Testing of Generic Differential Pressure Cone Meters to API 22.2 Test Protocol Part 1.0 (Water).

Philip A Lawrence. Cameron Valve and Measurement, USA.

Dr. N.W Sung. Flow Calibration Centre Ltd, South Korea.

Abstract

During 2003 a standard was developed by the American Petroleum Institute (API) Manual of Petroleum
Measurement Standards (MPMS) Chapter 5.7 Working Group, entitled “Differential Pressure Flow
Measurement Devices.”

It was subsequently moved and changed to Chapter 22, Section 2, and is now called API chapter 22.2
the differential test protocol.

This paper details the work done on various sizes of differential pressure cone meters at the FCC Ltd
Independent water test laboratory near to Seoul in South Korea.

The paper will detail the results for baseline and perturbation testing performed at the laboratory using
their gravimetric system traceable to Korean National Standards through KOLAS and KRIS.

The demonstration of the laboratories alignment to the RG (Reader-Harris-Gallagher) equation will be

shown and also results from a recently available technique called “PIV” particle image velocimetry which
is a laser optical method used to obtain instantaneous velocity measurements and related properties in
fluids.

This technique was used to determine that the velocity profile in the pipe was fully developed thus
enabling the RG equation to be validated effectively in the calibration system. Figure-1a

The line velocity profile effects where shown by using a computer generated nomogram - Figure 1b

The system was also used during the test to view the fluid flow dynamics through a cone meter that was
installed in a clear view flexi-glass pipe.

Dmm 

Fig 1a Fig 1b
Introduction

The NuFlo™ D.P. Cone Meter fabricated by Hitrol Ltd of South Korea Cameron Measurement Systems
sub-contractor was tested in accordance with the American Petroleum Institute Manual of Petroleum
Measurement Standards, Chapter 22 – “Testing Protocol,” Section 2 – “Differential Pressure Flow
Measurement Devices” (API MPMS 22.2), First Edition, August 2005. The testing was performed in the
test facility of Flow Calibration Center (F.C.C.) Co., Ltd In South KOREA traceable to Korean National
Standards via KOLAS and certified to ISO 17025.

The cone flow meters for the test had 2-inch and 6-inch as a nominal diameter and for each line size two
different area ratio, 0.45 and 0.75 were selected. Orifice plates for the test facilities verification had same
nominal diameters. But covering the test range of flow rate for NuFlo ™ cone meters the area ratio of
orifice plates were selected as 0.3 or 0.5 and 0.7 in same line size with the cone flow meters.

Description of the Liquid Test Laboratory System

Cold water testing was performed using a water gravimetric system having the ISO 17025 certification.
The best measurement uncertainty capability (BMCs) of the system for the liquid flow rate are 0.42% in
the range of from 2.9 to 50 cubic meters per hour and 0.2% in the range of 50~425 cubic meters per
hour.

Acceptability of Test System

According to API MPMS 22.2, the test set-up must be confirmed using the standard orifice plates and
alignment with the Reader Harris- Gallagher equation. The orifice plates (O.P.)of 2-inch and 6-inch were
installed in straight line, which contains over 36D of each upstream pipe. 19D straight pipe was used for
the downstream from flow meters. 2-inch and 6-inch flange tapped orifice flow meters were tested in each
line prior to the cone test. The beta ratio was decided considering the upper and lower limits of the cone
flow meter testing range.

The result of orifice test was compared with the results of Reader-Harris Gallagher equation for test
verification. The 2-inch orifice plate was tested from 17,700 to 152,000 Reynolds number and the 6-inch
meter was from 32,200 to 745,000.

