62 3.09 3.14
10 s 2.55 2.59 3.09 3.14
20 s 2.53 2.55 3.11 3.13
30 s 2.56 2.51 3.20 3.13
60 s 2.56 2.45 3.40 3.22
In this case an uncertainty of ±0.05°C is the same as an uncertainty on measured temperature

difference of ±1.6 to 2.4%.
Conclusion
The conclusion of these results is that influence from time constant and different types of tem-
perature probes can be a determining source of error, especially for part load tests. The sam-
pling frequency shall not be too low compared to the on period for the boiler and the response
time of the probe shall not be too large.
The calibration of the temperature probes is important, and especially the systematic difference
between probes for forward and return temperature must be corrected before calculation of mean
temperature difference during a running cycle for the boiler under test.
As a result the following is proposed to amend the GLP document:

The sampling time shall in any case not be lower that 10 s for the part load tests.
The Pt100 6 mm probes are not recommended for the part load tests. It is however allowed using
them, but the uncertainty calculation shall be done in the following way (applicable to any
probe).
There are two different uncertainties linked to the dynamic conditions:
101
 U1, an offset error/uncertainty depending on the nature of the probe

 U2, an uncertainty linked to the sampling time used also slightly depending on the nature of
the probe
From the experimental results obtained during the test we suggest:
U2 and U2 are combined as following

(U 1 )  (U 2 / st)
2 2
U (total ) =
with
st = sampling time
Application:
Sampling ABSOLUTE ERROR ON dT (K)

time (s)
Pt 6 mm Pt 3 mm TC 1 mm
1 0.050 0.004 0.003
2 0.051 0.008 0.006
3 0.052 0.012 0.009
4 0.054 0.016 0.012
5 0.056 0.020 0.015
6 0.058 0.024 0.018
7 0.061 0.028 0.021
8 0.064 0.032 0.024
9 0.067 0.036 0.027
10 0.071 0.040 0.030
102
Sampling RELATIVE ERROR 30% P.L. test (dT = 6.7 K)

time (s)
1 0.7 0.1 0.0
2 0.8 0.1 0.1
3 0.8 0.2 0.1
4 0.8 0.2 0.2
5 0.8 0.3 0.2
6 0.9 0.4 0.3
7 0.9 0.4 0.3
8 1.0 0.5 0.4
9 1.0 0.5 0.4
10 1.1 0.6 0.4
Sampling RELATIVE ERROR 10% P.L. test (dT = 2.2 K)

time (s)
1 2.2 0.2 0.1
2 2.3 0.4 0.3
3 2.3 0.5 0.4
4 2.4 0.7 0.5
5 2.5 0.9 0.7
6 2.6 1.1 0.8
7 2.7 1.3 0.9
8 2.9 1.4 1.1
9 3.0 1.6 1.2
10 3.2 1.8 1.3
103
ANNEX 7. Uncertainty for standby loss measurement. Influence of

ambient temperature measurement
Scope
A number of tests carried out at the laboratory facilities at Danish Gas Technology Centre during
2001 have established the influence of measurement of ”Air temperature” in different positions
around the Test Rig.
Conclusion
 At the DGC laboratory there seems to be a relatively stable temperature gradient from floor
(measured 20 cm above floor) to app. 2 m above floor on app. 3°C. Placing the Pt100 probes
with 2,5 or 5 m to the ceiling does not affect the temperature gradient.
 Placing the Pt100 probes too close to the hot parts of the Test Rig causes some problems. But
placing the Pt100 probes 1,5 m or less above the Test Rig could cause the same problems:
Gradients up to 6°C due to warm up-streaming air have been measured.
Air Temperatures - Position 2
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
cm above Floor
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Temperature, °C
15 cm from Rig 25 cm from Rig 75 cm from Rig
The figure above shows an example of the results from tests, where the Pt100-probes were
placed 15 cm, 25 cm and 75 cm from the Test Rig.
The results show that the measurement point for temperature significantly influences the meas-
urements carried out and that there is a need for standardisation.
Electricity power measurement

Accupower Gold manufactures the power supply in use; the model is AU 1500-50.
104
The specification for power output is:

