上游水流扰动对弯头流量计性能的影响

Q4 Engineering Applied Engineering Letters Pub Date : 2023-03-24 DOI:10.11648/j.ae.20230701.12
Riley Manwaring, Michael C. Johnson, Zachary B. Sharp, S. Barfuss
{"title":"上游水流扰动对弯头流量计性能的影响","authors":"Riley Manwaring, Michael C. Johnson, Zachary B. Sharp, S. Barfuss","doi":"10.11648/j.ae.20230701.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": In order to fill gaps in research into the use of elbow flow meters and to reconcile both a lack of published standards and differing recommendations on the necessary minimum lengths of straight pipe that should be installed upstream of an elbow flow meter to ensure sufficiently accurate flow measurement, physical data were collected on 50 mm nominal (52.5 mm or 2.067 inch actual), 150 mm nominal (154.05 mm or 6.065 inch actual), and 305 mm nominal (304.8 mm or 12.00 inch actual) long-radius elbow meters to determine discharge coefficients in a straight-line pipeline configuration. The 150 mm (6-inch) long-radius elbow meter was further tested in order to determine the effects of different upstream disturbances on the accuracy of its metering performance. Three different upstream disturbances were tested at upstream distances of 25, 10, and 5 diameter-lengths, including: a single elbow in-plane “S” orientation, a single elbow in-plane “U” orientation, and a double elbows out-of-plane orientation. Discharge coefficients were calculated for each configuration at the three variable upstream distances between the upstream flow disturbance and the meter and compared to the straight-line calibration values to identify the percent difference shifts in the average discharge coefficients. Most importantly, findings from the present study conclude that the discharge coefficients for all elbow meter installations stabilize for pipe Reynolds numbers greater than 300,000. Additionally, even at upstream distances of 25 pipe diameter lengths (3.81 m or 12.5 feet) each of the three upstream flow disturbances continued to exhibit effects on the calculated discharge coefficients for the elbow meter; the observed difference in the average discharge coefficient for the two single elbow in-plane configurations “S” and “U” were within 1.00% of the straight-line values. Finally, the double elbows out-of-plane discharge coefficient values remained constant, regardless of the three tested distances between 5 and 25 diameter lengths between the elbow meter and the upstream flow disturbance, showing a more predictable shift in discharge coefficient than the two single elbow in-plane configurations.","PeriodicalId":53430,"journal":{"name":"Applied Engineering Letters","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Upstream Flow Disturbances on Elbow Meter Performance\",\"authors\":\"Riley Manwaring, Michael C. Johnson, Zachary B. Sharp, S. Barfuss\",\"doi\":\"10.11648/j.ae.20230701.12\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\": In order to fill gaps in research into the use of elbow flow meters and to reconcile both a lack of published standards and differing recommendations on the necessary minimum lengths of straight pipe that should be installed upstream of an elbow flow meter to ensure sufficiently accurate flow measurement, physical data were collected on 50 mm nominal (52.5 mm or 2.067 inch actual), 150 mm nominal (154.05 mm or 6.065 inch actual), and 305 mm nominal (304.8 mm or 12.00 inch actual) long-radius elbow meters to determine discharge coefficients in a straight-line pipeline configuration. The 150 mm (6-inch) long-radius elbow meter was further tested in order to determine the effects of different upstream disturbances on the accuracy of its metering performance. Three different upstream disturbances were tested at upstream distances of 25, 10, and 5 diameter-lengths, including: a single elbow in-plane “S” orientation, a single elbow in-plane “U” orientation, and a double elbows out-of-plane orientation. Discharge coefficients were calculated for each configuration at the three variable upstream distances between the upstream flow disturbance and the meter and compared to the straight-line calibration values to identify the percent difference shifts in the average discharge coefficients. Most importantly, findings from the present study conclude that the discharge coefficients for all elbow meter installations stabilize for pipe Reynolds numbers greater than 300,000. Additionally, even at upstream distances of 25 pipe diameter lengths (3.81 m or 12.5 feet) each of the three upstream flow disturbances continued to exhibit effects on the calculated discharge coefficients for the elbow meter; the observed