Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Evaluation of inservice residential nutating disc water meter performance
McKenna Sumrak, Michael Johnson, S. Barfuss (2016)
Comparing Low‐Flow Accuracy of Mechanical and Electronic MetersJournal ‐ American Water Works Association, 108
D. Sayers, W. Jernigan, G. Kunkel, A. Chastain‐Howley (2016)
The Water Audit Data Initiative: Five Years and AccountingJournal ‐ American Water Works Association, 108
M. Maupin, J. Kenny, S. Hutson, J. Lovelace, Nancy Barber, K. Linsey (2014)
Estimated use of water in the United States in 2010
A. Criminisi, C. Fontanazza, G. Freni, G. Loggia (2009)
Evaluation of the apparent losses caused by water meter under-registration in intermittent water supply.Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research, 60 9
(2012)
Water meters: Selection, installation, testing, and maintenance
(2012)
Manual of water supply practices, M6,Water meters: Selection, installation, testing, and maintenance
F. Arregui, M. Balaguer, J. Soriano, J. García-Serra (2016)
Quantifying measuring errors of new residential water meters considering different customer consumption patternsUrban Water Journal, 13
F. Arregui, E. Cabrera, R. Cobacho (2010)
Integrated Water Meter Management
S. Barfuss, Michael Johnson, Martilyn Neilson (2011)
Accuracy of In-Service Water Meters at Low and High Flow Rates.
(2016)
Comparing low flow
(2012)
Water loss control: IWA/AWWA water audit method
M. Neilsen, S. Barfuss, Michael Johnson (2011)
Off‐the‐shelf accuracies of residential water metersJournal ‐ American Water Works Association, 103
This article reports the experimental evaluation of registry error of in‐service residential water meters and the effects of service time (ST) and volumetric throughput (TP). Nutating disc (ND) meters (413 total, consisting of two models) from a single water system were tested ex situ following AWWA‐recommended test flow rates (TQs). The meters sampled encompassed a range of ST (2–53 years) and TP (0.01–7.65 mil gal). Mean registration error (RE) at TQ ≤ 0.5 gpm was significantly greater for ST > 25 years, independent of TP. Mean RE at TQ = 0.25 gpm was −46.5% and −35.0% for meters with 25 < ST ≤ 33 years and ST ≥ 34 years, respectively. Severe underregistration (RE < −90%) at TQ = 0.25 gpm was observed in 41% and 24% of meters with 25 < ST ≤ 33 years and ST ≥ 34 years, respectively.
AWWA Water Science – Wiley
Published: Jan 1, 2019
Keywords: ; ; ; ;
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.