Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 42 (2015) 58–68

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Flow Measurement and Instrumentation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/flowmeasinst

Uncertainty analysis of energy measurements in natural gas

transmission networks
G. Ficco a,n, M. Dell’Isola a, P. Vigo a,b, L. Celenza a
a
DICeM, Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Via Di Biasio 43, 03043 Cassino, Italy
b
Palmer, Scientific and Technological Park of Southern Lazio, Via Carrara 12/A, 04100 Latina, Italy

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The value of natural gas depends on the energy obtainable from its combustion. Despite this, natural gas
Received 20 July 2014 measurement and billing are normally performed using volume measurements subsequently converted
Received in revised form into base conditions. Thus, to correctly achieve network balancing and accurate billings, both civil and
22 December 2014
industrial natural gas consumptions should be measured in energy. Unfortunately, energy measure-
Accepted 22 January 2015
ments for natural gas are actually possible only in an indirect way by means of complex measurement
Available online 31 January 2015
chains with a flow-meter, a volume conversion device and a gas chromatograph or gas analyzer.
Keywords: Moreover, for technical and economic reasons, gas quality is often considered as constant and known
Natural gas despite the unavoidable variations due to the mixing of gases from different origins and type
Energy measurement
(i.e. importations, national productions, liquefied, biogas).
Uncertainty
In this paper the authors present the results of a detailed metrological experimental analysis of the
UAG
Billing typical energy measurement plants installed in natural gas networks. Modern networks are character-
Transmission network ized by a wide variety of flow-rate measurement principles, constructive technologies and plant
configurations. Therefore, flow regimes, thermodynamic conditions and chemical properties of the gas
play a crucial role in determining metrological performance of natural gas energy measurements and
uncertainties can become critical for inaccurate billing and unaccounted for gas.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction on conservative entities (i.e. mass or energy). In fact, in an ideal

Measurements accuracy is essential to the accounting, manage-
ment, security and physical balancing of natural gas networks as
well as for the correctness of the billing of consumptions.
In fact, measurement accuracy in billing processes allows
consumers pay for the effective amount and guarantees fair trade
and competition. On the other hand, in balancing issues unac-
counted for gas (UAG) is strongly related to the errors affecting
measurements and/or estimations [1].
In modern transmission networks natural gases from different
origins are transported and distributed. Moreover, in order to
support the development of renewable energy sources, European
Union (EU) is strongly promoting the use and delivery of biogas, by
considering it basically equivalent to the natural gas, and just
asking to the Member States not to discriminate biomethane
addition in national networks. Consequently, due to the wide
variety of the chemical characteristics and of the thermodynamic
processes in the networks (variation of temperature and pressure),
the billing and balancing of natural gas networks should be based
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 39 7762993670; fax: þ39 7762994002.
E-mail address: ficco@unicas.it (G. Ficco).
“impermeable” pipe (i.e. without leakages and emissions) only
mass and energy conservation can be obtained. Thus, volumetric
measurements for accounting and billing are misleading both from
technical and physical point of view, even if they are performed at
standard reference conditions, unless the corresponding energy
values (i.e. gas quality data) are not accurately associated.
Unfortunately direct energy measurements for natural gas are still
not available on the market, thus it is necessary that the complex
measurement chains (made up at least of a flow-meter and a flow
computer with pressure and temperature transmitters) are integrated
by a data transmission unit and by a gas quality measurement device
(i.e. a process gas chromatograph or a gas analyzer). As a consequence,
accuracy in energy measurement of natural gas is a function not only
of the single devices constituting the measuring plant, but also of
some other issues of the measurement process and management. As
for example, the authors assessed: (i) the effects of the actual flow-
rate in respect to the approved range of the flow-meter, (ii) the
installation effects (e.g. the immersion depth of the temperature
transmitter), (iii) the algorithm adopted for the calculation of the
compressibility factor of the gas.
In this paper, a detailed metrological analysis of the common
natural gas measuring plants installed in transmission networks is
presented, with particular reference to the Italian one. In fact, the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2015.01.006
0955-5986/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 G. Ficco et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 42 (2015) 58–68 59

Nomenclature Qt transition flow-rate (m3 h  1)

R universal gas constant (J mol  1 K  1)
AGA American Gas Association SL secured communication
As sensor heat exchange surface (m2) T operative gas temperature (1C)
C flow coefficient, dimensionless Tb gas temperature at base conditions (1C)
CVDD calorific value conversion device Tp internal pipe temperature (1C)
d internal diameter of the orifice plate (m) Ts operative gas temperature measured by the sensor
D internal diameter of the pipe (m) (1C)
ΔP differential pressure (mbar) TT temperature transmitter
ΔT temperature difference between gas and external U(E) relative expanded uncertainty of the energy (%)
environment (1C) U(V) relative expanded uncertainty of the volume (%)
E energy of the natural gas (kJ) UAG unaccounted for gas
ECD energy conversion device ui type uncertainty of the ith entity
EU European Union Ui expanded uncertainty of the ith entity
GERG European Gas Research Group V volume of the natural gas at operating conditions (m3)
HA homogeneous area Vb gas volume calculated at base conditions (15 1C and
hs convective heat transfer coefficient between tempera- 101,325 Pa) (Sm3)
ture sensor and gas (Wm  2 K  1) VCD volume conversion device
Hs calorific value (MJ Sm  3) Z compressibility factor at operating conditions, dimen-
m mass (kg) sionless
M meter Zb compressibility factor at base conditions, dimension-
ME manually entered less
MPE maximum permissible error β diameter ratio of the orifice plate, dimension-
P operating gas pressure (Pa) less
Pb gas pressure at base conditions (Pa) ε expansibility (expansion) factor of the gas,
PT pressure transmitter dimensionless
Q average flow-rate (m3 h  1) Δθ infinitesimal time interval (s)
Q volumetric gas flow-rate at operating conditions εs surface emissivity of the sensor, dimensionless
(m3 h  1) ρ gas density at operating conditions, kg m  3
Qmax maximum flow-rate (m3 h  1) ρb gas density at base conditions (kg m  3)
Qmin minimum flow-rate (m3 h  1) σ Stefan–Boltzmann constant (W m  2 K  4)