difference in the average discharge coefficient for the two single elbow in-plane configurations “S” and “U” were within 1.00% of the straight-line values. Finally, the double elbows out-of-plane discharge coefficient values remained constant, regardless of the three tested distances between 5 and 25 diameter lengths between the elbow meter and the upstream flow disturbance, showing a more predictable shift in discharge coefficient than the two single elbow in-plane configurations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53430,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Engineering Letters\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Engineering Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ae.20230701.12\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Engineering\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Engineering Letters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ae.20230701.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Engineering","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

:为了填补弯头流量计使用研究中的空白,并协调缺乏公开的标准和关于弯头流量计上游应安装的直管最小长度的不同建议,以确保足够准确的流量测量,物理数据收集在50毫米公称(52.5毫米或2.067英寸实际),150毫米公称(154.05毫米或6.065英寸实际),305mm公称(304.8 mm或12.00英寸实际)长半径弯头仪表,用于确定直线管道配置中的排放系数。为了确定不同上游扰动对其计量性能准确性的影响,对150mm(6英寸)长半径弯头流量计进行了进一步测试。在25、10和5个直径长度的上游距离上测试了三种不同的上游干扰,包括:单弯头面内“S”方向、单弯头面内“U”方向和双弯头面外方向。在上游流动扰动与仪表之间的三个可变上游距离处,计算每种配置的流量系数,并将其与直线校准值进行比较,以确定平均流量系数的差异位移百分比。最重要的是,本研究的结果表明,当管道雷诺数大于30万时,所有弯头流量计安装的流量系数都保持稳定。此外,即使在上游距离为25管径长度(3.81 m或12.5英尺)时,三种上游流动干扰中的每一种都继续对弯头流量计的计算流量系数产生影响;“S”型和“U”型两种单弯头平面构型的平均流量系数与直线值的差值在1.00%以内。最后,无论弯头仪表与上游流动扰动之间的直径长度在5到25之间的三个测试距离如何,双弯头平面外流量系数值都保持不变,显示出比两个单弯头平面内配置更可预测的流量系数变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effects of Upstream Flow Disturbances on Elbow Meter Performance
: In order to fill gaps in research into the use of elbow flow meters and to reconcile both a lack of published standards and differing recommendations on the necessary minimum lengths of straight pipe that should be installed upstream of an elbow flow meter to ensure sufficiently accurate flow measurement, physical data were collected on 50 mm nominal (52.5 mm or 2.067 inch actual), 150 mm nominal (154.05 mm or 6.065 inch actual), and 305 mm nominal (304.8 mm or 12.00 inch actual) long-radius elbow meters to determine discharge coefficients in a straight-line pipeline configuration. The 150 mm (6-inch) long-radius elbow meter was further tested in order to determine the effects of different upstream disturbances on the accuracy of its metering performance. Three different upstream disturbances were tested at upstream distances of 25, 10, and 5 diameter-lengths, including: a single elbow in-plane “S” orientation, a single elbow in-plane “U” orientation, and a double elbows out-of-plane orientation. Discharge coefficients were calculated for each configuration at the three variable upstream distances between the upstream flow disturbance and the meter and compared to the straight-line calibration values to identify the percent difference shifts in the average discharge coefficients. Most importantly, findings from the present study conclude that the discharge coefficients for all elbow meter installations stabilize for pipe Reynolds numbers greater than 300,000. Additionally, even at upstream distances of 25 pipe diameter lengths (3.81 m or 12.5 feet) each of the three upstream flow disturbances continued to exhibit effects on the calculated discharge coefficients for the elbow meter; the observed difference in the average discharge coefficient for the two single elbow in-plane configurations “S” and “U” were within 1.00% of the straight-line values. Finally, the double elbows out-of-plane discharge coefficient values remained constant, regardless of the three tested distances between 5 and 25 diameter lengths between the elbow meter and the upstream flow disturbance, showing a more predictable shift in discharge coefficient than the two single elbow in-plane configurations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Engineering Letters
Applied Engineering Letters Energy-Energy (all)
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Fabrication and Performance Assessment of Desulfurizing Systems for Large-Scale Biodigesters in Cambodia Effects of Upstream Flow Disturbances on Elbow Meter Performance Numerical Simulation of Heat and Moisture Transfer in Corrugated Walls Dryer Techno-Economic Feasibility of Different Photovoltaic Technologies Study of Stability of the Shot Peening Induced Compressive Residual Stresses into C55 Steel at Elevated Temperatures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1