The 11th Asian International Conference on Fluid Machinery and The 3rd Fluid Power Technology Exhibition

Paper ID AICFM_FM_001 November 21-23, 2011, IIT Madras, Chennai, India

Original Paper

Comparison of Piezo-sensor and Differential Wall Pressure Sensor for Vortex Flowmeter Application
A. Venugopal1, Amit Agrawal2 and S.V. Prabhu3 Department of Mechanical Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India. 1 a.venuiitb@gmail.com, 2amit.agrawal@me.iitb.ac.in, 3svprabhu@iitb.ac.in Abstract In recent past due to the surge in energy prices, precise flow measurement has become mandatory in industrial and domestic flow measurement sectors. Vortex flowmeters are among one of the most widely used new technology flowmeters. Compared to differential pressure devices they pose many advantages like large turn-down ratio (1:20), good accuracy (1%) and repeatability of 0.3%. Most of the commercial manufacturers of vortex flowmeter use piezo and dynamic differential pressure sensors to capture vortex shedding frequency. However, a direct comparison of these two sensors based on turn-down ratio and signal quality is seldom reported in the literature. In this context, experimental investigations are carried out to perform a direct comparison of piezo and differential pressure sensor. Experiments are carried out in a circular pipe of diameter 52.8 mm with water as the working medium. The blockage ratio selected for trapezoidal bluff body is 0.27. The Reynolds number range covered in the present study is ReD = 1.4 104 3.5 105. The repeatability of the meter with piezo sensor is 0.3%. The overall uncertainty in the measurement of Strouhal number is 1.71%. The optimum location of piezo sensor behind the bluff body and the location of differential pressure taps are explored under fully developed flow conditions. Digital signal processing technique based on Fourier transform is used for estimation of the vortex shedding frequency. The experimental investigations highlight that the shedding frequency is not truly constant for a given velocity. The periodic jitter in the shedding frequency makes the power spectrum broad. The optimum location of piezo and differential pressure sensor is found out to be 0.85 and 0.72 x/d, respectively. Key words: Piezo sensor, bluff body, linearity, turndown ratio
Accepted for publication Corresponding author: A. Venugopal, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400076, India. 1

1 Introduction In the modern competitive environment of the energy sector one cannot think of sustainability without precise flow measurement. Process industries are understandably concerned with the fuel cost due to recent surge in the energy prices. Small inaccuracies in the flow measurement over prolonged time can cause severe financial concerns. In the recent past, energy conservation steps are being implemented in the industries to cut down CO2 emission and to earn carbon credits. This essentially requires continuous and detailed monitoring of process fluids at every consumption point. Vortex flowmeters are one of the most widely used flowmeters for measurement of compressed air, water and steam. The inherent advantages like large turndown ratio (1:20), repeatability 0.3% and accuracy ( 1%) keep them ahead of other differential pressure devices. Further, vortex flowmeters are cheaper as compared to ultrasonic and turbine flowmeters. The primary challenge in the design of vortex flowmeter is to capture the vortex signal accurately at low flow rates. Most of the commercial vortex flowmeters use either piezo sensor or dynamic differential pressure sensor to capture the vortex shedding frequency.

Igarashi [1] performed experiments with piezo sensors embedded inside various vortex shedder bodies. However, details related to piezo sensor type and embedment was not reported. Zheng et al. [2] conducted experimental studies with piezoelectric probe placed behind a trapezoidal bluff body. He found that the location of the sensor behind the bluff body was crucial for obtaining good linearity in Strouhal number. The best location for the piezo sensor was reported to be half the wavelength of the vortex street. However, these studies were restricted to open channel flows which do not include the influence of blockage. Miau and Hus [3] reported vortex frequency measurement with wall pressure measurement with circular rings as vortex shedders. However, the vortices generated by the rings are weak in strength, making detection difficult. Zhang et al. [4] used a modified approach for measuring the vortex shedding frequency. Instead of using one pressure for obtaining the vortex shedding frequency, duct wall differential pressure with two pressure measurements, one on the upstream of the bluff body and the other downstream were used to calculate the mass flow rate directly. Sun et al. [5] used a modified duct wall differential pressure method with both the pressure taps located axisymmetrically behind the bluff body. The vortex shedding takes place alternately from the sides of the bluff body, which makes the pressure signal obtained from both the pressure taps 180 out of phase thereby improving the
2