Italian network represents a very particular case study from an
energetic and metrological point of view, since several types of
natural gases (e.g. Algerian, Libyan, North European, Russian,
Qatarian, Italian, …) are transported and measured at very
different thermodynamic and flow conditions. The Italian network
is characterized by 8 large import entry points (3 of which are
regasification offshore terminals), 53 national production fields
and 10 storage sites [2]. Furthermore, in the Italian system large
national, medium regional and small local transmission networks
coexist, operated by different companies.
In particular, the authors discuss about the theoretical and
experimental metrological performance of the measuring plants of
the systems. To this aim, a model for the uncertainty estimation of
natural gas energy measurements has been developed and vali-
dated. This uncertainty model has been applied to the natural gas
measuring plants installed in the Italian transmission network and
the experimental results are presented and discussed in relation to
the main balancing and billing issues.
2. Theory and methods
Billing accuracy directly depends on the metrological perfor-
mance of the single device constituting the measurement plant
and on the simplifying hypothesis under specific accounting
conditions (i.e. constant heat value, standard density, pressure,
…). On the other hand, UAG comes from the unavoidable errors
affecting the measurement of the natural gas entering and leaving
the network. Besides, while in general random errors mutually
compensate when many measuring plants are present in the
network, systematic ones add each other in the network balance.
From the data available in literature [2,3], UAG in national natural
gas transmission networks ranges typically from 70.1–0.6% of the
volume transported and it can be pointed out that evident correlation
are present between: (i) external environmental temperature and
monthly UAG; (ii) UAG and volumes transported [1].
2.1. Natural gas legal energy measuring systems
According to the international technical standard for legal
metrology OIML R140 [4] a natural gas measuring system is a
complex measurement chain, made up of different devices for the
measurement, elaboration, correction, updating and transmission
of gas flows and energy data.
Energy measurements of the natural gas transported in pres-
sure pipelines are obtained only in an indirect way, that is
measuring the flowed quantities (in terms of volume or mass)
and considering the heat value of the gas itself. Natural gas energy
is then estimated using the following equation:
E ¼ V b  Hs ð1Þ
where E is the energy of the natural gas (MJ), Vb is the volume
(Sm3) of the gas at base conditions (in Italy 15 1C and 101,325 Pa
for temperature and pressure, respectively), Hs is the heat value
(MJ Sm  3). Recent studies demonstrated the possibility to mea-
sure natural gas energy by means of thermodynamic properties
(e.g. relative permittivity, speed of sound and mole fraction of CO2)
[5]. In the near future, these systems could be easily integrated in
the primary flow device, to get a direct energy meter [6].
Natural gas flow measurement plants in transmission networks
are classified as “volumetric” [7–10] or “venturimetric” [11] depend-
ing on the measuring principle of the primary device present
60 G. Ficco et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 42 (2015) 58–68

HAs borders are dynamically adjusted by the network admin-

istrator and each HA is characterized by a constant and known gas
quality, which is used also for billing purposes. In fact, the
composition of the natural gas mixture flowing is continuously
measured with a 0.5% maximum permissible error (MPE) and a
limited difference of Hs with respect to the contiguous HAs is
admitted (within 2% in Italy).
Depending on the nominal maximum flow-rate Qmax at base
conditions of the measuring plant, different design criteria are
presented in [4], together with different minimum configurations
of the system itself. Thus, it is evident that the metrological
performance of each measuring chain strictly depends on the
performance of single devices and on the operating conditions.

2.2. Metrological performance in natural gas legal energy

Fig. 1. Flow chart of a volumetric and venturimetric natural gas measurement chain.
measurement

In Table 1 the MPEs for type approval and initial verifications as

(see Fig. 1). For gas quality measurements both field or remote gas
a function of the expected accuracy (class A, B, C) are presented,
chromatographs are used, when a densitometer would not be
grouped for the whole measuring system, for single modules and
strictly necessary for density measurement.
for the associated measuring instruments.
The volume conversion device (VCD) converts the volumes
Pragmatically, for the whole measuring plant, three accuracy
measured at operating thermodynamic conditions V (P, T, Z), into
classes (i.e. class A, B and C) for natural gas energy measurements
the corresponding ones at base conditions Vb (Pb, Tb, Zb) using
are introduced [4]. Thus, gas companies and final users can choose
Eq. (2) for volumetric and Eq. (3) for venturimetric plants,
the accuracy class (i.e. energy MPE of 1%, 2% and 3%) as a function
respectively.
of: (i) the plant (i.e. for high and low pressure conditions), (ii) the
P T b Zb supplied quantities, (iii) the relevance of the plant (i.e. import/
Vb ¼ V ð2Þ
Pb T Z export, regasification, production, storage, …). Nevertheless, the
minimum performance requirements of the measuring plant in
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi!
X C ε π d2 2 ΔP P T b Zb terms of energy cannot be considered as a requirement to be
Vb ¼ qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Δθi ð3Þ necessarily fulfilled. In fact, the accuracy class is statistically
4 1β
4 ρb Pb T Z
evaluated by means of the MPE of each device of the measurement
chain. Furthermore, since a custody transfer standard for energy
In Eq. (3), according to ISO 5167-2 [11], d is the internal diameter
measurements is not available, measurement errors in terms of
of the orifice plate (m), C is the flow coefficient (dimensionless), ε is
energy could not be directly verified. Thus, in order to verify the
the expansibility factor of the gas (dimensionless), β is the diameter
minimum performance of the whole measuring plant, the MPEs of
ratio of the orifice plate (dimensionless), Δθi is the sampling time
each device of the measurement chain are also fixed. On the other
interval (s).
hand, the above described new approach, based on the definition
Different types of measuring plant configurations are intro-
of MPEs in energy by means of the quadratic combination of the
duced in [4] such as plants able to: (i) provide indications of
MPE of each device, does not guarantee that each energy mea-
volume at base conditions or mass; (ii) directly provide the mass
surement fulfils the MPE. Nevertheless, considering that the whole
of the gas; (iii) provide an indication of the energy corresponding
energy transactions are mandatorily based on a sequence of
to a volume/mass at base conditions.
contemporary measurements and not on a single measurement,
In larger measuring plants (e.g. the ones located at the border
the probability that all the devices of the measuring system could
between two countries) an integrated measuring systems (see Fig. 2a)
work at the same time in their adverse conditions is undoubtedly
for on field energy measurements is always present. These systems
very low.
are made up of: (i) a primary flow device; (ii) a VCD, with pressure
In the author’s opinion, this “statistical” approach represents a
and temperature transmitters; (iii) a calorific value determining device
criticality in legal metrology verifications. In fact, legal metrology
(CVDD, i.e. a gas chromatograph or a gas analyzer); (iv) an energy
officers could have different behaviours when the total measure-
conversion device (ECD, which can often accomplish to the functions
ment lies outside the MPE in energy, but each single device is still
of the volume conversion device). All these devices are normally
conforming to its own MPE, or viceversa, because of the possible
interfaced by a secured communication system. On the other hand,
errors compensation.
smaller measuring system are made up of a simplified chain (e.g. only
On the other hand, the European standard EN 12405-1 [12]
flow device and temperature transmitter) and a VCD, which can
presents different MPEs for type 1 (i.e. with integrated transmit-
locally convert the data only into base volumes [4] or masses. The
ters of T and P or only T) and type 2 (i.e. with separated P and T
above described simplified chain is integrated with the heat value of
transmitters) VCDs. Table 2 shows VCDs MPEs at reference condi-
the gas which is remotely measured in homogeneous areas (HAs) of
tions (i.e. in type approval) and at rated operating conditions
the network (see Fig. 2b and c). In some cases, gas quality data are
(i.e. on the field).
updated manually on field by an operator at fixed periods
(e.g. monthly). In Fig. 2b a typical configuration where energetic data
are automatically updated on field is reported, whereas, in the scheme 2.3. Experimental method
in Fig. 2c the energetic data are available in a remote site. Normally, all
the above described configurations coexist in transmission networks, The authors recently performed a detailed experimental metro-
depending on the size, the type (volumetric/venturimetric) and the logical analysis of the natural gas measuring plants installed in a
category (entry point, exportation, production, storage, delivery point, national (large size), regional (medium size) and local (small size)
…) of the plant. transmission networks of the Italian system.
 G. Ficco et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 42 (2015) 58–68 61

Legend:
M meter
V volume at operating conditions
Vb volume at base condition
VCD volume conversion device
CVDD calorific value determining device
ECD energy conversion device
E energy
TT temperature transmitter
PT pressure transmitter
ME manually entered
SL secured communication

Fig. 2. Typical configurations of gas measuring plants: (a) large plant with CVDD close to the meter; (b) small plant with remote CVDD; (c) small plant with remote CVDD
and ECD

Table 1
MPEs for the whole measuring system and for the single modules/devices constituting it [4].

MPEs Accuracy class A (%) Accuracy class B (%) Accuracy class C (%)

Measuring systems Energy 71.00 7 2.00 73.00

Converted volume/mass or direct mass 70.90 7 1.50 72.00
Single modules Measuring volumes at metering conditions 70.50 7 1.00 71.00
Converting into base volume or into mass 70.50 7 1.00 71.50
Calorific value measurements (CVDD) 70.50 7 1.00 71.00
Representative calorific value determination 70.60 7 1.25 72.00
Converting into energya 70.05 7 0.05 70.05
Associated measuring instruments other than CVDDs Temperature 70.50 7 0.50 71.00
Pressure 70.20 7 0.50 71.00
Density 70.35 7 0.70 71.00
Compressibility factor 70.30 7 0.30 70.50

a
MPEs are calculated with respect to the true calculated value. This requirement is applicable to any calculation, not only to the conversion calculation.

Table 2
MPEs for type 1 and type 2 VCDs [12].

At reference conditions (%) At rated operating conditions (%)

Type 1 VCDs Main indication (PTZ and PT), eC 0.5 1.0

Main indication (only T), eC 0.5 0.7
Type 2 VCDs Main indication (PTZ and PT), eC 0.5 1.0
Calculator, eCalc 0.2 0.3
Temperature, et 0.1 0.2
Pressure, eP 0.2 0.5
Main indication (only T), eC 0.5 0.7

As above mentioned, a natural gas “volumetric” measuring plant is
made up of different devices: (i) a primary flow device, (ii) a pressure
transmitter, (iii) a temperature transmitter, (iv) a gas chromatograph
(or analyzer) and (v) a flow computer. In some particular situations,
the gas chromatograph is not present and gas quality data are
retrieved from a near device in an area supposed to be homogeneous
within fixed limits. On the other hand, in a “venturimetric” configura-
tion (i.e. when an orifice plate is present instead of the volumetric
flow primary device) a single or double differential pressure trans-
mitters and a densitometer are also needed.
The study was aimed to evaluate the metrological performance of
the different measuring plants as a function not only of each device
but also of: (i) their installation; (ii) the operating thermodynamic
conditions (temperature and pressure); (iii) the measured value
(e.g. flow condition). The following items have been investigated by
the authors: (i) the management procedures of the measuring plants
62 G. Ficco et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 42 (2015) 58–68

Fig. 3. Primary flow devices present in the national transmission network: by number (a) and by volume (b).

Table 3
Average flow-rate conditions of the more common primary devices in the national natural gas transmission network investigated.

Type of primary device Typical rangeability Average flow-rate Q ,

Q o Q min Q min o Q o Q t Q t o Q o Q max Q Z 0:9Q max Data not available

Diaphragm 450:1 0.69% 10.48% 54.37% 34.26% Negl.

Rotary piston 450:1 25.21% 18.89% 43.88% 12.03% Negl.
Turbine Up to 20:1 12.73% 31.54% 41.74% 13.95% Negl.
Ultrasonic Up to 100:1 79.66% 5.08% 13.56% 1.69% Negl.
Diff. pressure—orifice fitting Up to 10:1 30.53% 8.75% 17.06% 2.71% 40.95%
Diff. pressure—annular chambers Up to 10:1 19.45% 4.42% 6.03% 1.37% 68.73%

(i.e. effectiveness of subsequent verifications and calibrations [13],
intermediate checks, seasonal switches); (ii) the conformity of the
measuring plant to the technical standards and to the applicable legal
metrology rules (i.e. technical characteristics of the devices and layout
of the measuring plant); (iii) the calculation algorithms used to
convert measured volumes into base conditions; (iv) the operating
flow-rates in respect to the approved range of the primary flow
device; (v) the synchronism, the consistency and trueness of the data
transmitted.
The authors analyzed the detailed data base made up of about
7300 measuring plants installed in the whole transmission net-
work, adequately considering all the above reported items. Finally,
a restricted sample of about 30 measuring plants was assessed on
field, to check the typical metrological criticalities of each config-
uration (e.g. entry point, production field, city gate, small and big
industries, electrical power stations) in their actual operating
conditions. This latter on field measurement campaign was also
aimed to validate the model for the uncertainty estimation of
natural gas energy measurements developed by the authors.
Different measurement principles (see Fig. 3) are present in the
investigated networks and new ones are in a development or in
on-site testing phase [14]. On the other hand, very different
volumes are yearly measured by each one of them. Obviously,
each measuring principle presents specific metrological perfor-
mance and criticalities in terms of rangeability, operating and
environmental conditions (temperature, pressure), installation
effects, stability and repeatability.
3. Experimental results
principle). This range is between the transition flow-rate Qt1 and the
maximum one Qmax [15–18].
In Table 3 the average operating flow-rate Q registered at
measuring plants of the national network investigated are pre-
sented, grouped for measuring principle (data for the regional and
local networks investigated are quite similar). For volumetric
primary devices, the authors considered the Qmin and Qt values
of the corresponding standards. For the venturimetric ones, these
values were calculated considering the typical rangeability of the
differential pressure devices.
From a first analysis of the average flow-rates, it can be pointed
out that a significant number of the primary flow devices seems to
work below the transition flow-rate Qt. This situation is very
critical since at low flow-rates the relative error of the meter
strongly increases. This error is always negative (i.e. in user’s
advantage) and it can be assumed to be systematic. Nevertheless,
this could be due to the fact that rarely the plants work at their
maximum capacity. Furthermore, this effect is enhanced by
seasonal consumptions variations (both in civil and industrial
sectors) and it becomes critical when measuring plants are over-
sized and when consumptions strongly decrease with respect to
the initial expected ones. In fact, due to the economic crisis, in
recent years a relevant gas consumption reduction occurred for
several industrial sectors (e.g. chemical, pharmaceutical and auto-
motive) and for thermoelectric power stations. In particular, these
latter strongly reduced their natural gas consumptions also
because of the growth of renewable sources and of the distributed
generation of electrical energy.
Similarly, when the average flow-rate is close or above the
maximum flow-rate of the primary device, metrological perfor-
mance of the whole measuring plant dramatically drop (especially

3.1. Operating flow-rate and rangeability of the primary flow device

Scientific literature reports that both volumetric and venturimetric 1

Qt is the flow-rate at which the flow-rate range is divided into two zones, the
primary flow devices provide their best metrological performance ‘upper zone' and the ‘lower zone', each one with a different characteristic MPE. Qt is
only in a restricted flow-rate range (characteristic of the measurement fixed for each measuring principle by the corresponding applicable standards.
 G. Ficco et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 42 (2015) 58–68 63

for diaphragm meters). However, from the available data this
situation occurs in very few cases.
As an example, in Fig. 4 the annual flow-rates trend of a large
venturimetric city-gate with a double DP transmitter is depicted. The
unavoidable seasonal variations of natural gas consumptions are
evident and the flow-meter worked below Qmin for a very long period.
To handle these issues, the accurate design of the measuring
plant is crucial. In particular, the flow-rates expected variability
should be considered. In fact, the correct rangeability of the plant is
proportional to the flow-meter rangeability (e.g. modern ultrasonic
flow-meters present very high rangeability, up to 100:1). Thus, an
additional measuring line of different size for seasonal switches
could be very useful. This solution is recommended since costs (i.e.
the additional pipe and the new meter with its periodical calibra-
tion) should be recovered in a very short period. As an example, in
Fig. 5 the summer hourly flow-rate trends in the days immediately
before and after the seasonal switch have been plotted for a city gate
in the regional network investigated. It is easy to point out that the
low nightly consumptions were completely zeroed by the larger
“winter” meter, whereas the smaller “summer” meter measures also
the low nightly consumptions. Therefore, postponing seasonal
switches can lead to increase UAG and inaccurate billing [19].
3.2. Operating conditions (temperature and pressure)
The variability of the operating conditions, especially in terms of
gas temperature and pressure, can produce significant changes of the
global metrological performance of the measurement plants. In fact,
the environmental temperature strongly influences the transmitters’
metrological performance and, moreover, seasonal changes induce
significant variations both in pipe and gas temperatures.
In Fig. 6 the average operating gas temperature trend registered
in the national network investigated is presented together with
the reference gas temperature in Italy (i.e. 15 1C) and with the
fluctuations in terms of standard deviation. Strong seasonal
fluctuations of the operating gas temperature, with peaks in
summer and in winter have been registered and a similar trend
for the regional and local networks investigated emerges. These
temperature variations are clearly induced by external environ-
mental conditions and enhanced by preheating systems. There-
fore, in particular operating conditions, especially in summer, a
potentially relevant error in temperature measurement (and con-
sequently in the conversion of the volumes into base conditions)
occurs because of the radiative, convective and conductive effects
in the system probe-pipe-gas flow. This difference strongly
increases especially when radiative (i.e. the pipe temperature)
and convective (i.e. the flow-rate) contributions vary.
In fact, the heat transfer process depends on: (i) the boundary
conditions, (ii) the gas thermo-physical properties and thermody-
namic conditions, (iii) the flow conditions. Assuming that: (i) the pipe
behaves as a black cavity, (ii) the conductive heat transfer through the
probe is negligible, (iii) the probe surface is grey with constant and
uniform emissivity, the relation of the heat exchange between the
probe and the environment in a steady state is:
 
hs As ðT  T s Þ ¼ σεs As T 4s  T 4p ð4Þ

where hs is the convective heat transfer coefficient between the

temperature sensor and the gas flowing (Wm  2 K  1), As is the sensor
Fig. 4. Average daily flow-rate in a city gate, compared with the maximum and heat exchange surface (m2), Ts is the temperature measured by the
minimum nominal flow-rate of the primary device (orifice plate with double Δp). sensor (K), σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant (Wm  2 K  4), εs is the
surface emissivity of the sensor (dimensionless) and Tp is the internal
pipe temperature (K). Obviously, this effect is enhanced when the
2000 measuring pipe is not insulated and when the emissivity of thermo-
wells increases with time due to the unaivoidable oxidation of the
1800
surface.
1600 As an example, in Fig. 7 the error of the temperature transmitter is
plotted as a function of the flow-rate and of the temperature
1400 difference between gas (supposed to be at T¼15 1C) and external
Flowrate, Sm3/h

environment (supposed to range from  5 to 40 1C). In such condition,

1200
an oxidized steel thermowell (εs ¼0.8) have been considered. It can be
1000 noticed that this effect can lead to an error up to 71.0 1C at worst
conditions (i.e. high ΔT, low flow-rates and high εs), corresponding to
800 an error in energy of about 70.3% for volumetric and 70.2% for
venturimetric measuring plants, respectively.
600 av. flow-rate (G1600)
The above described effect can be strongly reduced by shielding
av. flow-rate (G160)
400 min flow-rate (G1600) the gas temperature sensor or by insulating the pipe walls of the
min flow-rate (G160) measuring tract with appropriate materials. Unfortunately, to the
200 author’s knowledge, this happens only in few plants (i.e. the larger
ones, like entry points, storage fields, exportations, etc.).
0
Gauge pressure transducers are widely used in the investigated
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
0
1
2
3
4
5

networks, despite actual technical standards [4] prescribe the use

Hour of absolute ones. Thus, the absolute operating pressure of the
Fig. 5. Average hourly flow-rate in a city gate (volumetric) in the days immediately natural gas in Eqs. (2) and (3) is obtained summing the measured
before and after the seasonal switch. gauge pressure to the estimated atmospheric one. However, this
64 G. Ficco et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 42 (2015) 58–68

latter is often estimated considering only the altitude of the
measuring site for which a 100 m tolerance is often admitted
[20]. Alternatively, the atmospheric pressure is measured in initial
verification of the plant and permanently set into the flow-
computer. This lead to a systematic error of about 10–15 mbar in
pressure units. Moreover, the atmospheric pressure is affected also
35
by weather variability (in a range of 20–30 mbar in a year), and
this should be considered for accurate measurements. Thus, in
order to avoid random and systematic errors in the volume
conversion into base conditions due to atmospheric pressure, the
use of absolute pressure transmitters should be encouraged.
The above described contributions can undoubtedly be neglected
at high pressure, whereas in several transmission conditions (present
in all the investigated networks) they can lead to relevant systematic
errors.