Voltage: 220 VAC 3% Sinewawe
Frequency: 50 Hz 1 Hz
Power output: 1500 VA (1050 W)
Kainoumform manufactures the power meter in use; the type is KW-1.
The specification for the power meter is:

Class 0,5 (according to IEC 688-1)
Load influence: 0,1%
Linear error: 0,2%
Max. wave distortion admitted: < 1%
When last calibrated in august 2000 the deviations measured between 25 and 1000 Watt output
were less than 0,1%.
105
ANNEX 8. Main relevant results of the project "IMPROVEMENT OF

INTERLABORATORY REPRODUCIBILITY FOR NOx AND CO
MEASUREMENTS. CONTRACT SMT 4 – CT 95 1606" - WP 5
Work Package 5 of the project above deals with the influence of the NOx, CO, O2, CO2
analyser, and characteristics on measured NOx and CO emissions
Note: Analyses of NOx and CO are not relevant for the issue of this project, but O2 and CO2 are.
A. INTRODUCTION
Objective of the package
The overall objective of the package is to develop a uniform method of error determination so
that a limit for maximum uncertainty can be set for all European countries.
Subsidiary objectives are:

 investigation of the analyser characteristics
 developing a protocol to determine the individual analyser characteristics
 determination of uncertainty of conversion calculation
 investigation of values for the default errors of the individual characteristics
GASTEC has studied the characteristics of analysers for NOx, CO, CO2 and O2 measurements,
including:
 interferences of CO2 and H2O in the measurement
 linearity
 drift with time and with temperature
GASTEC has also developed a protocol on measurement of the individual errors as part of the
uncertainty determination. The protocol contains the determination of interference, linearity,
converter efficiency, repeatability, effect of sampling flow variations and drift of analysers with
time, temperature, and pressure.
Results obtained. Work carried out

The overall uncertainty is calculated from the individual uncertainties. Those individual uncer-
tainties are numerous and are very different from each others. Some are systematic and can,
therefore, be corrected when they are known and measured. Others are random and cannot be
corrected. The work, which has been done, is the following:
 developing the adequate protocols so the systematic errors can be measured experimentally
 developing the methods for the correction of the systematic errors
 developing the methods for the calculation of the uncertainty taking into account the real situ-
ation where errors could be known or unknown, corrected or not corrected
The drift (with time, temperature and pressure), the interferences (of CO2, O2, H2O, NO, NO2,
CO), and the linearity are the main characteristics which have been controlled on the CO, NOx,
O2 and CO2 analysers.
106
The results obtained also have a double function

 improve the knowledge of each laboratory on its own equipment
 establish a database of results and “worst cases” to be used when laboratories do not know the
performances of their own equipment (see also comments on “worst case” in point in WP 4).
The literature and existing test results from GASTEC have also been used in order to propose the
most appropriate values of worst case.
The method developed in the framework of the project has been implemented in the document
"UNCERTAINTY CALCULATION OF NOx AND CO MEASUREMENTS Version 06, Sep-
tember 1998" as part of the main document: “Determination of emissions from appliances burn-
ing oil and gaseous fuels during type-testing” which is best known as the “GLP NOx CO” docu-
ment.
The following is a copy of the relevant part of the GLP document:
The document explains in detail how to calculate the individual and overall uncertainties.
For the symbols used see Section D.
B. CALCULATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY:

GENERAL
In the discussion of the uncertainties a differentiation has been made between:
 random uncertainties (U)

 uncertainties caused by not correcting for systematic errors (E)
In some cases, when the uncertainty of an individual source is unknown, it is acceptable to cal-
cu-late with an assumed worst case uncertainty (Uwc) or worst case error (Ewc) as given in this
document.
Differentiation has been made between uncertainties which have to do with:
 sampling;
 transfer and treatment;
 analysers;
 calibration;
 measurement;
 conversion calculations.
 Uncertainty in reproducibility of the sources of emission
The following situations are treated:
Case of systematic errors

 The error is not known: it cannot be corrected. The worst case does apply and is treated as a
random error which cannot be corrected.
107
 The error is known: it could be corrected or not.
Case of random errors (no corrections)

 The error is not known: the worst case does apply
 The error is known.
A correction of a systematic error leads to random uncertainty (the correction is never perfect
and is based on models or measurements which have their own inaccuracies .
In principle each correction method has its own accuracy. As not very much is known about this
accuracy, it is suggested in a first stage to state that for any correction of systematic error, a ran-
dom uncertainty of 25% (of the correction) is remaining. This also applies when the correction is
used. We, therefore, suppose in the following that the factor for remaining random error of cor-
rected systematic error is RRE = 4.
The errors are known when the laboratory has made the corresponding measurement. Analyzers
certificate from neutral test institute can also be used.
Systematic error sign is important (when this error is known). Some systematic errors could
counterbalance themselves. Therefore they are added. The remaining systematic error at the end
is converted in a random error.
The overall uncertainty calculation is detailed in Section E.
Are treated as systematic errors:
 the NO2 absorption in the cooler

 the interferences
 the linearity
 the drift with temperature and the drift with pressure
 the converter efficiency
 the influence of air temperature and humidity
 the gas or fuel oil composition
All other errors are considered as random errors
The worst case errors are given in the following table.
C. TABLE OF WORST CASE ERRORS:

The worst-case errors have been determined by investigating the uncertainties of several analys-
ers (see at the end of this ANNEX).
D. INDIVIDUAL SOURCES OF UNCERTAINTY: DETAIL

1. Sampling
The mentioned sampling uncertainties for NOx and CO include those of CO2 or O2 measurement
necessary for conversion calculations.
108
The following errors are minimized when having a good homogeneity of the sample.
1.1 Influence of the sampling probe (random error)

Two errors are considered here
a) The sample probe design is according to the standards, but there are errors due to construction
tolerances
b) The sample probe used is not of the same design as given in the standards
The following applies for CO, NO, NO2, O2 and CO2
U = U sample [%mv]
When not measured see w.c. errors
Uwc = 2% mv
E = 0
1.2 Influence of the position of the sampling probe (influence of repre-sentative sample)
Hypothesis:
U = 1 Fan assisted burners [% mv]
U = 2 Draught diverter boiler [% mv]
2. Transfer and treatment of the sample

2.1 Leak tightness (random error)
The error is not known
E = 0
U = abs (Ewc) [% mv]
The error is known
E = 0
U = Eleak [% mv]
3. Analysis of NOx, CO, CO2 and O2
3.1 Interference (systematic error)

109
E = 0
U = abs(Ewc)
E_wc is the worst case error in [% of fs or mv] per [% or ppm] of interfering component (CO2,
O2, H2O, CO, NO, NO2, SO2, H2)
The worst cases are given in the table of C
The error is known but not corrected
E = E_interi
E_interi is the known error in [% of fs or mv] per [% or ppm] of interfering component (CO2, O2,
H2O, CO, NO, NO2, SO2, H2)
U = abs(E_ interi)/ RRE [same unit as above]
The error is known and corrected
E = 0
U = abs(E_ interi)/ RRE [same unit as above]
Correction
In the following, NOx_s_i(X) = interference of component X on NOx measurement (span),
NOx_z_i (X) = interference of component X on NOx measurement (zero)
Example 1 interference on NOx of CO2 on span: es = NOx_ s_i_CO2
NO2cor = (NO2) m · (1 - es · (CO2- CO2cal) [%mv]
CO22 cal is the content of CO2 in the bottle of calibration gas used for NO2 analyzer.
Example 2 interference on zero: eo = NOx_ z_i_CO2
NO2cor = (NO2) m · (1 - eo · (CO2-CO2 cal ) · fs) [%mv]
Reminder: after correction, es and eo have in general an effect leading to larger values (es and eo
< 0)
Remark for CO2-analysis and CO-analysis

110
Valuable reduction of the interference can be achieved, when the manufacturer takes account of
the composition of the flue gas.
3.2 Linearity (systematic)
Linearity is expressed in a percentage of the full scale.
E = 0 [%fs]
U fs = abs (Ewc) [%fs]
E = E_lin
Ufs = abs (E_lin) / RRE
In order for the error to be corrected, detailed results from linearity check shall be available.
In addition to zero, at least 3 span gases shall be used.
The linearity error is calculated for each of the spans tested.
Errori = Readingi - Concentration span gasi
The linearity error for a given concentration measured is obtained by linear interpolation of the
error between the two spans (immediately below and over the concentration considered.)
E_lin = Linearity error (concentrationi) = a · concentrationi + b
a and b are determined from the experimental values of error measured (Errori)
E=O
Ufs = abs (E_lin/RRE)
U = U fs · fs / mv [%mv]
3.3 Zero drift with time (random)

