Hydrogen field test standard: Laboratory and field performance

• NIST built a field test standard for testing hydrogen gas refueling dispensers.
• The test standard incorporates three test methods for comparison.
• The test standard was tested in the laboratory and at a hydrogen gas dispenser.
• The three methods are capable of giving equivalent answers.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) developed a prototype field test standard (FTS) that incorporates three test methods that could be used by state weights and measures inspectors to periodically verify the accuracy of retail hydrogen dispensers, much as gasoline dispensers are tested today. The three field test methods are (1) gravimetric, (2) Pressure, Volume, Temperature (PVT), and (3) master meter. The FTS was tested in NIST's Transient Flow Facility with helium gas and in the field at a hydrogen dispenser location. All three methods agree within 0.57% and 1.53% for all test drafts of helium gas in the laboratory setting and of hydrogen gas in the field, respectively. The time required to perform six test drafts is similar for all three methods, ranging from 6 h for the gravimetric and master meter methods to 8 h for the PVT method.The laboratory tests show that (1) it is critical to wait for thermal equilibrium to achieve density measurements in the FTS that meet the desired uncertainty requirements for the PVT and master meter methods; in general, we found a wait time of 20 min introduces errors <0.1% and <0.04% in the PVT and master meter methods, respectively and (2) buoyancy corrections are important for the lowest uncertainty gravimetric measurements.The field tests show that sensor drift can become a largest component of uncertainty that is not present in the laboratory setting. The scale was calibrated after it was set up at the field location. Checks of the calibration throughout testing showed drift of 0.031%. Calibration of the master meter and the pressure sensors prior to travel to the field location and upon return showed significant drifts in their calibrations; 0.14% and up to 1.7%, respectively. This highlights the need for better sensor selection and/or more robust sensor testing prior to putting into field service. All three test methods are capable of being successfully performed in the field and give equivalent answers if proper sensors without drift are used.