×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Intepretation of ISO 5167-2:2003

Intepretation of ISO 5167-2:2003

Intepretation of ISO 5167-2:2003

(OP)
Hello Gents (and hopefully lots of ladies)

I am working on some flow meter installations, specifically orifice plates which have to be compliant with the above standard. My predicament is lack of suitable straight lengths of pipework as the pipe diameters are large.

In the standard is a table (Table 3 - required straight lengths between orifice plates and fittings without flow conditioners) which includes distances for s concentric expander 0.5D to D over a length of 2D.

What I would like to know is: do the actual dimensions of the expander have to be 0.5D to D and 2D long or are those max/min dimensions.

I have a 36" to 40" reducer which would have less flow disturbance so surely it must acceptable to use those table figures.

Thanks in advance.

RE: Intepretation of ISO 5167-2:2003

Consider another flow element like the McCrometer V-cone.  The V-cone requires only three-diameters upstream and one-diameter downstream for suitable measurement.

The straight run requirements are associated with accuracy and repeatability.  Consider the API MPMS standard that may have shorter run requirements than ISO 5167-2:2003.

John

RE: Intepretation of ISO 5167-2:2003

I would take the standard at face value if I were you.  

Everyone loves using orifice plates because they are supposedly cheap and nasty and accurate.  This statement is not true when you consider installation costs if you require accuracy.  Such is your case.

The reason that I would treat the standard at face value is because what they are publishing are the straight run requirements that they've experimented with and can garuntee accuracy (This also includes reducer sets, flow conditioners, ect).  If you decide to deviate, you will introduce uncertainties that can only be quantified with a prover.

I'd investigate other technologies to measure flow if I were you, say Ultrasonic, Insertion type turbine, Annubar / Pitot tube.

Orifice plates are good for reapeatable flow.  Accuracy is not the Orifice plates forte.  AGA report # 3, and the standard that you are using reconfirm this notion since any accuracy that you want out of an orifice plate will come from reproducing lab results which means going to a calibrated meter run (Expensive as you know).

--Igor

RE: Intepretation of ISO 5167-2:2003

We have done a lot of work on orifice plate installation errors at NEL and one of my colleagues chairs the commitee for ISO 5167. (I'm sure he could answer you question in more detail than you would ever want!)

From my experience I would guess that the recommendation in the standard is based on a set of tests with one particular design of expander.  I doubt that general data will be available for different designs of expander. If you have a long straight length of pipe (in excess of 100 diameters) upstream of your expander it is probably fair to argue that if you comply with the guidance given in the standard then your installation, with a less severe expansion, will be OK. However I'd guess, given the size of your pipework, that you'll have bends, valves or other fixtures upstream of the expander and relatively close to your flowmeter. If this is the case your flowmeter will not just see the flow disturbance from the expander, it will see the combined effect of the expander and whatever is upstream of it.

How you handle this depends on how important it is to comply with the standard and who you are trying to convince that you have a good flowmeter installation.  We have assessed similar installation problems in the past and using comparison with published test data, testing and computer modelling.  Another option is to go with a different flowmeter.  However, be aware that ALL flowmeters suffer from installation errors and manufacturer's recommendations on upstream straight lengths are often optimistic (for obvious reasons).

If you need any more details of this feel free to ask.

Cheers,

Neil

RE: Intepretation of ISO 5167-2:2003

You may consider the use of a "high performance" flow
conditioner upstream of the primary element.  These devices,although somewhat expensive in pipe sizes above 24 NPS, have been quite successful in reducing the number of upstream pipe diameters for a well formed flow profile.

Several manufacturers available:

Gallagher Flow Conditioner; Savant Measurement
CPA-50E; Canadian Pipeline Association
Daniel Profiler; Emerson Rosemount

Good Luck

bk

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources