1、Flow Conditioner Installation and Effects on Turbine MetersAPI TECHNICAL REPORT 2578FIRST EDITION, OCTOBER 2017Special NotesAPI publications necessarily address problems of a general nature. With respect to particular circumstances, local, state, and federal laws and regulations should be reviewed.N
2、either API nor any of APIs employees, subcontractors, consultants, committees, or other assignees make any warranty or representation, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained herein, or assume any liability or responsibility f
3、or any use, or the results of such use, of any information or process disclosed in this publication. Neither API nor any of APIs employees, subcontractors, consultants, or other assignees represent that use of this publication would not infringe upon privately owned rights.API publications may be us
4、ed by anyone desiring to do so. Every effort has been made by the Institute to assure the accuracy and reliability of the data contained in them; however, the Institute makes no representation, warranty, or guarantee in connection with this publication and hereby expressly disclaims any liability or
5、 responsibility for loss or damage resulting from its use or for the violation of any authorities having jurisdiction with which this publication may conflict.API publications are published to facilitate the broad availability of proven, sound engineering and operating practices. These publications
6、are not intended to obviate the need for applying sound engineering judgment regarding when and where these publications should be utilized. The formulation and publication of API publications is not intended in any way to inhibit anyone from using any other practices.Any manufacturer marking equipm
7、ent or materials in conformance with the marking requirements of an API standard is solely responsible for complying with all the applicable requirements of that standard. API does not represent, warrant, or guarantee that such products do in fact conform to the applicable API standard.All rights re
8、served. No part of this work may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Contact the Publisher, API Publishing Services, 1220 L Street, NW
9、, Washington, DC 20005.Copyright 2017 American Petroleum InstituteForewordNothing contained in any API publication is to be construed as granting any right, by implication or otherwise, for the manufacture, sale, or use of any method, apparatus, or product covered by letters patent. Neither should a
10、nything contained in the publication be construed as insuring anyone against liability for infringement of letters patent.Shall: As used in a standard, “shall” denotes a minimum requirement in order to conform to the specification.Should: As used in a standard, “should” denotes a recommendation or t
11、hat which is advised but not required in order to conform to the specification.This document was produced under API standardization procedures that ensure appropriate notification and participation in the developmental process and is designated as an API standard. Questions concerning the interpreta
12、tion of the content of this publication or comments and questions concerning the procedures under which this publication was developed should be directed in writing to the Director of Standards, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. Requests for permission to reprodu
13、ce or translate all or any part of the material published herein should also be addressed to the director.Generally, API standards are reviewed and revised, reaffirmed, or withdrawn at least every five years. A one-time extension of up to two years may be added to this review cycle. Status of the pu
14、blication can be ascertained from the API Standards Department, telephone (202) 682-8000. A catalog of API publications and materials is published annually by API, 1220 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.Suggested revisions are invited and should be submitted to the Standards Department, API, 1220 L
15、 Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, standardsapi.org.iiiContentsPage1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Configuration of Test Meter Runs (Figures 1A and 1B) . .