30

25 3.3. Calculation algorithms

ISO 12213 Part 2 and 3 [21,22] are the validated international

20
standards for the calculation of the compressibility factors Z and Zb in
(°C)

Eqs. (2) and (3). These standards receive the calculation models
15 developed by the American Gas Association (AGA) and by the
European Gas Research Group (GERG). Although ISO considers only
10 two different models to evaluate the compressibility factor of natural
gas, unfortunately in transmission networks other older calculation
National Network (2008) algorithms are still widely used, because of the different periods in
5
Ref. gas temperature which flow-computers have been designed, approved and installed.
The metrological performance of the above algorithms have been
0
investigated in literature [21–23] and they are shown in Table 4 as a
function of the following terms: (i) the gas density, (ii) the content of
Fig. 6. Average operating gas temperature registered in the measuring plants of the N2 and CO2, (iii) the absolute pressure. As a consequence, this
national network investigated compared to the reference one in Italy. situation causes different uncertainties in the calculation of Z and,
consequently, in the uncertainty of the whole measuring chain. In fact,
from the above reported data it can be pointed out that: (i) AGA
NX-19 presents a calculation uncertainty ranging from 0.25 to 0.50%,
p=0.80 (oxidated steel) and gas temperature T=15°C
but, for high density natural gas this value can be higher than 0.5%; (ii)
2.0
ISO 12213-2 (i.e. AGA 8-92) presents an uncertainty always better
1.5 than 0.1%; (iii) ISO 12213-3 (i.e. SGERG 88) presents an uncertainty up
DT=25°C
DT=20°C to 0.1% when the three thermodynamic properties are correctly
1.0 DT=15°C chosen (e.g. when CO2 concentration is negligible, the N2 concentra-
DT=10°C tion should be preferred). Furthermore, for family H natural gases [24]
Error,°C

0.5 DT=5°C
DT=0°C
with high calorific value and with temperature and pressure in the
0.0 DT= -5 °C range 263–303 K and 0–90 bar, respectively (i.e. the typical condition
DT= -10 °C in the investigated networks), the 3H modified version of AGA NX 19
-0.5 DT= -15 °C presents an uncertainty better than 0.25%. Out of these ranges the
DT= -20 °C
-1.0 uncertainty easily raises up to 1%.
As an example, for the natural gas extracted and produced in
-1.5 Italy (e.g. relative density about 0.58, N2 0.28% and CO2 0.02% in
0 20 40 60 80 100
average) at operative conditions of 15 1C and 65 bar the applica-
Flow-rate, % FS tion of the above mentioned algorithms leads to an uncertainty of
Fig. 7. Trend of the temperature transmitter error as a function of the temperature about 0.25% when AGA NX 19 algorithm is used and of about 0.10%
difference between gas and external environment and of the flow-rate. when the validated ISO 12213 are used.

Table 4
Uncertainty of different Z calculation algorithms [23].

Gas conditions Relative density, ρb Uncertainty (%)

[kg m  3]
AGA NX-19 (1962) AGA NX-19 Mod. e Mod 3H ISO 12213-2 (AGA 8-92) ISO 12213-3(SGERG
(%) (1982) (%) 88)

Low ρb 0.60 0.10 Data not available 0.04 o 0.10%

Intermediate ρb 0.63 0.33 0.03
High ρb 0.67 0.82 0.05
Intermediate N2 0.66 0.07 0.07
High N2 0.78 0.16 0.06
Intermediate CO2 0.71 0.11 0.03
High CO2 0.87 0.61 0.08
Max 40 bar and Hs not higher than Data not available 0.20% o0.10
methane one
P 440 bar and low temperature Data not available 0.70% o0.10
 G. Ficco et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 42 (2015) 58–68 65

4. Discussion (i.e. without correlation terms) for a volumetric and venturimetric

[29] measuring plant respectively, can be applied taking into
4.1. Uncertainty budget for typical natural gas energy measuring account also the energetic contributions.
plants sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
  u 2 u 2 u 2 u 2 u 2 u 2
uðEÞ V P T Z Zb HS
¼ þ þ þ þ þ
In the investigated networks, generally high metrological E vol V P T Z Zb Hs
performance transmitters are used, such as Pt100 for temperature ð5Þ
transmitters (typically 4 wires sensors with accuracy better
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
than 70.1%) and absolute pressure transmitter with accuracy   u
u   2   2  2β 4  2  u  2  2
uðEÞ u 2 1u 2 1uP 2
better than 70.2%. ¼ t uCC þ uεε þ D
þ 2 d
þ 4 ΔΔPP þ 4 P 11 þ
E vent 1  β 4 D 1  β 4 d
As regards the operating temperature measurement, a particular
attention should be paid to the installation effects besides only to the          2
1 uT 1 2 1 uZ 1 2 1 uZ s 2 1 uρb 2 uH s
transmitter accuracy. In fact, a not full immersion depth and the lack þ þ þ þ þ ð6Þ
4 T1 4 Z1 4 Zs 4 ρb Hs
of probe shielding (and/or the insulation of the pipe in the measuring
tract) can cause relevant systematic errors. Similarly, installation The authors developed an uncertainty calculation software taking
effects on pressure transmitters potentially cause undesirable errors into account all the above mentioned contributions. The software has
due to pulsating flow regimes, turbulence in the pressure taps and been developed in a Visual Basic environment and it automatically
barometric pressure variations, especially when gauge pressure trans- acquires data from the data base of the measuring plants in Micro-
mitters are used. An exhaustive analysis on the influence of thermo- softs Excel format. Through a graphical interface it performs various
dynamic conditions on the measurement uncertainty of the volume types of calculations for estimating the uncertainty of the each single
conversion devices for different types of natural gas delivered in the plant. The developed software has been previously validated showing
Italian networks is given in [25]. a very good agreement by: (i) assessing on different networks the
Process gas chromatographs or gas analyzers for continuous compatibility of the energy entering and leaving the network [1];
measurement of natural gas composition are mandatory at entry (ii) comparing directly on the field three different measuring chains
points, storage fields and at larger production fields, whereas for (e.g. with ultrasonic, turbine and orifice plate primary flow element
smaller production fields the analysis of a periodic sample of the [17]). Consequently, the validated software has been automatically
gas produced is sufficient. On the contrary, gas quality at deliveries applied to all the measuring plants of the national, regional and local
can be estimated also by means of a remote gas chromatograph in natural gas networks investigated.
the same HA. Gas chromatographs directly measure molar frac- In Table 5 the uncertainty contributions above discussed are
tions of each component of the natural gas mixture with which Hs presented with the corresponding sensitivity coefficients and
and the Wobbe Index are calculated according to ISO 6976 [26] typical values.
standard. Process gas chromatographs normally present signifi- As an example, the uncertainty budgets carried out for a typical
cant drifts of their metrological performance. To prevent this, a volumetric measuring plant in a light industry (Table 6) and in a
periodical adjustment is performed comparing instrument’s read- typical venturimetric city gate (Table 7) are presented.
ings with natural gas mixtures whose composition is known and From the analysis of Tables 6 and 7, it can be pointed out that
certified (the so called self calibration mixtures). To minimize natural gas energy uncertainty widely varies as a function of:
measurement uncertainties, a reference mixture with similar (i) the technology of the flow primary device (volumetric/venturi-
molar fractions of the main components of the measurand is used metric) and its measurement range; (ii) the presence of a CVDD;
and a frequent self calibration is adopted (e.g. weekly). (iii) the installation effects (e.g. upstream and downstream pipe
On the other hand, natural gas analyzers use an inferential straight lengths, immersion depth and shielding of the tempera-
analysis technology based on the correlation between physical ture sensor, insulation of the measuring tract, …); (iv) both
properties (e.g. thermal conductivity and CO2 molar fraction). On environmental (temperature, atmospheric pressure) and operating
the market several certified gas analyzers are already available. conditions, (e.g. temperature and pressure, flow-rate in respect to
The expanded uncertainty of natural gas energy measuring the measuring range of the meter, …); vi) the updating and
plants, UE, is obtained applying the uncertainty propagation law transmission data procedures and frequencies.
[27,28] to Eqs. (1)–(3), that is statistically combining the relative In particular, for the volumetric measuring plant in Table 6
uncertainties (supposed to be uncorrelated) of each device of the (in which a gas chromatograph is used), the primary flow device
measuring chain. To this aim the following simplifying equations accuracy is the main contribution to the uncertainty of the whole

