Turbine

contents
Improved Accuracy of Natural Gas Turbine Flow Meters Using Carbon Dioxide as the Calibration Media
David Taylor CET Measurement Services Manager Terasen Measurement Services 444 Okanogan Ave. E Penticton, BC V2A 3K3 Canada Paul Tang, M.Sc., P.Eng Specialist Engineer Terasen Gas Inc. 16705 Fraser Hwy Surrey, BC V3S 2X7 Canada
KEYWORDS
Reynolds number, natural gas measurement, turbine flow meter, pressure calibration, carbon dioxide, natural gas, air, density, metering research facility, effective test pressure, dynamic similarity
ABSTRACT
Recent AGA research has found differences between calibration and actual natural gas flowing conditions cause turbine meter measurement errors commonly 1/4 to 1%. In some cases errors were as high as 3 to 5%. The effect was unique to each meter, meaning that calibration at actual gas flowing conditions is necessary to ensure accurate measurement. A novel and new calibration process using CO2 to replicate natural gas flowing conditions addresses barriers to representative natural gas calibration over a wide range of industry operating conditions. This paper will overview the problem with natural gas turbine meter calibration, summarize research validating the use of carbon dioxide for natural gas meter calibration, and present early comparative results from a CO2 calibration facility commissioned in the spring of 2005.
INTRODUCTION
It has been common knowledge for some time that actual fluid flowing conditions adversely affects turbine meter accuracy. Focused research into the extent of these effects, and an increasing need for better measurement performance is compelling industry and regulators to improve calibration practices and deliver significant gains in the accuracy of turbine meters.
Copyright 2005 ISA. All rights reserved. www.isa.org Presented at the 15th Annual Joint ISA POWID/EPRI Controls and Instrumentation Conference 48th Annual ISA POWID Symposium, 5-10 June 2005, Nashville, TN
This paper describes how Terasen Measurement Technologies (MT) has addressed the need for better calibration methods using a new approach to closed-loop prover design, which combines the wellestablished method of calibration using substitute fluids, commonly described as Reynolds Calibration; with the unique selection of carbon dioxide as the substitute fluid for calibrating natural gas meters.
BACKGROUND
Recent Turbine Meter Standards Activity Several independent European practices relating to turbine meter calibration were consolidated into one consistent standard by the European Committee For Standardization (CEN) which September 2001, approved the EN 12261 standard.(See reference 7). One section of the standard stipulates that: For a meter type intended for operation in a pressure range below or equal to 4 bar (58 psi) the test shall be carried out with a gas at a temperature of 4 bar (58 psi) or its maximum working pressure whichever is lower. In the United States, the AGA sponsored extensive research into effects of line pressure and gas density on turbine meter accuracy (See Reference 4) found differences between calibration and actual flowing conditions cause turbine meter measurement errors of several per cent. A revision to AGA-7, currently presented for ballot is expected to address the need for changes in calibration methods. Recognizing the requirement for industry to change current atmospheric testing practices, MT evaluated alternatives. With only a handful of facilities in North America capable of performing tests beyond atmospheric air pressure MT felt market demand would soon outgrow the North American capacity and so construction of a new facility was considered. Current facilities capable of testing natural gas at operating conditions use methods such as natural gas line pack from utility transmission systems or a closed loop system to perform proving on turbine flow meters. Both methods considered by Terasen proved to be difficult to proceed with. Straddling a gas transmission pipeline was economically most attractive but reliance upon line pack would likely constrain the operability of the calibration facility. Proving meters would rightly be a secondary priority, constrained by the pipeline operations. The second option, a closed loop natural gas system required a substantially higher investment in compression and cooling equipment raising capital and operating costs beyond feasibility and secondary issues such as operational venting of the gas added to the list of challenges. So a third option, Reynolds Number Calibration was pursued. This well proven method has been applied successfully for decades in scientific research and in a wide range of industry applications where testing with actual fluids is impractical. One example is the High Reynolds number test facility recently constructed at Princeton University which uses high pressure air to cost effectively reach very high Reynolds numbers to study hydrodynamic forces on 1/5th submarines which would have been cost prohibitive with water. Closer to industrial gas flow metering Reynolds number correlation is an
established method applied to primary calibration standards used in flow measurements in industries such as automotive, aerospace, and pharmaceuticals. Irrespective of the application, the challenge is in selecting a substitute fluid to meet calibration requirements. It should be fluid that is safer, cheaper and easier to use, with fluid properties that bring efficiencies to the testing system such as reduced energy, improved thermodynamics etc. For natural gas turbine meter testing Terasen selected and patented carbon dioxide.
PROPOSED METHOD OF HIGH PRESSURE TURBINE METER PROVING USING CO2

