This erratum corrects an error in the article, “Comparing Low‐Flow Accuracy of Mechanical and Electronic Meters,” by McKenna L. Sumrak, Michael C. Johnson, and Steven L. Barfuss, in the June 2016 issue of Journal AWWA (Vol. 108 No. 6, p. E327). The error was found in Table 3 for the value for the nutating disc meter type in the 1–8 column. Comparative performance of new 5/8‐in. ¾‐in. meters Flow Ratea gpm Meter Type 1/16 1/8 ¼ 1 2 15 EMb 1 (0.52) 1 (0.84) 1 (0.55) 1 (0.81) 1 (0.45) 3 (0.55) ND 3 (32.22) 5 (22.5) 5 (5.10) 2 (1.15) 3 (0.52) 2 (0.46) OP 4 (52.27) 3 (11.72) 4 (2.43) 3 (1.51) 5 (1.29) 1 (0.27) MJ 5 (86.64) 4 (21.98) 3 (1.23) 4 (1.98) 4 (1.21) 4 (0.90) SJ 2 (7.41) 2 (2.30) 2 (0.93) 5 (3.32) 2 (0.47) 5 (1.67) Source: Utah Water Research Laboratory EM—electronic meter, MJ—multi‐jet, ND—nutating disc, OP—oscillating piston, SJ—single jet Numbers indicate meter ranking from 1 to 5 (1 being the most accurate and 5 being the least accurate) with average difference of flow registered from 100% (in parentheses). Ranking is based on difference in percentage. See Figure 1 for sample data calculation. Ultrasonic and electromagnetic meters are combined and referred to as EM.
Read full abstract