Table 5
Uncertainty analysis of the investigated contributions.

Uncertainty contribution Operating conditions Typical value Sensitivity coefficient ci

Actual flow-rate (volumetric) Q o Q min 4.0% 1

Q min o Q o Q t 2.0%
Q t o Q o Q max 0.5–1.0%
Q Z Q max 2.0%
Temperature transmitter Radiative contribution 0.3 1C 0.5
Immersion depth 0.1 1C
Gauge pressure transmitter Barometric pressure (altitude) 10 mbar a 0.5
Barometric pressure (weather) 25 mbar
  
Gas quality data Gas composition (HA) 2% 0:001 H s =0:06 P=60 0:5
Gas composition (GC/GA) 0.10% 1
Calculation algorithm (Z) 0.10% (ISO 12213) 0.25% (AGA NX 19)

a
Corresponding to 100 m tolerance in altitude.
66 G. Ficco et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 42 (2015) 58–68

Table 6
Uncertainty budget for a typical volumetric measurement chain.

Measurement device Uncertainty contribution Operating conditions MPE Units Uass Urel Sensitivity coefficient ci (ciU)2

Primary flow device (turbine) Accuracy (calibration) Qt o Qo Qmax 0.50 % – 0.58 1.0 0.33
Drift – – – – Negl. 1.0 Negl.
Pressure and temperature effect – Negl. – – Negl. 1.0 Negl.
Inst. effect: upstream straight pipe 56 diam. 0.50 % – Negl. 1.0 Negl.
Inst. effect: downstream straight pipe 16 diam. 0.50 % – Negl. 1.0 Negl.
Inst. effect: pulsating flows – 0.50 % – Negl. 1.0 Negl.
Absolute pressure transmitter Standard reference accuracy 60 bar 0.10 % – 0.10 1.0 0.01
Accuracy 0.07% FS % 0.05 0.09 1.0 0.01
Drift – bar 0.10 0.17 1.0 0.03
Temperature effect 0.01% URL % 0.01 0.02 1.0 Negl.
Barometric pressure (altitude) 100 m – – – Negl. 1.0 Negl.
Barometric pressure (weather) 25 mbar – – – Negl. 1.0 Negl.
Temperature transmitter PT100 Standard reference accuracy 279 K 0.20 K 0.20 0.07 1.0 0.01
Accuracy 0.05 K 0.05 0.02 1.0 Negl.
Drift – K 0.10 0.04 1.0 Negl.
Inst. effect: immersion depth Pipe not ins. – K 0.10 0.04 1.0 Negl.
Inst. effect: pipe radiative contribution Pipe not ins. – K 0.30 0.11 1.0 0.01
Gas quality data Gas composition, Z (Hs, d, N2, CO2) Gas chromat. 0.15% % 0.06 0.15 0.6 0.01
Compressibility factor calc., Z ISO 12213 – % – 0.10 1.0 0.01
Compr. factor calc., Zs (Hs, d, CO2) ISO 6976 – % – 0.01 1.0 Negl.
Flow computer Type 2 volume conversion device, Vb EN 12405 0.30 % – 0.35 1.0 0.12
Updating of the quality data, ρb Continuous – – – Negl. 0.6 Negl.
Expanded volume uncertainty U(Vb) % 0.73
Expanded energy uncertainty U(E) % 0.75

Table 7
Uncertainty budget for a typical venturimetric measurement chain (city gate).

Measurement device Uncertainty contribution Operating MPE Units Uass Urel Sensitivity coefficient (ciU)2
conditions ci

Orifice plate Pipe diameter, D 600 0.30% mm – 0.30 0.1 Negl.

Orifice diameter, d 291 0.05% mm – 0.05 2.1 0.01
Gas expansibility factor, ε – (3.5 ΔP)/(k – – 0.02 1.0 Negl.
P1)
Discharge coefficient, C – – – – 0.50 1.0 0.25
Increase of C for D o 71.12 mm – – – – – – –
Increase of C for β 40.5 Reo10,000 – – – – – – –
Increase of C for orifice plate centering – – – – – – –
Inst. effect: upstream straight pipe 50D 0.50% – – – – –
Inst. effect: downstream straight pipe 17D 0.50% – – – – –
Inst. effect: pulsating flows (Δp o10%) 0% 0.50% – – Negl. 1.0 Negl.

Differential pressure transmitter Standard reference accuracy 224 0.10% % – 0.10 0.5 Negl.
(HIGH) Accuracy 0.07% F.S. % 0.33 0.15 0.5 0.01
Drift – bar 0.80 0.36 0.5 0.03
Pressure effect 0.05% URL % 0.31 0.14 0.5 0.01
Temperature effect 0.01% URL % 0.08 0.03 0.5 Negl.

Pressure transmitter (gauge) Standard reference accuracy 12.5 0.10% % – 0.10 0.5 Negl.
Accuracy 0.06% F.S. bar 0.01 0.07 0.5 Negl.
Drift – bar 0.05 0.37 0.5 0.03
Temperature effect 0.01% F.S. bar 0.00 0.01 0.5 Negl.
Barometric pressure (altitude) 0.98509 100 m bar 0.01 0.07 0.5 Negl.
Barometric pressure (weather) 25 mbar bar 0.03 0.19 0.5 0.01

Temperature transmitter PT100 Standard reference accuracy 283 0.20 K 0.20 0.07 0.5 Negl.
Accuracy 0.05 K 0.05 0.02 0.5 Negl.
Drift – K 0.04 0.01 0.5 Negl.
Inst. effect: immersion depth Pipe not ins. – K 0.10 0.04 0.5 Negl.
Inst. effect: pipe radiative contribution Pipe not ins. – K 0.30 0.11 0.5 Negl.