REYNOLDS NUMBER As the absolute line pressure increases by a certain fraction, the density of the flowing gas will increase by approximately the same fraction, influenced by the gas compressibility. The rise in density will affect the drag on the turbine rotor, causing it to rotate at a different speed for a given volumetric flow rate. As discussed in the current edition of AGA-7, two types of drag can influence the behavior of a turbine rotor (See Reference 6): Fluid Drag Effect (Reynolds Number Effect) Fluid retarding torques on the rotor system (e.g., fluid drag on the rotor blades, blade tips, and rotor hub) cause the rotor to slip from its ideal speed. The amount of rotor slip due to the overall fluid drag is known to be a function of a dimensionless ratio of inertia to viscous forces called Reynolds Number, and therefore is frequently termed the Reynolds number effect Non-Fluid Drag Effect (Density Effect) There is a decrease in rotor speed (rotor slip) from its ideal speed due to the non-fluid retarding torques (e.g., bearing friction, mechanical or electrical readout drag). For a given overall non-fluid retarding torque and a given flow velocity, the amount of rotor slip depends on the flow rate and density of the gas, and therefore, is frequently called the density effect. Figure 8 (not shown) shows the qualitatively the density as well as the Reynolds number effects in the low Reynolds number region on the turbine meter performance curve for various pressures.
Figure 1 shows that the ideal K-factor is never achieved mainly due to these two types of drag:
FIG. 1: K FACTOR vs REYNOLDS NUMBER The latter type of drag is more relevant to low pressure ranges and for the purposes of this paper, will not be discussed. The following paper will discuss the former type of drag and how the Reynolds number principal is being used by Terasen Measurement Technologies (MT) to simulate a high pressure testing environment at lower actual pressures using carbon dioxide (CO2) as a medium rather than natural gas. (See Reference 1) The Reynolds number is a dimensionless number related to the gas flow rate, the meter tube diameter, and the properties of the gas. For gas flowing in a pipe, the Reynolds number Re of the flow is defined as:
Re = D
(1)
Where
? = density of gas
v = average velocity over a fixed cross section of pipe D = diameter of pipe ? = dynamic viscosity of gas
The kinematic viscosity ?k of a gas is defined as:

=
(2)
Therefore the Reynolds number can be rewritten as:

Re = D
(3)
Although the gas density ? is now taken out of the equation, it still exerts a major influence on the Reynolds number through the kinematic viscosity ?k of the gas. COMPARING NATURAL GAS, AIR AND CARBON DIOXIDE In order to compare the Reynolds number of natural gas flow to that of the carbon dioxide flow, the following equation can be used: For natural gas flowing in a pipe
(CH 4 ) = G(CH 4 ) ( air )
(4)
Where
?(CH4) = density of natural gas ?(air) = density of air

G(CH4) = specific gravity of natural gas v = average velocity of the natural gas flow
Re (CH 4 ) =
Where
(CH 4 )D (CH 4 )
G(CH 4 ) ( air )D (CH 4 )
(5)
?(CH4) = dynamic viscosity of natural gas
For carbon dioxide flowing in the same pipe at the same velocity:
(CO 2 ) = G(CO 2 ) ( air )
(6)
Re (CO 2 ) =
Where
(CO 2 )D (CO 2 )
G(CO 2 ) ( air )D (CO 2 )
(7)
?(CO2) = density of carbon dioxide ?(air) = density of air