16、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Discussion of Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1 Strainers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.2 Flow Conditioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Recommendation
18、s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.1 Metering System Elements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19、 . 73.2 Pipe Alignment and Flanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Observations for Other Chapters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20、. . . . . . . 84.1 Storage and Meter Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.2 Meter and System Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Figures1A Typical Test Meter Run Configuration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11B Figure 1B-Alternate Test Meter Run Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Strainer Blockage Replication Obstructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Depiction of the Strainer with Obstructions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Strainer Basket View with Half-moon Obstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Strainer without Positive Positioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24、 . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Typical Meter Factor Variance at 53 % of Max Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Typical Meter Factor Variance at 80 % of Max Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25、 . . . 7viIntroductionTurbine meters are used extensively for the custody transfer of liquid hydrocarbons worldwide. The potential impact of inaccurate volumetric measurement due to improper turbine meter flow conditioning and installation effects could be significant. Flow conditioners and flow con
26、ditioning are designed to substantially reduce installation and operational effects. Phase II testing concentrated on operational effects. Phase I results on installation effects (for example, three elbows out of plane) were covered first in an addendum to API MPMS Chapter 5.3, and then included in
27、Section 5.3.5.3.The purpose of this Technical Report (TR) is to provide a summary of flow conditioning testing performed on turbine meters in liquid hydrocarbons. Initial testing was conducted in water, and those findings were included as an addendum to API MPMS Chapter 5.3 in 2009; subsequent testi
28、ng in hydrocarbon liquids was carried out through July 2016.Phase II testing focused on operational effects, specifically the relationship of strainer design, strainer basket disturbances, flow conditioning, and how they affected the flow meter deviations in hydrocarbon applications (viscosities, de
29、nsities, and Reynolds number).Phase II testing focused on four flow conditioners: one tube bundle and three high-performance flow conditioners. High-performance flow conditioners are defined as those that provide pseudo-fully developed flow in laboratory and field piping configurations. Their perfor
30、mance in various distorted flow profiles was measured by determining meter factor deviations. Installation and operational effects were created with piping geometry, various strainer designs, and various blockages. Obstructions were placed in the strainer basket, as illustrated in the strainer block
31、age replication obstructions shown in Figure 2. Multiple turbine meters were used in the testing, including flat-bladed (unrimmed and rimmed) and helical types.The testing was also not intended to establish whether a specific meter and conditioner combination worked better than a different meter and
32、 conditioner combination.Dr. George E. Mattinglys NIST studies of flow profile in the 1980s were an instigating force in the initiation of the Ad Hoc Flow Conditioning Task Force (TF). The purpose of both Phase I (beginning about 2005 on water as a liquid) and Phase II (20102016) was to validate the
33、 limited documentation indicating that obstructions in strainers caused meter factor to shift of 0.25 % or more (unpredictably), and to evaluate 20D, tube bundles, and flow conditioning performance on piping disturbances and random, erratically occurring effects, such as strainer basket obstructions
34、. This could likely reduce proving frequency. More importantly, high-performance flow conditioners would give more consistent meter reproducibility and repeatability. These random events with flowing stream debris cant be “proved out” as effectively or rapidly as they can be “tuned out” by high-perf
35、ormance flow conditioning.The conditions for the testing had process variables of flow, pressure, temperature, and viscosity that varied negligibly compared to typical field operation. The Ad Hoc Flow Conditioning TF had discussions in 2011 and 2012 regarding what might be considered acceptable vari
36、ation. The TF felt meter factor variations of less than 0.03 % were the limits of the artifact (turbine meter, flow conditioning, piping, and strainer) in the laboratory performance. The TF concurred that meter factor variations of 0.07 % or more under the test conditions were an indication of a rea
37、l shift.In discussion by the users and the Ad Hoc Task Force, it was noted that in field conditions, variances larger than above may be considered acceptable. Acceptable meter factor variations are defined by the operations and the appropriate risk managements (such as loss/gain and line balance for
38、 leak detection).1 Technical Report on Flow Conditioner Installation and Effects on Turbine Meters 1 Scope 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 prov
39、ides 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 fl
40、ow 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
41、 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
42、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 w
43、ell 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
44、. 1.1 Configuration of Test Meter Runs (Figures 1A and 1B) Figure 1ATypical Test Meter Run Configuration 2 API TECHNICAL REPORT 2578 Figure 1BAlternate Test Meter Run Configuration On either configuration (above), there were five different strainer obstructions: a) half-moon left b) half-moon right
45、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 s
46、trainer 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”. FLOW CONDITIONER INSTALLATION AND EFFECTS ON TURBINE METERS 3 Figure 2Strainer Blockage Replication Obstru
47、ctions Each separate test consisted of runs 17 (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 whil
48、e 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
49、7. no obstruction 4 API TECHNICAL REPORT 2578 Figure 3Depiction of the Strainer with Obstructions Approximately 50 total tests were completed to provide the data that is used in this technical report. 2 Discussion of Results Phase II testing was conducted with two liquids similar to light hydrocarbons. One liquid was 2 to 2.5 cSt and the other 13.5 to 15 cSt. Phase II testing replicated the results of Phase I testing on water. 2.1 Strainers If the basket changed position in the strainer body during operation (Figure 5), this affected the meter readings. We overcame the issue by
