• 0
    • ارسال درخواست
    • حذف همه
    • Industrial Standards
    • Defence Standards
  • درباره ما
  • درخواست موردی
  • فهرست استانداردها
    • Industrial Standards
    • Defence Standards
  • راهنما
  • Login
  • لیست خرید شما 0
    • ارسال درخواست
    • حذف همه
View Item 
  •   YSE
  • Industrial Standards
  • API - American Petroleum Institute
  • View Item
  •   YSE
  • Industrial Standards
  • API - American Petroleum Institute
  • View Item
  • All Fields
  • Title(or Doc Num)
  • Organization
  • Year
  • Subject
Advanced Search
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Archive

API TR 2578

Flow Conditioner Installation and Effects on Turbine Meters - FIRST EDITION

Organization:
API - American Petroleum Institute
Year: 2017

Abstract: API MPMS Chapter 5.3 and parts of API MPMS Chapter 6 cover the installation requirements and performance characteristics of turbine meters in liquid hydrocarbon service. This research work provides data that should be considered for future incorporation into these standards. Phase I of this flow conditioning task force was performed on water prior to 2009. As part of Phase I, an addendum was included in API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 5.3.5.3 and Appendix A.1, that recommended the need for flow conditioning rather than straight pipe of any length. Phase II was intended to prove or disprove whether the results on water would translate to light hydrocarbons, higher viscosities, larger line and strainer sizes, and different Reynolds numbers. Phase II of the flow conditioning project tested several sizes and types of turbine meters, strainers, and piping arrangements with various types and arrangements of commercially available flow conditioners. This was carried out on a range of petroleum liquids to try to determine which flow conditioner arrangements provide adequate turbine meter accuracy for liquid hydrocarbon applications. Previous work by the Ad Hoc Flow Conditioning Task Force determined that meter performance, as reflected by meter factor deviation, repeatability, and reproducibility, was sensitive to flow profile effects caused by obstructions in strainer baskets, as well as strainer basket movement. Phase II testing continued with obstructions similar to those in Phase I (water testing), but “finger left” (D) and “finger right” (E) obstructions were eliminated part way through Phase II testing, as they were found to cause minimal change to meter factor deviation. On either configuration (above), there were five different strainer obstructions: a) half-moon left b) half-moon right c) full moon d) “finger left” e) “finger right” Figure 2 shows the devices utilized to replicate installation effects or varying strainer blockages. Obstructions A and B were constructed having approximately half the strainer discharge bore. Obstruction C was constructed having close to the entire strainer discharge bore. The dimensions of obstructions D and E are approximately 1” x 4” regardless of strainer discharge bore. Strainers used in testing had nozzle diameters of 4”, 6”, and 8”. Each separate test consisted of runs 1–7 (as listed below). Each of these seven runs consisted of six meter provings of five runs each. Each test was conducted at 53 % and 80 % of the maximum BPH rate of each size meter. The strainer, flow conditioning section, and meter remained constant while five different obstructions were sequentially installed in the strainer basket: 1. no obstruction 2. obstruction A (A-type in Figure 3 shows position) 3. obstruction B (B-type in Figures 3 and 4 shows position) 4. obstruction C (C-type in Figure 3 shows position) 5. obstruction D 6. obstruction E 7. no obstruction Approximately 50 total tests were completed to provide the data that is used in this technical report.
URI: http://yse.yabesh.ir/std;query=authoCA58ear3081D206861598F1EFDEC014A/handle/yse/264958
Collections :
  • API - American Petroleum Institute
  • Download PDF : (861.3Kb)
  • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
  • Statistics

    API TR 2578

Show full item record

contributor authorAPI - American Petroleum Institute
date accessioned2018-07-31T09:59:00Z
date available2018-07-31T09:59:00Z
date copyright2017.10.01
date issued2017
identifier otherDKORCGAAAAAAAAAA.pdf
identifier urihttp://yse.yabesh.ir/std;query=authoCA58ear3081D206861598F1EFDEC014A/handle/yse/264958
description abstractAPI MPMS Chapter 5.3 and parts of API MPMS Chapter 6 cover the installation requirements and performance characteristics of turbine meters in liquid hydrocarbon service. This research work provides data that should be considered for future incorporation into these standards. Phase I of this flow conditioning task force was performed on water prior to 2009. As part of Phase I, an addendum was included in API MPMS Chapter 5, Section 5.3.5.3 and Appendix A.1, that recommended the need for flow conditioning rather than straight pipe of any length. Phase II was intended to prove or disprove whether the results on water would translate to light hydrocarbons, higher viscosities, larger line and strainer sizes, and different Reynolds numbers. Phase II of the flow conditioning project tested several sizes and types of turbine meters, strainers, and piping arrangements with various types and arrangements of commercially available flow conditioners. This was carried out on a range of petroleum liquids to try to determine which flow conditioner arrangements provide adequate turbine meter accuracy for liquid hydrocarbon applications. Previous work by the Ad Hoc Flow Conditioning Task Force determined that meter performance, as reflected by meter factor deviation, repeatability, and reproducibility, was sensitive to flow profile effects caused by obstructions in strainer baskets, as well as strainer basket movement. Phase II testing continued with obstructions similar to those in Phase I (water testing), but “finger left” (D) and “finger right” (E) obstructions were eliminated part way through Phase II testing, as they were found to cause minimal change to meter factor deviation. On either configuration (above), there were five different strainer obstructions: a) half-moon left b) half-moon right c) full moon d) “finger left” e) “finger right” Figure 2 shows the devices utilized to replicate installation effects or varying strainer blockages. Obstructions A and B were constructed having approximately half the strainer discharge bore. Obstruction C was constructed having close to the entire strainer discharge bore. The dimensions of obstructions D and E are approximately 1” x 4” regardless of strainer discharge bore. Strainers used in testing had nozzle diameters of 4”, 6”, and 8”. Each separate test consisted of runs 1–7 (as listed below). Each of these seven runs consisted of six meter provings of five runs each. Each test was conducted at 53 % and 80 % of the maximum BPH rate of each size meter. The strainer, flow conditioning section, and meter remained constant while five different obstructions were sequentially installed in the strainer basket: 1. no obstruction 2. obstruction A (A-type in Figure 3 shows position) 3. obstruction B (B-type in Figures 3 and 4 shows position) 4. obstruction C (C-type in Figure 3 shows position) 5. obstruction D 6. obstruction E 7. no obstruction Approximately 50 total tests were completed to provide the data that is used in this technical report.
languageEnglish
titleAPI TR 2578num
titleFlow Conditioner Installation and Effects on Turbine Meters - FIRST EDITIONen
typestandard
page16
statusActive
treeAPI - American Petroleum Institute:;2017
contenttypefulltext
DSpace software copyright © 2017-2020  DuraSpace
نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
yabeshDSpacePersian
 
DSpace software copyright © 2017-2020  DuraSpace
نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
yabeshDSpacePersian