G(CO2) = specific gravity of carbon dioxide v = average velocity of the carbon dioxide flow ?(CO2) = dynamic viscosity of carbon dioxide
Comparing the Reynolds number of CO2 to that of natural gas:
G(CO 2 ) (air )D Re (CO 2 ) Re (CH 4 ) = (CO 2 ) G(CO 2 ) (air )D (CH 4 ) G(CO 2 ) (CH 4 ) 1.52 109 = = = = 1.84 G(CH 4 ) (air )D (CO 2 ) G(CH 4 ) ( air )D (CO 2 )G(CH 4 ) 150 0.6 (CH 4 )
(8)
Figure 2 is a meter calibration chart plotting meter error against the Reynolds number for natural gas at 8 bar (116 psi) and 50 bar (725 psi) as well as atmospheric air. Assuming that a test pressure of 1 bar is maintained but the natural gas content in the pipe is replaced with carbon dioxide. At the maximum flow of the turbine meter, the error curve shown in Figure 2 (initially natural gas test curve at 1 bar, now CO2 test curve at the same pressure) would be extended in the horizontal scale (Reynolds number scale) by 84% thereby reaching into the more linear region of the chart. Essentially, the CO2 gas is magnifying the effective test pressure by 84%. If the pressure of the CO2 test stream is raised to 10 bars (145 psi), it can also be demonstrated that the flow characteristics of the CO2 test stream would now be similar to that of a natural gas stream operating at 10 x 1.84 = 18.4 bars (267 psi). Applying the 0.5 p < test pressure < 2.0 p rule (EN 12261), this would open up the possibility of testing a 35 bar (operating pressure) (508 psi) turbine meter in 10 bar (145 psi) of CO2. 1
Error of Indication (%)
8bar CH4 50bar CH4 atm. air
-1
Reynolds Number
FIG. 2: METER ERROR VS. REYNOLDS NUMBER (NOT TO SCALE) Similarly, the ratio of air to natural gas can be found as follows:
Re (CO 2 ) Re (CH 4 )
G( Air ) (CH 4 ) ( Air )G(CH 4 )
1.0 109 = 1.06 171 0.6
(9)
The ratio of Re(Air)/Re(CH4) is found to be 1.06 indicating a 6% difference in the Reynolds number for the air stream comparing to that of the natural gas stream. The Re(CO2)/Re(CH4) ratio of 1.84 is considerably higher than that of air. As a result, carbon dioxide would provide a greater effective test pressure than air.
Figure 1 demonstrates the deficiency of testing turbine meters with air at atmospheric pressure. An air stream flowing at maximum flow at atmospheric pressure cannot reach a high enough Reynolds number to get into the linear region of the error curve. It is also quite apparent that the only way to obtain a more meaningful test result is to push the error curve out to the linear region of the chart, in other words, to perform the test at higher Reynolds numbers. In order to boost the Reynolds number of the test flow to get a more meaningful error curve as shown in Figure 2 assuming a well constructed turbine meter, the following could be done: 1. 2. 3. 4. Increase the average velocity v of the flow; increase the diameter D of the pipe; increase the density ? of the gas; or use a gas with lower dynamic viscosity ?.
It is not possible to increase the maximum flow velocity because the turbine meter cannot exceed its flow capacity. Changing the pipe diameter is not an option because the turbine meter in this example also defines the dimensions of the pipe. This leaves two remaining options: 3. Increase the density ? of the gas; or 4. Use a gas with lower dynamic viscosity ?. According to Table 1, (See Reference 2) if density is used as the prime ratio, theoretically, there is almost a threefold effect test pressure benefit using CO2. Using the Reynolds ratio, however, yields an effective test pressure benefit of over two. As natural gas contains other components such as ethane and carbon dioxide, the calculated value of 1.84 is therefore both reasonable and conservative. TABLE 1: PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND METHANE AT 20C Carbon Dioxide Pressure (bars)
1 8 10 20
Methane Dynamic viscosity (Pas)

11.02 11.12 11.15 11.32
Dynamic viscosity (Pas)