strength of the signal. The advantage of this differential arrangement was the cancellation of common mode hydrodynamic and other noises. This inherent characteristic makes the measurement more reliable than conventional methods. Venugopal et al. [6] explored duct wall differential pressure method in detail and investigated the influence of the shape of the bluff body. A direct comparison of axisymmetric tap combination with differential taps revealed that axisymmetric tap combination gives better results in terms of signal amplitudes. Various two dimensional bluff bodies (cylinder, triangle and trapezoid) and axisymmetric bluff bodies (rings and cones) were investigated. The results highlighted that trapezoidal bluff body was the most appropriate bluff body for duct wall differential pressure method. Venugopal et al. [7] studied blockage effects for trapezoidal bluff body with axisymmetric tap location. The optimum blockage ratio and the non-dimensional tap locations were 0.28 and 0.714 times the diameter of the pipe times the blockage, respectively.

The literature suggests that different bluff body shapes have been studied with piezo and differential pressure sensor. However, the optimum location of the piezo sensor and a direct comparison of both the measurement techniques are seldom reported in the literature. In this context, optimum location of the piezo sensor and differential pressure taps are explored with trapezoidal bluff body under fully developed condition for direct comparison.

2 Experimental Setup An experimental setup is designed and fabricated for conducting experimental investigations with piezo and differential pressure sensor. A high accuracy water flow dynamic calibration facility utilizing dynamic weighting is employed in the present study. The system is capable of handling flow rate in the range 0 - 550 m3/hr. The accuracy of the present facility depends on the diameter of the pipe and mass flow rate range. The collecting tank is equipped with an electronic shear beam load cell at the base. The collecting tank capacity is 4000 kg. The system can respond to a time change of 0.1 s with 1 kg resolution. The details of the experimental setup and calibration facility are shown in Fig. 1. Mixed flow type of pump of capacity (78 m and 114 m3/hr) is used for circulating water through the system from an underground sump. The flow rate is controlled with the help of gate valves as shown in Fig. 1. The load cell is interfaced to a personal computer through an RS232 port. Two butterfly valves (150 mm) are provided
3

downstream of the collecting tank in order to drain or collect water in the tank. Water from the tank is recirculated back to the sump. The test section is provided with 35D upstream length to achieve fully developed inlet velocity profile. Flexible bellows are mounted at the inlet and outlet to dampen the pipe vibrations.

3 6

1. Pump, 2. Gate valve, 3. Vortex flowmeter, 4. Differential Pressure Transmitter/Piezo Sensor 5. Measuring tank, 6. Shear beam load cell, 7. Data acquisition system Fig. 1 Schematic of the Test Facility for Vortex flowmeter

The experiments are conducted in a circular pipe of diameter 52.8 mm. The bluff body employed in the present study is trapezoidal in shape with a 72.5 included angle with a blockage ratio 0.27. The blockage ratio is defined as the ratio of bluff body width to pipe diameter. The test section with piezo and differential sensor are shown in Fig. 1. The location of the piezo sensor behind the bluff body is varied from 3.9 mm to 15.9 mm in steps of 2 mm. The pressure taps for differential pressure sensors are provided at the sharp edge of the bluff body and 0.72 x/d downstream from the front face of the bluff body. The differential pressure is measured with a differential pressure transducer of frequency response 1kHz. The output from the piezo and differential pressure sensors is logged to a personal computer with the help of a Picoscope 2202 with a sampling frequency adjusted at 1kHz.