It can be presumed that the drift is random with time.
The expression is normally a percentage of the full scale.
U fs = U z_drift_t x [%fs]
111
tcal is the average time interval between calibration and

measurement. When not known tcal = 8.
Uz_drift_ is the drift measured over a period of 8 h.
U = U fs · fs / mv4 [%mv]
3.4 Span drift with time (random)

U = U s_drift_t [%mv]
Us_drift_t is the drift measured over a period of 8 h.
3.5 Zero drift with temperature (systematic)

E drift is the measured drift in [% fs/°C]

E drift_T is the measured drift in [% mv]
E drift_T = Edrif · (Tuse - Tcal) · fs / mv [%mv]
E = 0
U = abs(Ewc) · (Tuse - Tcal) · fs / mv [%mv]
E = Edrif_T [%mv]
U = Edrift _T / RRE [%mv]
E = 0 [%mv]
U = Edrift _T / RRE [%mv]
Correction
mv cor = mv + E drift · (Tuse - Tcal) · (fs / 100 )
E drift is the measured drift in [% fs/°C]

112
3.6 Span drift with temperature (systematic)

E drift is the measured drift in [% mv/°C]

E drift_T = Edrif · (Tuse - Tcal) · fs / mv [%mv]
E = 0
U = abs(Ewc) · (Tuse - Tcal) [%mv]
E = Edri_T [%mv]
U = (Edrift_T / RRE) [%mv]
E = 0 [%mv]
U = (Edrift_T / RRE) [%mv]
Correction
mv cor = mv + E drift_T · mv / 100 E drift is the measured drift in [% mv]
3.7 Span drift with pressure (systematic)

E drift is the measured drift in [% mv/°C]

E drift_P = Edrif · (Puse - Pcal) · fs / mv [%mv]
E = 0
U = abs(Ewc) · (Puse - Pcal) [%mv]
E = Edri_P [%mv]
U = (Edrift_P / RRE) [%mv]

113
E = 0 [%mv]
U = (Edrift_P / RRE) [%mv]
Correction
mv cor = mv + E drift_P · mv / 100
E drift_P is the measured drift in [% mv]
Remarks
 For accurate measurement the analyzer can been provided with an automatic pressure com-
pensation
(Rwc = 0,5%mv and ewc = 0);
 for NOx-analyzers with low absolute pressure in the reaction chamber pressure effect can be
ignored
3.8 Converter efficiency (systematic)

The following applies for NOx only and is, therefore, not detailed here.
3.9 Repeatability
E = 0
U = U repeat [%mv]
4. Calibration
The following applies for CO, NO, NO2, O2 and CO2.
4.1 Uncertainty of the calibration gases (NO, CO, CO2 and O2)
The effect of the uncertainty of the calibration gas should be expressed as a percentage of the
measured value.
U = U calib [%mv]
4.2 Repeatability of calibration

Normally repeatability is expressed in a percentage of the
full scale.
U = U repeat_cal [%fs]
114
5. Measurement
5.1 Reproducibility
Normally, reproducibility is expressed in a percentage of the full scale.
U = Ur [%fs]
6. Conversion calculation
6.1 Uncertainty on values expressed dry air free (daf)

Does not apply for CO2 and O2.
6.2 Uncertainty on values converted in mg/kWh

Does not apply for CO2 and O2.
7. Uncertainty in reproducibility of the emission

115
F. LIST OF SYMBOLS
NOx concentration of NOx in [ppm]
NO2 concentration of NO2 in [ppm]
CO2 concentration of CO2 in % CO2
H2O concentration of CO2 in % H2O
O2 concentration of O2 in % O2
r random uncertainty (value)
R random uncertainty
Re random uncertainty of the systematic error
Rwc worst case random uncertainty
e systematic error (value)
E systematic error
Ewc worst case systematic error
mv measured value
fs full scale
dT temperature difference
dp pressure difference
N efficiency converter
Tcal temperature during calibration
Tuse temperature during use
pcal pressure during calibration
puse pressure during use
CO2cal CO2 concentration in NOx-calibration gas
O2cal O2 concentration in NOx-calibration gas
H2Ocal H2O concentration in NOx-calibration gas
U Uncertainty
116
Detailed results of analyser characteristics
See the next pages.