14.69 14.76 14.79 14.97
Density (kg/m3)
1.82 15.10 19.10 40.77
Density (kg/m3)
0.66 5.34 6.70 13.67
Density Ratio
2.76 2.83 2.85 2.98
Reynolds ratio
2.07 2.13 2.15 2.26
As well as the density and Reynolds number benefits mentioned previously, other reasons for choosing carbon dioxide as a test medium include: It is readily available. It is inexpensive. It is non-toxic. It is non-explosive.
It is non-combustible. CO2 which is extracted from the atmosphere has no environmental impact. The gas is manufactured meaning it is taken from other processes and therefore, there is no additional greenhouse gas emission.
The concept of using carbon dioxide as a test medium to calibrate turbine meters was tested at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) located in San Antonio, Texas. The findings are discussed in the following section. PROOF OF CONCEPT AT SWRI In the fall of 2003, MT commissioned Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) to test the concept of using carbon dioxide as a test medium for calibrating turbine meters (See Reference 3). The results of one of the meters is shown in Figure 3:
FIG. 3: MEASURED K-FACTOR VS. VOLUME FLOW RATE FOR NATURAL GAS AND CO2 TESTING AT SWRI Overall, the turbine meter calibration (K) factors at low Reynolds number increased uniformly as the gas density increased. This indicated that Reynolds number and density related effects were consistent with the non-fluid drag effect as per AGA-7. The four inch and eight inch meters tests showed a direct comparison within a specified confidence level between the 75 psig CO2 test and the 210 psig natural
gas test which have approximately the same density. Furthermore, as per Figure 3, the four inch meter tests for the 75 psig CO2 test and 325 psig natural gas test which could also be compared directly, agreed better than 0.15%. The twelve inch meter tests which are not shown exhibited more scatter for the comparable 30 psig CO2 test and the 100 psig natural gas test due to the fact that the flows are at the lower end of the meters range. This resulted in a larger confidence level in this area and can be attributed to the facility itself. TERASEN MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGIES SOLUTION With a successful Proof of Concept test performed, a new facility is currently being built in Penticton using carbon dioxide as a test medium as well as a coolant as shown in Figure 4. The new facility will be operational in the 4th quarter of 2005. Once operational, the facility will be able to prove meters from two inch diameter up to an effective natural gas test pressure of 600 psi .
CO2 Supply Recirculation Liquid CO2 Injector Filter
CO2 vent Pressure Regulator
From liquid CO2 storage tank VFD/Motor Driven Compressor CO2 stream maintained at constant temperature and pressure
Meter Under Test
Reference Meter
Meter Under Test
Reference Meter
Multiple meter runs
FIG. 4: PROCESS DIAGRAM FOR TERASEN MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGIES HIGH PRESSURE PROVING FACILITY
CONCLUSION
By taking advantage of the established methods of Reynolds number proving, combined with the unique selection of carbon dioxide as a calibration media, new facilities become more viable to meet the growing demand for meter calibrations specific to true operating conditions.
REFERENCES
1. Tang, Paul. W, Turbine Meter Testing in Carbon Dioxide, US Patent Application, November 24, 2002. 2. Fraser, Larry, Report to Measurement Technologies on the Use of Carbon Dioxide for Testing Turbine Meters, January 16, 2003. 3. George, Darin L., Fraser, H.L., Nored, Marybeth, Tang, Paul W., Carbon Dioxide as a Test Fluid for Calibration of Turbine Meters, 04-0P-21, Proceedings of American Gas Association Operations Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, May 23, 2004. 4. George, D. L., Metering Research Facility Program: Effects of Line Pressure and Gas Density on Turbine Meter Measurement Accuracy at Conditions from Atmospheric Air to 700 psig in Natural Gas, GRI Topical Report GRI-03-0172, Gas Research Institute, Des Plaines, Illinois, USA, August 2004. 5. Ranseth, Alan, Reynolds Number Calibration of Turbine Meters, Proceedings of Canadian School of Hydrocarbon Measurement, Calgary, Alberta, March 2005. 6. Measurement of Gas by Turbine Meters, American Gas Association Transmission Measurement Committee Report No. 7, AGA, Arlington, Virginia, USA, 1996. 7. Gas meters Turbine gas meters, European Standard EN 12261, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, Europe, 2002.

Turbine

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Turbine

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

contents

PROPOSED METHOD OF HIGH PRESSURE TURBINE METER PROVING USING CO2

The kinematic viscosity ?k of a gas is defined as:

Therefore the Reynolds number can be rewritten as:

?(CH4) = density of natural gas ?(air) = density of air

G(CH 4 ) ( air )D (CH 4 )

?(CH4) = dynamic viscosity of natural gas

G(CO 2 ) ( air )D (CO 2 )

?(CO2) = density of carbon dioxide ?(air) = density of air

Comparing the Reynolds number of CO2 to that of natural gas:

Error of Indication (%)

8bar CH4 50bar CH4 atm. air

G( Air ) (CH 4 ) ( Air )G(CH 4 )

1.0 109 = 1.06 171 0.6

Methane Dynamic viscosity (Pas)

Dynamic viscosity (Pas)

2.07 2.13 2.15 2.26

CO2 vent Pressure Regulator

Meter Under Test

Meter Under Test

Multiple meter runs

Anda mungkin juga menyukai