3 Data Reduction For a given Reynolds number, the sensor signals are sampled at a rate of 1 kHz for 10 min. Subsequently, the sampled data are divided into 44 blocks (each comprising 12000 points) for Fourier spectral analysis. The Strouhal number is calculated as
St = fd Um

(1)

The Strouhal number is computed based on the average of these 44 sets of frequencies. The dynamic calibration facility is operated for 10 min for a given Reynolds number. The linearity of the vortex flowmeter is defined as:
Linearity (%) = Stmax Stmin 100 2 Stmean

(2)

The deviation of the Strouhal number is defined as:

% Deviation ( ) =

St St average St average

100

(3)

4 Uncertainty analysis The overall uncertainty associated with the Strouhal number is:
2 2 2 U St = U 12 + U 2 + U 32 + U 4

(4)

Ust: Total uncertainty in St U1: Repeatability U2: Reproducibility U3: Uncertainty in the frequency resolution U4: Uncertainty in the flow calibration system The repeatability of the vortex flowmeter with piezo-electric sensor with 109 sets of readings for 95% confidence level is 1.178%. The minimum velocity above which the piezo-electric sensor shows meaningful output is 7 Hz, which gives an uncertainty of 1.19% in frequency resolution. The uncertainty in the velocity estimate is 0.34%. The reproducibility in the present case is assumed to be negligible as compared to other uncertainties. Hence, the overall uncertainty in the Strouhal number is 1.71%.

5 Results and Discussions

5.1 Investigations under fully developed condition with piezo sensor Experimental investigations with piezo and differential pressure sensors are conducted for a Reynolds number range ReD = 2.5 104 3.2 105. The optimum location of the piezo sensor behind the bluff body is arrived based on the linearity values. In the present study the optimum location is found out to be 0.85 x/d. The linearity of St with ReD for all locations is shown in Fig. 2. The results are summarized in Table 1. The frequency spectrum for different Reynolds numbers is shown in Fig. 3.

0.280

0.240

0.200 St

0.160

0.120 0 50000 100000 ReD

Fig. 2 St variation with ReD for piezo sensor

x/d = 0.28 x/d = 0.42 x/d = 0.56 x/d = 0.71 x/d = 0.85 x/d = 1 150000 200000 250000

Table 1 Linearity and deviation in St with piezo sensor Location (x/d) 0.42 0.56 0.71 0.85 1 ReD 2.6 104 3 105 2.6 104 3.1 105 2.7 104 3.1 105 2.5 104 3.2 105 2.5 104 3.2 105 Linearity (%) % Deviation 5.69 5.25 1.95 1.14 1.68 7 7.3 2.75 1.55 2.22

PSD (W/Hz)

80

f = 95.01Hz

ReD = 3.1 105

40

0 0 100 Frequency (Hz) f = 31.43 Hz PSD (W/Hz) 2 ReD = 1 105 200 300

0 0 0.0008 f = 9.31 Hz PSD (W/Hz) ReD = 3.0 104 100 Frequency (Hz) 200 300

0.0004

0 0 100 Frequency (Hz) 200 300

Fig. 3 Frequency spectra for various velocities

5.2 Investigations under fully developed conditions with differential pressure sensor In case of differential pressure sensor the pressure taps are provided at x/d = 0 and x/d = 0.72. Venugopal et al. [7] suggested that the optimum location for axisymmetric pressure taps is 0.714 times the diameter of the pipe times the blockage. However, the influence of angular locations of the taps were not reported. In the present study, the taps are located at an included angle of 32.6 at the circumference of pipe close to the bluff body. The combination is selected based on the ease of mounting the differential pressure sensor and to reduce the connecting tube length to prevent signal dampening effects. The tap location x/d = 0 is selected based on the factor that the flow is separated at the sharp edges of the bluff body and is a representation of the onset of the vortex shedding phenomenon. The tap locations are shown in Fig. 4. The linearity of the Strouhal
8

number values are better at x/d = 0.72 compared to x/d = 0. The results are tabulated in Table. 2. The results indicate that the axisymmetric tap combination is the best compared to other locations.