Gas quality data Gas composition, Z (Hs, d, N2, CO2) HA 2% % 0.77 2.00 0.1 0.018
Compressibility factor calculation, Z AGA NX 19 – % – 0.25 0.5 0.016
Compr. factor calculation, Zb (Hs, d, CO2) ISO 6976 2% Hs % – 0.01 0.5 Negl.
Gas density, ρs Densitometer 0.10% % – 0.10 0.5 Negl.

Flow computer Type 2 volume conversion device, Vb EN 12405 0.30% % – 0.35 1.0 0.120
Updating of the quality data, ρb Continuous 0.50% % Negl. Negl. 0.5 Negl.
Updating of the quality data, Hs, N2, CO2 Monthly 0.50% % 0.10 0.25 0.1 Negl.
Expanded volume uncertainty U(Vb) [%] 0.72
Expanded energy uncertainty U(E) [%] 2.14
 G. Ficco et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 42 (2015) 58–68 67

Table 8
Typical energy and volume relative uncertainties of measuring plants in the investigated networks.

Measuring plant category National network Regional network Local network

U(V) (%) U(E) (%) U(V) (%) U(E) (%) U(V) (%) U(E) (%)

Entry points, import–export 0.5–1.0 0.6–1.1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Interconnections to other companies 1.5–2.0 2.0–3.0 1.5–2.0 2.0–3.0 n.a. n.a.
National productions 2.0–4.0 2.5–5.0 2.0–4.0 2.5–5.0 n.a. n.a.
Regasification plants 0.5 0.6 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Storage site 1.5–4.0 2.0–5.0 1.5–4.0 2.0–5.0 n.a. n.a.
Delivery point (large industry, thermoel.) 1.5–3.0 2.0–4.0 1.5–3.0 2.0–4.0 1.5–3.0 2.0–4.0
Delivery point (small industry, comm.) 1.5–5.0 2.0–6.0 1.5–5.0 2.0–6.0 2.0–5.0 2.5–6.0
City gate (volumetric) 1.0–3.0 1.2–4.0 1.5–4.0 2.0–5.0 n.a. n.a.
City gate (venturimetric) 1.0–4.0 1.2–5.0 1.8 * 2.7 * n.a. n.a.

n
Only one city gate has been investigated.

2.0E+07 for the uncertainty estimation of natural gas energy measure-

Estimated ments has been developed, validated and, then, applied to the
Measured Italian network. In particular, the authors analyzed the compat-
ibility between the billing and balancing needs and the metrolo-
1.5E+07
gical performances of the different energy measurement chains
installed in the network. In fact, from the results of a detailed on
UAG, Sm3

field experimental campaign conducted in a national, regional and

1.0E+07 local natural gas transmission network, the authors pointed out:

(1) The uncertainty contribution of the primary flow device

5.0E+06
0.0E+00
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Fig. 8. UAG uncertainty contributions in the regional network investigated (2011).
plant, both in volume and energy. In fact, the other contributions
(i.e. flow computer, temperature and pressure transmitters and gas
composition) sum about 38% whereas they increase up to 46% in
energy uncertainty because of the gas composition contribution.
On the other hand, the main uncertainty contributions in the
venturimetric measuring plant in Table 7 are represented by the orifice
plate and by the differential pressure transmitter accuracy, whereas
the lack of a CVDD in the plant causes a relevant uncertainty
contribution in energy measurements. Obviously, this situation will
be identical for a volumetric plant when the data from HA are used
instead of those from a CVDD directly connected to the VCD. The
temperature and pressure transmitters always play a secondary role in
the uncertainty budget, especially when absolute pressure transmit-
ters are used instead of gauge ones. In Table 8, the typical uncertainties
of the measuring plants are presented for the national, regional and
local network investigated.
Since UAG uncertainty is obtained by means of the quadratic
sum of each absolute contribution (i.e. the product of the relative
uncertainty by the volume/energy of each term), the effect on the
expected UAG is obviously a function of the volume/energy
measured or estimated [1]. Thus, the single contributions widely
vary in the investigated networks. As an example, the annual trend
of measured and estimated UAG contributions have been depicted
in Fig. 8 for the regional network investigated by the authors in the
present research.
5. Conclusions
In this paper the authors analyzed the main metrological issues
related to natural gas volume and energy measurements in order
to reduce inaccurate billing and UAG. To this aim a specific model
strictly depends from its size and rangeability in respect to
the effective operating flow-rates; the authors estimated that a
relevant part (about 20%) of the measuring plants investigated
works at average flow-rate below the transition one of the
primary flow element; in fact many meters are often oversized
(due to the actual economic crisis and to the promotion of
renewable energy sources) and seasonal switches are not
effectively performed;
(2) Automatic reading and controlling systems, actually wide-
spread in the investigated networks, allow gas quality data
to be set from remote when a CVDD is not present on the field
and this should minimize the effect of gas quality data
inaccuracy; the authors estimated that gas quality data mea-
surement and updating can lead to uncertainties ranging from
0.1 to 0.2% (when a gas chromatograph or a gas analyzer is
directly connected to a flow computer) to 1.0–2.0% when the
homogeneous area system is used and gas quality data are
updated manually at fixed frequencies;
(3) Installation effects on temperature (i.e. immersion depth,
radiative contribution of the pipe) and pressure (i.e. the
barometric pressure value) transmitters can lead to systematic
errors affecting both UAG and billing (up to 0.2–0.3%); there-
fore, even if they are not relevant in billing (especially in
smaller plants), they cannot be neglected in the networks
balancing when the expected UAG is of the same order of
magnitude;
(4) the use of different compressibility factor calculation algo-
rithms can lead to errors up to 0.5%; therefore, the use of
validated standard algorithms (i.e. ISO 12213) should be
encouraged.
From the experimental campaign, the authors carried out that
in optimal operating conditions the billing volume uncertainties
for both volumetric and venturimetric plants range from 0.5 to
1.0%, whereas in critical conditions they become unacceptable
(up to 5%). This situation is enhanced in energy measurements, for
which the relative uncertainty ranges from 0.6 to 1.1% in optimal
conditions to more than 6% in critical conditions.
Finally, in order to reduce UAG and to improve billing accuracy,
both users and gas companies are encouraged to run flow-meters
68 G. Ficco et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 42 (2015) 58–68

