Upload
dinhcong
View
235
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
NFOGM Workshop2015
Calibration, adjustment, fluid dependency and
long term stability of liquid ultrasonic meters
Presented by:
Andrew Soddy, FMC Technologies
NFOGM Workshop2015
Topics
• Ultrasonic meter calibration options
• Offsite laboratory calibration
• Dynamic Testing over Reynolds No. Range
• Using diagnostics verify offsite laboratory
calibration
NFOGM Workshop2015
Direct proving method
Conventional pipe prover
Small volume piston prover
Direct master meter proving method
MM and line meter proved on-site
Indirect master meter proving method
MM Proved at Off-Site (different flow and
conditions)
Meter proved off-site/lab calibration
(API 5.8)
Liquid flow meter calibration
Less uncertainty(smaller error band)
More uncertainty(larger error band)
NFOGM Workshop2015
Meter Proved Off-Site / Lab Verification (API 5.8)
API MPMS 5.8 Section 8.2.1: “In-situ proving is normally
preferred because it verifies the meter’s accuracy under actual
operating conditions. Operating conditions can affect a meter’s
accuracy and repeatability. In-situ proving at stable operating
conditions compensates for variations in performance caused
by flow rate, viscosity, density, temperature, pressure, as well
as flow conditions, piping configurations, and contaminants”
API MPMS 5.8 Section 8.2.2: “Laboratory proving is normally
not preferred because laboratory conditions may not duplicate
the piping and operating conditions. While there are more
measurement uncertainties associated with laboratory proving,
under certain conditions, it may provide the best alternative.”
NFOGM Workshop2015
Off site Laboratory Calibration
+
• When no site proving is available, lab proving (such as the one done
at the FMC FRTC) is the best alternative
• In this situation, an accurate meter over the entire operating (Re #)
range is key to providing good flow meter characterization
NFOGM Workshop2015
Calibration at the Flow Research and Test Center
Matching Flowing Conditions
Reynolds # testing is a simulation over the Reynolds Number
range determined from the field application parameters. It
provides a test range for ultrasonic flow meters based on the
concept
of dynamic similitude.
Dynamic Similitude, when performance at a given Reynolds
Number is the same with various combinations of flow rate and
viscosity.
Therefore meter performance on a test system can be validated
on a higher or lower viscosity and/or flow rate than the field
operating conditions.
NFOGM Workshop2015
Flow Profile at Equivalent Reynolds Numbers
NFOGM Workshop2015
Measured Velocity Profile Factor, Ultra 8c
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
VP
C X
Re-Number
Re Number vs. Velocity Profile
Extra Heavy, 223 cSt - 12/18/2012
Brad Penn, 10 cSt - 12/18/2012
Hvy 36cSt, 36.6 cSt - 12/18/2012
Hvy 64cSt, 65.5 cSt - 12/18/2012
NFOGM Workshop2015
Ultra 8c measurement path design
• The Ultra 8c has eight
measurement paths and
sixteen transducers.
• Crossing measurement
paths in all 4 chordal
planes
• All measurement planes
are designed to maximize
cancellation of the effects
from cross flow and swirl.
tra c
PATHS 5 & 6
PATHS 7 & 8
PATH 5 PATH 6
PATH 7 PATH 8
NFOGM Workshop2015
• The Flow Research and
Test Center Lab located
in Erie PA can reproduce
the same Re No. range
as the actual field
operating conditions
• The limits are the
minimum fluid velocity &
flow rate in the meter and
its maximum flow rate
• Remote witnessing of all
testing is now possible
via web cams
Dynamic factory testing using dynamic similitude
NFOGM Workshop2015
Dynamic Test Range: Petroleum Products
Reynolds Number (Re No.)
Heavy
Crude Medium Crude
Refined Products
Light Crude
Heating Oil Diesel
2,000 50,000 1,000,000
K-F
ac
tor Gasoline
LPG
Average V
Max. V
Turbu ent or “P ug” F ow
(Re > 6,000)
Low ViscositiesMax. V
Average V
Higher Viscosities
Laminar Flow
(Re < 2,000)
Velocity
NFOGM Workshop2015
12 Inch Multi-path Meter Uncorrected
Testing Over an Extended Range
(Re# Range 1,000 to 672,746)
1555
1560
1565
1570
1575
1580
1585
1590
1595
1000 10000 100000 1000000
K-F
acto
r
Re Number
Test Data Uncorrected
Extra Heavy (220 cSt) Heavy (35 cSt) BradPenn (12 cSt) Light (2 cSt)
Overall Linearity ± 1.113%
Linearity over a 672:1 Dynamic Turndown
190 – 3,000 m3/h [1,200 – 19,000 bph]
NFOGM Workshop2015
12 Inch Multi-path Meter Corrected
Testing Over an Extended Range
(Re# Range 1,000 to 672,746)
1555
1560
1565
1570
1575
1580
1585
1590
1595
1000 10000 100000 1000000
K-F
acto
r
Re Number
Test Data with Correction Applied
Extra Heavy (220 cSt) Heavy (35 cSt) BradPenn (12 cSt) Light (2 cSt)
Overall Linearity ±0.139%
Linearity over a 672:1 Dynamic Turndown
190 - 3000 m3/h [1200 - 19000 bph]
NFOGM Workshop2015
High Flow (HF) Test System
1. Test run / Meter Under Test (MUT)
2. Pumps
3. Tank
4. Chiller
5. Master meter provers
6. Master prover
Flow range:
200 to 42,000 bph
(30 to 6,667 m3/h)
Viscosity range: 10 – 25 cSt
❶
❷
❸
❹
❺
❻
NFOGM Workshop2015
Multi-Viscosity (MV) Test System
1. Test run / Meter Under Test (MUT)
2. Pumps / drives
3. Tanks
4. Chiller
5. Master meter provers
6. Master prover
Flow range:
200 to 8,000 bph
(30 to 1,270 m3/h)
Viscosity range: 2 – 500 cSt
❶
❷
❸
❹
❺
❻
❸
❺
NFOGM Workshop2015
FMC Technologies Testing CapabilitiesF
low
Rate
, m
3/h
6,677
Viscosity, cSt
30
1.8 20
1,270
10310
Multi-Viscosity Loop
High
Flow
Loop
Maxi
mum
Flo
w, 10 m
/s
6” (715)
12” (3,021)
20” (6,670)Constant ReFlow Test Lines
NFOGM Workshop2015
Diagnostic Numerical Analysis
Process of Validating Installation Effects
1. Calibrate the meter on site A (Laboratory)
2. Record the conditions and meter diagnostics
3. Install the meter at site B
4. Compare site results – meter factors & diagnostics
– Meter factor differences are due to installation effects – less the uncertainty of the proving systems
– Meter diagnostics could define the installation conditions
NFOGM Workshop2015
Diagnostic Parameters – Flow Profile Parameters
Profile FlatnessAxial flow velocity of outer paths compared to the center paths.
Reynold’s number dependant. Deviation at similar conditions < 1.0%
Profile SymmetryVelocity of top paths compared to the bottom paths.
Installation dependant. Deviation at similar conditions < 2.0%
Swirl FlowAmount of transversal flow that is rotating in the pipe.
Installation dependant. Deviation at similar conditions < 2.0%
Cross FlowAmount of transversal flow that has two rotating vortexes
Installation dependant. Deviation at similar conditions < 2.0%
TurbulenceDescribes the stability of the flow measurements on each path.
Reynolds number dependant. Deviation at similar conditions < 1.0%
NFOGM Workshop2015
Diagnostic Analysis – Signal Parameters
Velocity of Sound (VOS)
Measured on each path to ensure correct measurement of
ultrasonic pulses. Density dependant.
Recording possible. Deviation < 1.5m/s
Gain
Indicates signal strength. Influenced by density, viscosity
and impurities.
Recording possible. Deviation < 200
Signal %Designates the signal quality. Should > 50%. Drop in
performance on similar conditions should be examined.
Signal to Noise Ratio
(S/N)
Measures the signal strength and noise. Should be > 20dB.
Drop in performance on similar conditions should be
examined.
NFOGM Workshop2015
Profile Flatness – Smith Erie and SPSE
80.00
82.00
84.00
86.00
88.00
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
10,000 100,000 1,000,000
Reynold Number
Pro
file
Fla
tne
ss
(%
)
Erie Profile - Red
SPSE Profile - Blue
Deviation < 1%; Actual 0.04% to 0.73%
Diagnostic Analysis – Inter laboratory Comparison
NFOGM Workshop2015
Symmetry, Swirl and Cross Flow
-10.00
-8.00
-6.00
-4.00
-2.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
Reynolds Number
%
Symmetry Erie
Swirl Erie
Crossflow Erie
Symmetry SPSE
Swir SPSE
Crossflow SPSE
100,000 200,000 300,000
Tolerance: < 2%
Diagnostic Analysis – Inter laboratory Comparison
NFOGM Workshop2015
Smith Erie & SPSE Calibration Data
154.0
154.5
155.0
155.5
156.0
156.5
157.0
157.5
158.0
158.5
159.0
159.5
160.0
0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000
Flow Rate (bph)
K-F
acto
r (p
/bb
l)
Erie 12 cSt data
SPSE 20 cSt data
Deviation < 0.02 to 0.17
Ultra6 Inter laboratory Comparison
NFOGM Workshop2015
Thank You