x/d = 0.72

x/d = 0

Fig. 4 Tap location for differential pressure sensor

Table 2 Linearity and deviation in St with differential pressure sensor Location (x/d) ReD 3.0 104 3.1 105 1.4 104 3.1 105 1.4 104 3.1 105 Linearity (%) Maximum Deviation (%) 0 0.72 (32.6) 0.72 (180) Axisymmetric 1.64 0.97 0.75 1.42 1.22 0.81

Conclusions Two of the most widely used piezo and differential pressure sensors for vortex flowmeter are tested under fully developed flow conditions for direct comparison. The results are summarized as follows: 1) The minimum Reynolds number measured with piezo sensor and differential pressure sensor are ReD = 2.5 104 and 1.4 104 respectively. 2) The optimum location for piezo sensor is x/d = 0.85 with a linearity of 1.14% and a turndown ratio of 11:1 3) The optimum location of differential pressure sensor is x/d = 0.72 (180) with a linearity of 0.75 % and a turndown ratio of 21:1 The differential pressure sensor is capable of capturing lower flow rates as compared to piezo sensor. However, the cost of the differential pressure sensor is much higher as compared to the piezo sensor. There is a need to reduce the cost of dynamic differential pressure transmitters for vortex flowmeter application. The potential options are developing custom made differential pressure capsules with thin film strain gauges and fiber optic sensor, which can also withstand high temperatures.

Acknowledgement The author would like to thank Mr. Yashwant Rajeshirke for his support in prototype conceptualization and manufacturing.

10

Nomenclature d D f PSD Stmin Stmax Stmean Um x Width of the bluff body (m) Diameter of the pipe (m) Vortex shedding frequency (Hz) Power spectrum density (W/Hz) Minimum Strouhal number Maximum Strouhal number Mean Strouhal number Mean velocity (m / s ) Streamwise coordinate (m) ReD St

Non-dimensional Numbers

U m D Reynolds number fd Strouhal number St = Um Greek Symbols

Fluid density kg / m 3

Dynamic viscosity (Pa.s )

References [1] Igarshi, T., Flow Resistance and Strouhal Number of a Vortex Shedder in a Circular Pipe. JSME, Vol. 42, 1999, pp. 586 595. [2] Zheng, D., Zhang, T., Hu, Y., Experimental Investigations of the Location of a Piezoelectric Probe in a Vortex Flow Sensor. Measurement Science and Technology, Vol. 18, 2007, pp. 3777 3783. [3] Miau, J. J., Hus, M. T., A Proposal of Ring Type Vortex Flowmeters. Rev. Sci. Instrum., Vol. 63, 1992, pp. 4213 4321. [4] Zhang, H., Huang, Y., Sun, Z., A Study of Mass Flow Rate Measurement Based on the Vortex Shedding Principle. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, Vol. 17, 2006, pp. 29 38. [5] Sun, Z., Zhang, H. and Zhou, J., Investigation of the Pressure Probe Properties as the Sensor in the Vortex Flowmeter. Sensors and Actuators A, Vol. 136, 2007, pp. 646 655.

11

[6] Venugopal, A., Agrawal, A., Prabhu, S. V., Influence of Blockage and Upstream Disturbances on the Performance of a Vortex Flowmeter with a Trapezoidal Bluff Body. Measurement, Vol. 43, 2010, pp. 603-616. [7] Venugopal, A., Agrawal, A., Prabhu, S. V., Influence of Blockage and Shape of a Bluff Body on the Performance of Vortex Flowmeter with Wall Pressure Measurement. Measurement, Vol. 44, 2011, pp. 954-964.

12