in their correct range (i.e. from Qt to Qmax), avoiding errors due to
the meters themselves. To this aim the following actions are
suggested: (i) promote the use of higher rangeability flow-meters;
(ii) perform punctually seasonal switches of measuring lines;
(iii) periodically calibrate the whole measuring chain (including
the volume conversion devices and the flow-meter); (iv) reduce
the installation effects on the temperature transmitters (i.e. by
shielding the sensor or by insulating the measuring tract of the
pipeline).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Italian Regulatory Authority for Electri-
city, Gas and Water (AEEG) for having promoted this research,
Snam Spa and Società Gasdotti Italia Spa for the useful data and
technical cooperation given in this research.
References
[28] ISO 5168 Measurement of fluid flow—procedures for the evaluation of
uncertainties; 2005.
[29] ISO 5167-1 Measurement of fluid flow by means of pressure differential
devices inserted in circular cross-section conduits running full—Part 1:
General principles and requirements; 2003.
Giorgio Ficco 1968, born in Cassino, Italy 1992, graduated with honor in Mechan-
ical Engineering at University of Cassino; 1992–1993, quality control engineer at
Schlumberger, Naples (production of domestic and industrial gas meters);
1994–2005, Head of Laboratories at Palmer, Scientific and Technological Park; from
2005, Assistant Professor in Applied Thermodynamics at DICeM, Department of
Civil and Mechanical Engineering of the University of Cassino and Professor of
“Fundamental of Measurements” and “Management of measurements for Quality
and Security”; from 2006, Technical Assessor for Accredia, the Italian accreditation
body, and for NAB, National Accreditation Board Malta; 2008, Ph.D. in Mechanical
Engineering at University of Cassino; From 2012 head of LAMI, the industrial
measurement laboratory of UNICLAM. His research interests regard mainly: (i) legal
metrology; (ii) energetic aspects of fluid-dynamic, energetic saving and environ-
mental control; (iii) buildings integration of renewable energy systems; (iv)
temperature measurement, pressure and flow rate measurement; (v) heat account-
ing systems.

[1] Arpino F, Dell’Isola M, Ficco G, Vigo P. Unaccounted for gas in natural gas
transmission networks: prediction model and analysis of the solutions. J Nat
Gas Sci Eng 2014(17):58–70.
[2] 〈http://www.snamretegas.it/it/index.html〉; 2014 [last accessed 2014-12-05]. Marco Dell’Isola 1965, born in Pozzuoli, Italy 1988, graduated with honor in
[3] 〈http://www2.nationalgrid.com/uk/industry-information/gas-transmission- Mechanical Engineering at University Federico II of Naples. 2001, Full Professor of
system-operations/balancing/unaccounted-for-gas/〉;2014[last accessed 2014- Applied Industrial Thermodynamics at Department of Civil and Mechanical
12-05]. Engineering (DICeM) at University of Cassino. 2002–2012, President of the MS
[4] OIML R140 “Measuring systems for gaseous fuel”; 2007. degree in Mechanical Engineering of the University of Cassino 2003–2007 Vicar-
[5] Jaeschke M. Thermodynamic research improves energy measurement of ious Dean of the School of Engineering of the University of Cassino. From 2012
natural gas. Thermochim Acta 2002;382(1–2):37–45. Director of DICeM at UNICLAM. His research interests regard mainly sustainability
[6] OIML R137-1, Gas meters; 2012. and integration of energy systems and energy, environmental and legal metrology,
[7] Schley P, Jaeschke M, Altfeld K. New technologies for gas quality determina- in particular: (i) application of models of governance to the territorial develop-
tion. In: Proceedings of the 22th World Gas Conference, Tokyo; June 2003. ment; (ii) energetic aspects of fluid-dynamic, energetic saving and environmental
[8] EN 1359, Gas meters. Diaphragm meters; 2006. control; (iii) buildings integration of renewable energy systems; (iv) air humidity
[9] UNI EN 12480, Gas meters Rotary displacement gas meters; 2006. measurement, temperature measurement, pressure and flow rate measurement.
[10] EN 14236, Ultrasonic domestic gas meters; 2007.
[11] ISO 5167-2 Measurement of fluid flow by means of pressure differential
devices inserted in circular cross-section conduits running full. Part 2: Orifice
plates; 2003.
[12] EN 12405-1, Gas meters conversion devices Part 1: Volume conversion; 2007.
Paolo Vigo 1949, born in Napoli, Italy. 1972, graduated with honor in Mechanical
[13] Betta G, Dell’Isola M. Optimum choice of measurement points for sensor
Engineering at University Federico II of Naples. 1990, Full professor at Department
calibration. Measurement 1996;17(2) (115-12).
of Civil and Mechanical Engineering (DICeM) at University of Cassino and Professor
[14] de Matos M, da Silva Ferreira V. Gas mass-flow meters: principles and
of “Thermal and mechanical measurements” and “Industrial measurements”
applications. Flow Meas Instrum 2010;21:143–9.
(former “Fundamentals of Metrology”) for Mechanical Engineering; 2001–2009,
[15] Ficco G. Metrological performance of diaphragm gas meters in distribution
Rector of the University of Cassino and Southern Lazio. 2010–2013, member of the
networks. Flow Meas Instrum 2014;37:65–72.
board of directors of INRIM, Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica of Turin From
[16] Vigo P, Cascetta F. The future domestic gas meter review of current develop-
2010, vice president of ACCREDIA, the National Accreditation Body (in application
ments. Measurement 1993;13:129–45.
of mutual recognition agreements of EA), with responsibility for the Department of
[17] Dell’Isola M, Cannizzo M, Diritti M. Measurement of high-pressure natural gas
Calibration. From 2010, President of PALMER, the Scientific and Technological Park
flow using ultrasonic flowmeters. Measurement 1997;20(2):75–89.
of Southern Lazio From 2014 member of the Technical Council of INRIM, Istituto
[18] Buonanno G. On field characterization of static domestic gas flowmeters.
Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica of Turin His research interests regard mainly the
Measurement 2000:27.
application of measurement of fluid flow, with regard to energy sources, natural gas
[19] Nilsson U, Delsing J. In situ detection of inaccurate gas flow meters using a
and the related spatial distribution through technological networks.
fingerprint technique. Flow Meas Instrum 1998;9:143–52.
[20] SNAM Network Code, 〈http://www.snamretegas.it/en/services/Network_Code/
Aree/index.html〉; 2014 [last accessed 2014-05-26].
[21] EN ISO 12213-2. Natural gas. Calculation of compression factor. Part 2:
Calculation using molar-composition analysis; 2010.
[22] EN ISO 12213-3. Natural gas. Calculation of compression factor. Part 3: Luca Celenza 1986, born in Ceccano, Italy 2011, graduated with honor in Environ-
Calculation using physical properties; 2010. mental Engineering at University of Cassino; from 2012, Ph.D. Student in Mechan-
[23] Starling KE, Savidge JL. Compressibility factors of natural gas and other related ical Engineering at University of Cassino and Southern Lazio; 2012–2013, Internship
hydrocarbon gases. 2nd ed.American Gas Association, Transmission Measure- at the Italian Regulatory Authority for Electricity Gas and Water, under a research
ment Committee Report No.8, and American Petroleum Institute, MPMS; 1994 contract with the University of Cassino.
(Chapter 14.2).
[24] EN 437 Test gases – Test Pressures – appliance categories; 2009.
[25] Buonanno G, Carotenuto A, Dell’Isola M. The influence of reference condition
correction on natural gas flow measurement. Measurement 1998;23:77–91.
[26] UNI EN ISO 6976, Natural gas. Calculation of calorific values, density, relative
density and Wobbe index from composition; 2008.
[27] ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008 Uncertainty of measurement—Part 3: Guide to the
expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM:1995), Geneve.