117
Analyzer CO2
Principle IR Unit
Type UNOR 6N Rosemount Rosemount Ultramat 22

Maihak 880 IR Binos 1
Value U U U U
Repeatability [%fs]
Linearity [%fs]
Zero drift with time 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 [%fs]
Span drift with time 0.1 [%mv]
Uncertainty in concentration [%fs]

of calibration gas
Value e e e e unit
Zero drift with temperature 0.2 0.1 0.3 [%fs/*C]
Span drift with temperature 0.2 0.2 [%mv/*C]
Span drift with pressure 0.1 0.2 [%mv/mbar]
Zero interference O2 [%fs/%O2]
Span interference O2 [%mv/%O2]
Zero interference H2O 0.9 [%fs/%H2O]
Span interference H2O [%mv/%H2O]
Zero interference CO 2 10-5 [%fs/ppm CO]
Span interference CO [%mv/ppm CO]
Zero interference NO [%fs/ppm NO]
Span interference NO [%mv/ppm NO]
Zero interference NO2 [%fs/ppm NO2]
Span interference NO2 [%mv/ppm

NO2]
Zero interference SO2 [%fs/%SO2]
Span interference SO2 [%mv/%SO2]
Zero interference H2 [%fs/%H2]
Span interference H2 [%mv/%H2]
Convertor efficiency [%mv/NO2/NO

x]
Sample flow in sample line [%mv/l/h]
Data of CO2 analyzers

118
Analyzer O2
Principle EC PM Unit
Type Rosemount PMA 10 Servomex

oxynos 100
Value U U U U U
Repeatability [%fs]
Linearity 0.1 [%fs]
Zero drift with time 0.003 [%fs]
Span drift with time [%mv]
Uncertainty in concentration [%fs]

of calibration gas
Value e e e e unit
Zero drift with temperature 0.04 0.005 0.67 0.03 [%fs/*C]
Span drift with temperature 0.08 0.1 0.01 [%mv/*C]
Span drift with pressure 0.1 0.1 [%mv/mbar]
Zero interference CO2 0.15 [%fs/%CO2]
Span interference CO2 2.89 [%mv/%CO2]
Zero interference H2O 0.0 [%fs/%H2O]
Span interference H2O 0.0 [%mv/%H2O]
Zero interference CO ? [%fs/ppm CO]
Span interference CO ? [%mv/ppm CO]
Zero interference NO [%fs/ppm NO]
Span interference NO [%mv/ppm NO]
Zero interference NO2 [%fs/ppm NO2]
Span interference NO2 [%mv/ppm NO2]
Zero interference H2 ? [%fs/%H2]
Span interference H2 ? [%mv/%H2]
Sample flow in sample line 0.17 0.67 [%mv/l/h]
Data of O2 analyzers
119
Partner: C D E G G2 RU
Analyzer: O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2
Type: Oxyn.100 servo570A 6G PMA10
Value U U U U U U unit
repeatability 0.06 0.08 0.18 0.58 0.17 [%fs]
linearity 0.15 0.66 0.00 [%fs]
zero drift time 0.03 0.10 0.25 0.00 0.02 [%fs]
span drift time 0.03 0.45 0.10 0.00 0.39 [%mv]
calibration gas 0.25 1.80 1.80 [%fs]
Value e e e e e e unit
zero drift temperature 0.21 [%fs/*C]
span drift temperature -0.09 [%mv/*C]
span drift pressure 0.00 0.00 0.00 [%mv/mbar]
zero interference CO2 0.00 [%fs/[%CO2] ]
span interference CO2 0.00 -0.10 [%mv/[%CO2] ]
zero interference O2 x x x x x x [%fs/[%O2] ]
span interference O2 x x x x x x [%mv/[%O2] ]
zero interference H2O -0.26 [%fs/[%H2O] ]
span interference H2O 0.32 [%mv/[%H2O] ]
zero interference CO 0.00 0.00 [%fs/[ppmCO] ]
span interference CO 0.00 0.00 [%mv/[ppmCO] ]
zero interference NO 0.00 [%fs//ppmNO] ]
span interference NO 0.00 [%mv//ppmNO] ]
zero interference NO2 0.00 [%fs/[ppmNO2] ]
span interference NO2 0.00 [%mv/[ppmNO2] ]
zero interference SO2 [%fs/[%SO2] ]
span interference SO2 [%mv/[%SO2] ]
zero interference H2 [%fs/[%H2] ]
span interference H2 [%mv/[%H2] ]
sample flow 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.49 %mv/ (l/min) ]
Error determination of the partners for the paramagnetic based O2 analyzers

