Ultrasonic flow meters, especially those that exploit multiple paths to achieve higher accuracies, are capable of extensive self-diagnosis. Each ultrasonic meter manufacturer has tended to devel-op diagnostic tools specific to his particular device. This has led to a confusing mix of offerings that are not transportable between meters and whose names and interpretations are not always consistent. The focus of this effort has been to examine four areas that yield information indicative of both the health of the meter and the quality of the measurements it is providing: (1) the meter design and ...
Ultrasonic flow meters, especially those that exploit multiple paths to achieve higher accuracies, are capable of extensive self-diagnosis. Each ultrasonic meter manufacturer has tended to devel-op diagnostic tools specific to his particular device. This has led to a confusing mix of offerings that are not transportable between meters and whose names and interpretations are not always consistent. The focus of this effort has been to examine four areas that yield information indicative of both the health of the meter and the quality of the measurements it is providing: (1) the meter design and how this impacts the individual diagnostics, (2) the timing aspects of the measurement, (3) the indicators of transducer performance and (4) the observed velocity profile characteristics. This work extends the previous analysis of Daniel and Instromet (Elster) ultrasonic meters to in-clude Sick and Krohne meters. It also updates the Daniel and Instromet information and looks at graphical displays that help with condition based monitoring.