Flow condition of test apparatus was investigated using the particle image velocimetry (PIV) method as
shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. With image processing results of the non-invasive instrumentation,
acceptability of flow profiles for flow meter test can be detected clearly; Figure 2.0

The main devices of a PIV system are high speed CCD camera and LASER source & PC. The
specifications of those devices are listed in Table 1 and Table 2 each. According to MPMS 22.2,a fully-
developed flow condition must be obtained upstream of the O.P, for good uncertainty determination of the
rig. The flow velocity profile was established and investigated and confirmed as being in a fully
developed regime by use of the PIV method.
 Figure 1c Flow condition test - PIV instrumentation in 6-inch line
 

Figure 2 Test specimen for PIV test in 6-inch line

 

Table 1 Specification of high speed CCD camera

Max resolution 1280 x 1024

Max frame rate 2200 fts

Pixel size 12 x 12μm

 Shutter 2 μsec to 20 msec

Sensor 10 bit mono / 24 bit color

Trigger source Standard TTL / Image cued

Lens mount C mount

Digital output Trigger / Strobe

Interface TCP/IP

Software Video record and playback

Table 2 Specification of laser

Model VA-II-N-532
Wavelength (nm) 532

Output power (mW) 2000

Working mode CW
Transverse TEM00,TEM01
Beam mode
Longitude Multi-longitude
Spectral line width (nm) <0.1
Polarization Line polarization
Polarization ratio >100:1
Beam quality (M2 factor) <1.2
Beam divergence (full angle, mrad) 1.2~2.0
Beam diameter at aperture (mm) 2.0~3.0
Beam roundness >90%
Power stability(RMS) <5% @8hours
Aperture position (mm) 20
Dimensions of Laser head (L×W×H, mm) 180 x 62 x 62.5
Integrated driver model VD-III Series
External modulation 5V TTL / 5V Analogue
Modulating frequency 30KHz TTL / 10KHz Analogue
Cooling system TEC
Warm-up time (minutes) <15
Operation temperature (℃) 18~30
Expected lifetime (hours) >10000
Standard Test

Standard testing was performed to establish the reference coefficient of discharge (C.d.) curve for each of
the cone flow meters in enough straight upstream and downstream piping conditions without any flow
disturbance. The 2-inch cone flow meter was tested from 18,000 to 152,000 Reynolds number and the 6-
inch meter was from 61,800 to 715,000.

Non-Standard Test : Out of Plane ninety degree elbows (O.P.)

As shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, to generate asymmetric swirl, three elbows in different planes were
used. Elbow sets were symmetrically installed upstream and downstream of the cone flow meter. Testing
was performed in the each case of line size and beta ratio of the cone flow meters. Because the elbow
sets were symmetric for the cone flow meter, the distance between upstream elbow set and the cone and
the distance between downstream elbow set and the NuFlo™ cone were same. The maximum flow rate
of 2-inch and 6-inch cone flow meters were 148,000 and 556,000 Reynolds number each.

Figure 3 Out of plane elbows piping.

Non-Standard Test : Half-Moon Orifice Plate Disturbance

To generate a strong asymmetric axial velocity profile (50% closed valves), half-moon orifice plates were
installed at each test line.

The distances between the half-moon orifice plate and the cone flow meter and the upstream piping were
3D and 5D, and a downstream distance was same in the case of the pressure recovery test. The case of
placing the half moon plates at 0D (direct piping of half-moon orifice plate and the cone flow meter) was
not considered because this installation condition is not recommended.

The maximum ReD flow rate of 2-inch and 6-inch NuFlo ™ Cone flow meters were 148,000 and 556,000
Reynolds number each. Half-moon orifice plates used were shown in Figure 5
 Figure 4 - Out of plane elbows piping. Figure 5 - ½ moon orifice plate -
flanged pipes.

Flow Coefficient Determination

The flow coefficient or discharge coefficient, Cd for each meter tested was determined using the following
equation.

Qactual Q 1− β 4
Cd = = v
Qtheoretical Ao 2ΔP / ρ

where, Qv is the actual volumetric flow rate in cubic meter per second, Ao is the area of the annular
meter ring within the cone flow meter in square meter, ΔP is the differential pressure generating across
the restriction device in Pascals, and ρ is the fluid density. The cone beta ratio, β is defined as the ratio
of the equivalent diameter of the annular meter ring to the inlet pipe diameter.

The Reader-Harris Gallagher equation was used to determine the reference discharge coefficient for 2-
inch and 6-inch orifice flow meters, because the equation is well known in standards, it is not shown in
this paper.

As can be seen from the results in figures; 7-26 the meter deviations varied according to the beta ratio
and the disturbance type the 50% ½ moon plate being the worst case for any DP meter to operate with
some semblance of accuracy. The out of plane elbow test proves that this type of meter can resist the
effect of swirl., Besides the frictional forces that act on the fluid across the upstream cone frustum, there
is an effect cause by the flowing mass of the gas (moment of inertia) being forced to the pipe wall by
cone interaction, this is why the meter is less sensitive to swirl.

In a future paper entitled “The API 22.2 Testing of DP Cone Meters Part II Gases”, the effect of swirl and
the effect on the meters recovery region by partial blockage will be shown.
The following hypothesis is shown to inform the reader regarding the swirl effect passing through a cone
meter and its comparison with a similar orifice equivalent area ratio. A CFD simulation is shown below
indicating the fluid velocity pathway through the meter. The wake can be circulatory in two ways either
split or circulatory - Figure 6

Cantilever Wake Region

Cone Wake Region

 High Velocity Region 

FLOW

High Velocity Region 

The following hypothesis is based on a theoretical approach in regards to swirl effects.

Distortion

Figure 6

Flow velocity profiles in a pipe after an elbow or out of plane elbow become distorted or become
asymmetric. It must be noted that surface roughness and friction can slightly affect the fluid distortion
also Figure 6
 Flow Velocity through a Cone and Orifice Plate ; (Figure 6a below)

 
FLOW
 

Cone Meter: Simple Swirl Component Orifice Plate : Simple Swirl Component (
being forced to expand by the cone) (being forced to contract by the orifice)

Effect of Swirl Angle on the C.d of an Orifice Plate (Figure 6b)

Mathematical Proof Swirl ; Orifice Plate (Excluding Friction)

 Mathematical Proof Swirl : Cone Meter (Figure 6b below )

Basic Conclusion (Excluding Frictional Forces)

The swirl is effectively halved using a cone meter and either increased 4 or 16X depending on the beta
ratio of the O.P.
Results of the water testing

The test data chart present a summary of acquired data for each tests above mentioned through Figure 7
to Figure 25. For a given Reynolds number, three individual test runs provided and plotted. At the end of
results section, the comparison of standard test results and non-standard test results is presented.

Figure 7 Standard test results of cone flow meter (2-inch, 0.45 beta)
1.00

0.95
Discharge coefficient, Cd

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000
Reynolds number, Re

Figure 8 Out of plane elbows set test results of cone flow meter (2-inch, 0.45 beta).
 1.00

0.95
Discharge coefficient, Cd

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
Reynolds number, Re

Figure 9 Half-moon test results of cone flow meter (2-inch, 0.45 beta, 3D)
 

1.00

0.95
Discharge coefficient, Cd

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
Reynolds number, Re

Figure 10 Half-moon test results of cone flow meter (2-inch, 0.45 beta, 5D)
 Figure 11 Standard test results of cone flow meter (2-inch, 0.75 beta)

Figure 12 Out of plane elbows set test results of cone flow meter (2-inch, 0.75 beta)
 

 
Figure 13 Half-moon test results of cone flow meter (2-inch, 0.75 beta, 3D)

Figure 14 Half-moon test results of cone flow meter (2-inch, 0.75 beta,5D)
 Figure 15 Standard test results of cone flow meter (6-inch, 0.45 beta)

Figure 16 Out of plane elbows set test results of cone flow meter (6-inch, 0.45 beta).
 

 
 1.00

0.95
Discharge coefficient, Cd

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000
Reynolds number, Re

Figure 17 Half-moon test results of cone flow meter (6-inch, 0.45 beta, 3D).
   

1.00

0.95
Discharge coefficient, Cd

0.90

0.85

0.80

0.75

0.70
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000
Reynolds number, Re

Figure 18 Half-moon test results of cone flow meter (6-inch, 0.45 beta, 5D)
 Figure 19 Standard test results of cone flow meter (6-inch, 0.75 beta)

Figure 20 Out of plane elbows set test results of cone flow meter (6-inch, 0.75 beta)
Figure 21 Half-moon test results of cone flow meter (6-inch, 0.75 beta, 3D)

Figure 22 Half-moon test results of cone flow meter (6-inch, 0.75 beta,5D)
Figure 23 Comparison of 2-inch cone flow meter performance (0.45 beta)

Figure 24 Comparison of 2-inch cone flow meter performance (0.75 beta)

Figure 25 Comparison of 6-inch cone flow meter performance (0.45 beta)

Figure 26 Comparison of 6-inch cone flow meter performance (0.75 beta)

Conclusion

The API standard allows by virtue of the 22.2 protocol for “level playing field testing” to be performed
that can be applied and accepted by end users to allow the use of Dp metering devices in a Custody /
Fiscal environment.

The testing shown in this paper in indicates the good linearity and performance that can be achieved by
these genre of meters.

The data indicates a good response to disturbed velocity profile or perturbation effects on the meter with
small changes on C.d. compared with other D.p. metering devices.

It is anticipated that the results from the current ongoing gas fluids testing at the CEESI laboratory in
Nunn C.O. will be just as fruitful !

References

(1) Hayward A. “A Source Guide for Users” Edition Published 1978

(2) Bagge, D.J., “Evaluation of Ketema, V-Cone Flowmeters” Test Report E 1705 S 92, SIREP,
1992.
(3) Ifft, S. A and Mikkelsen, E.D - “Pipe Elbow Effects on the V-Cone Flowmeter” North Sea Flow
Measurement Workshop, Peebles, Scotland, 1992
(4) B. K Lee, N.H. Cho and Y. D Choi, 1988 “ Analysis of periodically fully developed turbulent and
heat transfer by k- ε equation model in artificial roughened annulus”. Int J. Heat Mass Transfer,
Vol,31, pp 1797-1806
(5) B. H. Chang and A. F Mills, 1993, “Turbulent flow in a channel with transverse rib heat transfer
augmentation”, Int J. Heat Mass Transfer. Vol 36, No, 6, pp 1459-1469
(6) B. E Launder and D. B Spalding, 1974, “The numerical computation of turbulent flows”, Comput
Meth Appl Mech Engng, Vol 3,pp 269-289
(7) C. K. G Lam and K. A Bremhorst, 1981, “Modified form of the k-w model for predicting wall
turbulence”, Journal of Fluid Engineering, Vol 103, pp 456-460
(9) D.C Wilcox, 1993, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW Industries, Inc
(10) J.Y.Yoon, 1993, Numerical Analysis of flows in channels with sand dunes and ice covers, Ph.D
Thesis,Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Iowa.
(11) D.C. Wilcox, 1988, “Reassessment of the Scale Determining Equation for Advanced Turbulence
Models” AIAA Journal, Vol 26, No 11, pp 1299-13
(12)H. C Chen and V. C. Patel, 1988, “ Near-Wall Turbulence Models for Complex Flows Including
Separation” AIAA Journal, Vol 26, pp 641-648

(13) Braid C Mr. (Barton Canada) first principle calculations for flow computers 1999.
(14)D. D. Knight, 1982, “ Application of Curvilinear Coordinate Generation Technique to the
computation of Internal Flows”, Numerical Grid generation, Elsevier Science Publishing
Company, pp 357-384
(15) Sveedmen SWRI Homogenous Model and OFU liquid effect( report)
(16) Ifft Wet Gas Testing at SWRI 1997 - V-Cone Meter
(17) Lawrence-Wellhead Metering by V- Cone Technology NSFMW 2000 Gleneagles, Scotland,UK
(18) Reader Harris-Peters. Y factor Expansibility Equation (NEL-TUV)
(19) Braid-Cameron (Canada) Cone Equations for Flow Computers a Technical Document 2006
(20) Lawrence-CBM Measurement by D. P. Cone Meter CII Conference India 2007
(21)Sung API 22.2 Data set FCC Independent laboratory South Korea 2009