Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Reliable domestic water metering is essential for billing, demand assessment and water-balance analysis, yet the initial metrological performance of brand-new meters remains poorly documented. This study analysed a historical reception-control database of 1,922 brand-new domestic water meters tested under controlled laboratory conditions using an accredited gravimetric test bench. The samples included single-jet, volumetric and ultrasonic meters. A meter was classified as non-compliant when at least one measured error exceeded the applicable maximum permissible error at any tested flow rate. Overall, 207 m were non-compliant, corresponding to a non-compliance rate of 10.8%. Non-compliance differed strongly by technology, reaching 33.8% for single-jet meters, 8.7% for volumetric meters and 2.7% for ultrasonic meters. Error patterns also varied by anonymised manufacturer code and metrological ratio (R). Within volumetric meters, manufacturer-code non-compliance ranged from 3.1 to 30.6%, while non-compliant single-jet meters showed marked negative bias, highlighting supplier-specific and pre-installation under-registration risks. Extended testing was associated with improved diagnostic resolution in some groups, although its marginal detection benefit depended on sample composition and error location along the flow-rate range. These findings show that reception testing provides diagnostic information that cannot be inferred from certification or nominal specifications alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Albaina et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: