Fig 10 - uploaded by Manus Patrick Henry
Content may be subject to copyright.
![Coriolis Mass Flow Meter (from [3]).](profile/Manus-Henry/publication/323943003/figure/fig1/AS:611344952852480@1522767403266/Coriolis-Mass-Flow-Meter-from-3.png)
Source publication
![Fig. 10. Coriolis Mass Flow Meter (from [3]).](profile/Manus-Henry/publication/323943003/figure/fig1/AS:611344952852480@1522767403266/Coriolis-Mass-Flow-Meter-from-3_Q320.jpg)
A key requirement for Industrial Cyber-Physical System (ICPS) instrumentation is measurement validation i.e. assessing measurement quality, including detecting and correcting for fault conditions. Coriolis Mass flow meters are used widely throughout industry, but commonly only for single-phase fluids, i.e. either liquids or gases, since accuracy is...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... EXPERIMENT 2: FLOW 0.3KG/S, 2.2% GVF Figs. 7 -10 compare the performance of classic MPM and MCMPM for a two-phase flow experiment with water mass flow 0.3 kg/s and GVF 2.2%. Sensor signal 1 (Fig. 7) shows amplitude variation over time and its FFT shows a low level of the second mode. Fig. 8 shows typical variation of the sensor signals in detail. Figs. 9 and 10 show the calculated parameter changes for the first and second modes respectively. Note that the 'true' mass flow and density of the water and air mixture passing through the flowtube varies over time and only the averaged value over a reasonable timespan (say 30s or more) is known (via the reference measurements). Thus the instantaneous variations shown in Fig. 9 are broadly plausible but cannot be verified directly. The MPM and MCMPM methods are mostly in good agreement, especially for amplitude, but with both frequency and phase difference the MPM method shows sporadic large deviations. For the second mode (Fig. 10), again there is broad agreement between the two methods with spikes occurring particularly on the amplitude measurement. However, the very large swings in phase difference and frequency with either technique suggest the second mode measurements are subject to high levels of ...
Context 2
... EXPERIMENT 2: FLOW 0.3KG/S, 2.2% GVF Figs. 7 -10 compare the performance of classic MPM and MCMPM for a two-phase flow experiment with water mass flow 0.3 kg/s and GVF 2.2%. Sensor signal 1 (Fig. 7) shows amplitude variation over time and its FFT shows a low level of the second mode. Fig. 8 shows typical variation of the sensor signals in detail. Figs. 9 and 10 show the calculated parameter changes for the first and second modes respectively. Note that the 'true' mass flow and density of the water and air mixture passing through the flowtube varies over time and only the averaged value over a reasonable timespan (say 30s or more) is known (via the reference measurements). Thus the instantaneous variations shown in Fig. 9 are broadly plausible but cannot be verified directly. The MPM and MCMPM methods are mostly in good agreement, especially for amplitude, but with both frequency and phase difference the MPM method shows sporadic large deviations. For the second mode (Fig. 10), again there is broad agreement between the two methods with spikes occurring particularly on the amplitude measurement. However, the very large swings in phase difference and frequency with either technique suggest the second mode measurements are subject to high levels of ...
Context 3
... EXPERIMENT 3: FLOW 0.6KG/S, 15.6% GVF Figs. 11 -14 show the results with a higher liquid flow rate and higher GVF. The excited secondary mode has higher amplitude in the FFT (compare Figs 7 and 11), and this is reflected in the calculated value of amplitude (approximate 10 mV vs 1 mV, Fig. 14 vs Fig. 10). This in turn probably explains the more stable measurements of its frequency and phase difference. Again the classic MPM technique shows occasional spikes in the measurements, particularly for the second mode phase difference (Fig. 14), but otherwise there is broad agreement between the two ...
Context 4
... EXPERIMENT 2: FLOW 0.3KG/S, 2.2% GVF Figs. 7 -10 compare the performance of classic MPM and MCMPM for a two-phase flow experiment with water mass flow 0.3 kg/s and GVF 2.2%. Sensor signal 1 (Fig. 7) shows amplitude variation over time and its FFT shows a low level of the second mode. Fig. 8 shows typical variation of the sensor signals in detail. Figs. 9 and 10 show the calculated parameter changes for the first and second modes respectively. Note that the 'true' mass flow and density of the water and air mixture passing through the flowtube varies over time and only the averaged value over a reasonable timespan (say 30s or more) is known (via the reference measurements). Thus the instantaneous variations shown in Fig. 9 are broadly plausible but cannot be verified directly. The MPM and MCMPM methods are mostly in good agreement, especially for amplitude, but with both frequency and phase difference the MPM method shows sporadic large deviations. For the second mode (Fig. 10), again there is broad agreement between the two methods with spikes occurring particularly on the amplitude measurement. However, the very large swings in phase difference and frequency with either technique suggest the second mode measurements are subject to high levels of ...
Context 5
... EXPERIMENT 2: FLOW 0.3KG/S, 2.2% GVF Figs. 7 -10 compare the performance of classic MPM and MCMPM for a two-phase flow experiment with water mass flow 0.3 kg/s and GVF 2.2%. Sensor signal 1 (Fig. 7) shows amplitude variation over time and its FFT shows a low level of the second mode. Fig. 8 shows typical variation of the sensor signals in detail. Figs. 9 and 10 show the calculated parameter changes for the first and second modes respectively. Note that the 'true' mass flow and density of the water and air mixture passing through the flowtube varies over time and only the averaged value over a reasonable timespan (say 30s or more) is known (via the reference measurements). Thus the instantaneous variations shown in Fig. 9 are broadly plausible but cannot be verified directly. The MPM and MCMPM methods are mostly in good agreement, especially for amplitude, but with both frequency and phase difference the MPM method shows sporadic large deviations. For the second mode (Fig. 10), again there is broad agreement between the two methods with spikes occurring particularly on the amplitude measurement. However, the very large swings in phase difference and frequency with either technique suggest the second mode measurements are subject to high levels of ...
Context 6
... EXPERIMENT 3: FLOW 0.6KG/S, 15.6% GVF Figs. 11 -14 show the results with a higher liquid flow rate and higher GVF. The excited secondary mode has higher amplitude in the FFT (compare Figs 7 and 11), and this is reflected in the calculated value of amplitude (approximate 10 mV vs 1 mV, Fig. 14 vs Fig. 10). This in turn probably explains the more stable measurements of its frequency and phase difference. Again the classic MPM technique shows occasional spikes in the measurements, particularly for the second mode phase difference (Fig. 14), but otherwise there is broad agreement between the two ...
Similar publications
This article assesses the relative error in the operating conditions of gas flow meters and concludes on the applicability of the method of finding the relative error in the operating conditions of the gas flow meter using the coefficient of influence.
Citations
... Another research interest will be to substitute the Coriolis flow meter in the gas line with a vortex flow meter; which can be more accurate to handle high GVF fluid. Furthermore, it allows to avoid eventual mechanical interferences when two Coriolis flow meters are placed nearby each other [31,32]. The deployment of the meter in an actual oil field will certainly requires calibration and retraining of the flow meter. ...
In oil-gas fields, two phase flow measurement of liquid-gas mixture for the whole Gas Void Fraction (GVF) range remains a challenging task. Coriolis flow meter is proven to be one of the most accurate device for single phase flow measurement. However, for two phase flow metering, its accuracy gets altered for liquid continuous phase (respectively gas continuous phase) in case of GVF that exceeds 20% (respectively low GVF that is lower than 80%). This paper presents a new Coriolis-based two phase flow meter (TPFM) that uses an upstream inline flow conditioner which separates liquid (i.e. water in this paper) from gas. Each of the gas dominant phase and liquid dominant phase are carried by two outlets, namely gas and liquid outlets respectively. A Coriolis flow meter and an actuated valve are placed in each outlet to measure and regulate the GVF that passes in each line. A new measurement algorithm based on a multistage artificial neural network (ANN) and which explores the physical model of the Coriolis flow meter is also suggested. This latest combines the pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) and bubble theory models to estimate the amount of gas (respectively liquid) dissolved in the liquid phase (respectively gas phase). Experimental results that were conducted on a multiphase flow loop reveals that for the whole GVF range (i.e. 0 to 100% GVF), the absolute value of the relative error on both the mass flow rate and density does not exceed 2.5%. This suggests that the proposed TPFM can be considered as a new non-hazardous alternative for accurate two phase flow measurement.
... These include: developing more robust signal tracking algorithms to operate during two-phase conditions (e.g. [2,3]), understanding the physical causes of the mass flow and density errors (e.g. [4]), and developing methods to correct these errors (e.g. ...
For more than a decade there has been growing interest in the use of Coriolis mass flow metering applied to two-phase (gas/liquid) and multiphase (oil/water/gas) conditions. It is well-established that the mass flow and density measurements generated from multiphase flows are subject to large errors, and a variety of physical models and correction techniques have been proposed to explain and/or to compensate for these errors. One difficulty is the absence of a common basis for comparing correction techniques, because different flowtube designs and configurations, as well as liquid and gas properties, may result in quite different error curves. Furthermore, some researchers with interests in the modelling aspects of the field may not have suitable multiphase laboratory facilities to generate their own data sets. This paper offers a small data set that may be used by researchers as a benchmark i.e. a common data set for comparing correction techniques. The data set was collected at the UK National Flow Laboratory TUV-NEL, using air and a viscous oil, and provides experimental points over a wide flow range (8:1 turndown) and with Gas Volume Fraction (GVF) values up to 60%. As a first investigation using the benchmark data set, we consider how data sparsity (i.e. the flow rate and GVF spacing in the experimental grid) affects the accuracy of a correction model. A range of neural network models are evaluated, based on different subsets of the benchmark data set. The data set and some exemplary code are provided with the paper. Additional data sets are available on a web site created to support this initiative.
... One issue not directly addressed in this approach is the presence of additional vibrational modes in the flow tube, which are readily excited in the presence of two-phase flow ( [39], [40]), or other mechanical noise ( [41]), and are likely to be a more important noise source then general broadband noise. If the nearest mode to the drive frequency is sufficiently distant, then this is relatively easily dealt with using the bandpass mechanism described here. ...
... Our companion conference paper [2], describes the requirement for flexible, self-validating instrumentation to support the goals of Industrial Cyber-Physical Systems. For high-value instruments such as CMF meters, this entails more sophisticated signal processing techniques to provide additional sources of diagnostic and measurement data, particularly in dealing with common, but difficult real-world conditions such as two-phase (gas/liquid) flow. ...
Our companion conference paper describes the requirement for flexible, self-validating instrumentation to support the goals of Industrial Cyber-Physical Systems. For high-value instruments such as Coriolis Mass Flow (CMF) meters, this entails more sophisticated signal processing techniques to provide additional sources of diagnostic and measurement data, particularly in dealing with common, but difficult real-world conditions such as two-phase (gas/liquid) flow. A novel Matrix Pencil Method (MPM) was described, adapted to monitor two modes of vibration for the CMF flowtube, and its performance evaluated in simulation. In this paper, we present results from applying the MPM technique to experimental data.
Due to long-term exploitation of oil wells, high water-cut oil-water two-phase flow has become one of the most common flow types in offshore oil fields. In this work, two cross-correlation flowmeters for this type of flow, i.e. the newly proposed transverse excitation mode flowmeter and the conventional axial excitation mode flowmeter are theoretically analyzed, numerically solved and experimentally compared. By building theoretical models, the resolutions and sensitivities of the sensors are systematically compared to demonstrate their abilities of detecting oil bubbles in water. From the numerical solutions by the FEM models, the resolutions of the sensors are analyzed in spatial frequency domain, and more accurate analysis of sensitivities can be made. Results show that the resolution of the transverse excitation mode flowmeter is approximately 3 times higher, and the sensitivity is at most 3.47 times higher than the axial excitation mode one. Experiments with 10 m
<sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">3</sup>
/d, 90%-water-cut oil-water two-phase flow are carried out to demonstrate the dynamic performances of the two flowmeters. It can be concluded that the transverse excitation mode flowmeter has higher accuracy and reliability in flow rate measurement.
In oil fields, multiphase flow meters (MPFMs) yield important data for proper reservoir management to maximize the oil-gas production throughput. MPFMs are also required in downstream industries such as refineries to monitor the quality of the end product and in power generation to estimate the amount of wet steam, which if its flow rate is high may damage the blade’s turbines. For decades, radioactive γ-ray-based MPFM remains the most widely used and reliable device, especially for a high gas void fraction (GVF), which is however not safe and hazardous. This has prompted researchers to suggest other alternative technologies, among which some were successfully assessed either in multiphase flow loops or even in oil-gas fields. Most of these technologies still can’t operate for all flow conditions and are relatively expensive hindering their wide industrial deployment. This review paper presents the most recent findings in multiphase flow metering and the main research challenges encountered in each of them. Important and significant research works are cited in an attempt to provide a reasonable cross-section of various techniques. The paper can be useful for either a fresh researcher in the area or for a skilled R&D engineer involved in the design of a MPFM.