120
Partner: D DT G G2 RE
Analyzer: CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2
Type: Uras K Binos1.2 U22 U 5E-2R 864.00
Value U U U U U unit
repeatability 0.74 0.11 0.29 0.14 0.58 [%fs]
linearity 0.63 2.83 [%fs]
zero drift time 0.35 0.28 0.00 [%fs]
span drift time 0.54 1.35 0.57 [%mv]
calibration gas 1.79 0.80 1.80 1.80 0.85 [%fs]
Value e e e e e unit
zero drift temperature 0.00 [%fs/*C]
span drift temperature -0.06 [%mv/*C]
span drift pressure 0.00 -0.01 0.00 [%mv/mbar]
zero interference CO2 x x x x x [%fs/[%CO2] ]
span interference CO2 x x x x x [%mv/[%CO2] ]
zero interference O2 0.06 0.00 -0.04 [%fs/[%O2] ]
span interference O2 0.28 -0.03 -0.13 [%mv/[%O2] ]
zero interference H2O 0.00 -0.12 [%fs/[%H2O] ]
span interference H2O 0.00 0.22 [%mv/[%H2O] ]
zero interference CO 0.00 [%fs/[ppmCO] ]
span interference CO 0.00 [%mv/[ppmCO] ]
zero interference NO 0.00 [%fs//ppmNO] ]
span interference NO 0.00 [%mv//ppmNO] ]
zero interference NO2 0.00 [%fs/[ppmNO2] ]
span interference NO2 0.00 [%mv/[ppmNO2] ]
zero interference SO2 [%fs/[%SO2] ]
span interference SO2 [%mv/[%SO2] ]
zero interference H2 [%fs/[%H2] ]
span interference H2 [%mv/[%H2] ]
sample flow 1.38 0.32 0.00 0.19 2.94 %mv/ (l/min) ]
Error determination of the partners for the infrared based CO2 analyzers
121
Analyzer O2
Principle Paramagnetic
Source CR1404 Literature Protocol Final
Value Uwc Uav Uwc Uav Uwc Uav Uwc
Repeatability 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.6 [%fs]
Linearity 2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.7 [%fs]
Zero drift with time 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 [%fs]
(8 hours)
Span drift with time 2 6.3 6.3 023 0.5 3.3 6.3 [%mv]
(8 hours)
Uncertainty in concentration of 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.8 [%fs]

calibration gas
Value ewc eav ewc eav ewc eav ewc unit
Zero drift with temperature 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 [%fs/*C]
Span drift with temperature 0.4 -0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 [%mv/*C]
Span drift with pressure 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 [%mv/mbar]
Zero interference CO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [%fs/%CO2]
Span interference CO2 0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 [%mv/%CO2]
Zero interference H2O -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 [%fs/%H2O]
Span interference H2O 0 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 [%mv/%H2O]
Zero interference CO 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 [%fs/ppm CO]
Span interference CO 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [%mv/ppm CO]
Zero interference NO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [%fs/ppm NO]
Span interference NO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [%mv/ppm NO]
Zero interference NO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [%fs/ppm NO2]
Span interference NO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [%mv/ppm NO2]
Sample flow in sample line - 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.7 [%mv/l/h]
Worst case uncertainty of O2 analyzers; paramagnetic

122
Analyzer CO2
Principle Infrared
Source CR1404 Literature Protocol Final
Value Uwc Uav Uwc Uav Uwc Uav Uwc
Repeatability 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.7 [%fs]
Linearity 2 1.7 2.8 1.7 2.8 [%fs]
Zero drift with time 2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 [%fs]
(8 hours)
Span drift with time 2 0.1 0.1 0.8 1.4 0.5 1.4 [%mv]
(8 hours)
Uncertainty in concentration of 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.8 [%fs]

calibration gas
Value ewc eav ewc eav ewc eav ewc unit
Zero drift with temperature 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 [%fs/*C]
Span drift with temperature 0.4 0.2 0.2 -0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.2 [%mv/*C]
Span drift with pressure 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 [%mv/mbar]
Zero interference O2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 [%fs/%O2]
Span interference O2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 [%mv/%O2]
Zero interference H2O 0.9 0.9 -0.1 -0.1 0.4 0.9 [%fs/%H2O]
Span interference H2O 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 [%mv/%H2O]
Zero interference CO 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [%fs/ppm CO]
Span interference CO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [%mv/ppm CO]
Zero interference NO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [%fs/ppm NO]
Span interference NO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [%mv/ppm NO]
Zero interference NO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [%fs/ppm NO2]
Span interference NO2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 [%mv/ppm NO2]
Sample flow in sample line 1.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 [%mv/l/h]
Worst case uncertainty of CO2 analyzers; infra red

Efficiency Uncertainty GUIDE15final PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Efficiency Uncertainty GUIDE15final PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Final Version July 2001

Danish Gas Technology Centre a/s

Table of Contents Page

1 DEFINITIONS (ISO) ........................................................................................................... 6

2 METHOD OF CALCULATION OF THE UNCERTAINTY ............................................ 14

3 THE DIFFERENT UNCERTAINTY SOURCES .............................................................. 15

4 OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENTS USED FOR THE DETERMINATION OF

5 THE DIFFERENT UNCERTAINTY SOURCES AND HOW TO CALCULATE THEM19

6 EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION TO THE DETERMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL

7 UNCERTAINTY CALCULATION ................................................................................... 65

ANNEX 1 Example of calculation

The following organisations have participated in the preparation of the document:

1.2 Reference documents

The background for the calculation of the uncertainties is from:

 [2] Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (ISO)

Another relevant standard is the NF X 07 –001 (French standard)

1.3 Definitions and explanations

Test Eff. (%)

The above test data lead to

Average value % 87,4

Example: measurement of efficiency by 10 laboratories (fictive example)

Laboratory Efficiency 91.0

The calculation results are the following:

Average value % 88,4

Experimental standard deviation [2]

Standard Uncertainty [2]

Expanded uncertainty [2]

Uncertainty given with a confidence level

But as already mentioned we will here use the approximation:

The confidence level (comment)

Rectangular distribution [2]

When the bounds are symmetric, the standard uncertainty is:

Trapezoidal and triangular distribution [2]

The standard uncertainty in this case is:

 Resolution of digital indication: this uncertainty has a rectangular probability distribution,

 Uncertainty when correction from a calibration curve is not applied

2 METHOD OF CALCULATION OF THE UNCERTAINTY

3 THE DIFFERENT UNCERTAINTY SOURCES

Measure of physical parameters

4 OVERVIEW OF THE INSTRUMENTS USED FOR THE

4.1 Measurement on GAS

Calorific value/Wobbe index

4.2 Measurement on FUEL OIL

Fuel oil flow

Pressure (not relevant for fuel oil)

4.3 Measurement on WATER

Temperature and temperature difference

4.4 Measurement on AIR

4.5 Measurement on FLUE GAS

4.6 Test rig

There are two principles of test rig: direct and indirect.

4.7 Measurement of STANDBY LOSSES

The physical principle used for the instruments is given in ANNEX 3.

5 THE DIFFERENT UNCERTAINTY SOURCES AND HOW TO

5.1 Uncertainty due to calibration

 Cal 1 The uncertainty on reference material used.

The standard uncertainty is in this case:

The standard uncertainty in this case is:

The standard uncertainty in this case is:

5.2 Drift between calibration

The standard uncertainty is in this case:

5.3 Random drift