ISSN XXXX XXXX © 2016 IJESC

Research Article Volume 6 Issue No. 8

CFD Approach for Calibration of Nozzle Meter

Suyog Sharma 1 , Dr. Ruchi Khare 2
M.tech 1 , Assistant Professor2
Civil Eng ineering Depart ment
M. A. Nat ional Institute of Technology, Bhopal, India

Abstract:
The analysis is carried out by using academic version of ANSYS 16 software. Co mputational flu id dynamics (CFD) approach has
been used for the calibrat ion of no zzle meter. Also very less work is done on the performance of no zzle meter with the change of beta
ratio. The simu lation was conducted with five different nozzle meters having different beta ratios . Differential p ressure head was
assessed by creating two planes one at a distance equal to pipe d iameter and other at a distance half the diameter of pipe o n either
sides of nozzle. Five curves were plotted between Reynolds number vs. coefficient of discharge) & a single curve showing actual
discharge vs. pressure head drop for different beta ratios in order to compare the results obtained through the simu lation with
experimental results. It was observed that the coefficient of d ischarge is varying rapidly at lower Reynolds number and going in a
constant way for the h igher value of the same. However in the simulat ion coefficient of d ischarge remains well above and constant as
compared to the experimental value. Also change in beta ratio affects the relation between variables as per exponent n.

Keywords: No zzle meter; Ansys Simu lation; Beta ratio; Coefficient of d ischarge; Reynolds number

I. INTRODUCTION known as high beta ratio and low beta ratio designs. High beta
Accurate measure of rate of flow of liquids and gases is a vital nozzles are favored for d iameter ratios between 0.45 and 0.80.
demand for maintaining the standard of commercial p rocesses. Low beta no zzles are uphold fo r d iameter rat ios between 0.20
In fact, most of the economic control loops control the flow and 0.50. For beta values between 0.25 and 0.5, any of the
rates of inco ming liquids or gases so as to attain the control above designs may be used. This kind of nozzle meter is mostly
objective. A differential pressure flow measuring instrument is seen to be used in United States of America. Various
commonly used to control the direction and also the properties configuration adjustments and geometry for these nozzles based
of a fluid flo w that will increase velocity on the expense of its on the required beta ratio for the applicat ion has been done by
pressure energy. The comparison of experimental results with the ASME Flu id Meters Research Co mmittee.
simu lation analysis can give an idea about the effectiveness of
simu lation The headings should be bold and in uppercase letters
NOZZLE GEOMETRY
with 10 font size and sub-headings should be lower case; with
Arial as the font-type. Use the roman number system (I,II,II
etc.,) for the main headings like introduction, conclusion etc.
Representative main headings are presented here; however the
authors are free to choose their own headings. The current
status and open questions, aims and objectives, and motivation
and novelty of the present research may be presented in the
introduction section. Figure 1 beta ratio 0.4

A. Descripti on of fl ow nozzle
A flow nozzle meter is simpler and less expensive than a
venturi meter, but not as simple as an orifice meter. The
frictional loss in a flow nozzle meter is much less than in an
orifice meter but higher than in a venturi meter. Flow nozzles
are frequently used in flow rate measurement due to their
credibility, accuracy and tolerance environ mental conditions. It
offers advantage over orifice plates as it has high coefficient of Figure 2 beta ratio 0.5
discharge and has lower permanent pressure loss. Since there
are no sharp corners or edges to wear, accuracy is supported for
a very long period of t ime.

a. ASME Flow Nozzle Figure 3 beta ratio 0.6

The simu lation is performed on ASM E type flo w nozzle.
ASME flo w nozzles or long radius nozzles co me in 2 variants,
International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing, August 2016 2858 http://ijesc.org/
 Residual target : 0.000001

After the completion of solver run, a .res file is generated

which is supported in CFX post as results. This already
contains the previously defined domain and sub domains.CFX
post has many inbuilt functions to see results in the way we
Figure 4 beta ratio 0.7
want.In the present work creat ing streamlines was beneficial
for further processing. These streamlines gave a meaningful
variation of velocity having an increment at throat of the
nozzle.

III. RES ULTS AND DISCUSS ION

Figure 5 beta ratio 0.8
Figure 6 Geometry of Nozzle meter inside pipe
In the present chapter, flow simulat ion data have been
analysed and presented in appropriate graphical format. The
graphical representation in the form of discharge versus
pressure drop (Δp) and coefficient of discharge (Cd ) versus
Reynolds number (Re = (vd/ν). Unified relat ions between (Δp)
versus Qact and (Cd ) versus (Re = (vd)/ν) have also been
developed. Variation of coefficient of discharge (Cd)
with Reynolds number in present work in co mparison with

II. MET HODOLOGY Reynolds Number vs Coeff.of discharge

The present simulation work is carried out on software
0.99
ANSYS CFX 16.1. The software is capable of making the
simu lation of flowing fluid in virtual environment. In the Coefficient of discharge
current study, 5 d ifferent size o f no zzle meters with beta rat io
0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 have been analyzed. The ratio of nozzle 0.98
throat diameter to the pipe diameter is termed as beta ratio. Actual coeff of
These nozzle-meters have been prepared in accordance with discharge

ISO 5167 standard. The simulation geometry is created on Experimental

0.97 coeff of discharge
ICEM CFD 16.1. In the geometry Water at 25o C is flowing
through a 50.8mm d iameter pipe fro m the reservoir. A nozzle
meter has been drawn between the pipes with the help of
0.96
ellipse. Two tappings have been considered at a distance D 4 8 12 16 20 24
(diameter of the pipe) in the upstream and another (D/2) Reynolds Number x10000
distance in the downstream of the flo wing liquid. The
Figure 7 Beta ratio 0.4
pressure head drop between tappings is measured by taking
difference of pressure at the respective planes.
Reynolds Number vs Coeff. of discharge
The domain is defined for the meshed geometry in CFX p re 1.00
and sub domains viz. in let, outlet, wall and nozzle. Proper
boundary details are assigned to the sub domains. Velocity at 0.98
inlet is given as according to actual discharge. The boundary
Coeff. Of discharge

conditions in CFX pre were given as follo ws:

0.96 Actual coefficient
of discharge
Flu id : Water
0.94 Experimental
Reference Pressure : 0 at m
coefficient of
discharge
Buoyancy model : Non buoyant 0.92

Flu id Temperature : 25o C 0.90

2 7 12 17 22
Turbulence : k-Epsilon Reynolds Number x10000

Maximu m Nu mber of iterat ions : 250 Figure 8 Beta ratio 0.5

Residual Type : RM S

International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing, August 2016 2859 http://ijesc.org/
 Also the variation of pressure drop with actual discharge for
Reynolds Number vs Coeff. of discharge
all the beta ratios can be represented as all in one graph using
1.00 the following table:
Coefficient of discharge

0.98 Table 1 Coefficient of discharge with Reynolds number at diffe rent beta
ratio
Actual coeff. Of
discharge S
0.96
. β= β= β= β= β=
N 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Experimental o
coeff. Of .
0.94 discharge
Re Cd Re Cd Re Cd Re Cd Re Cd

0.92
1
5 10 15 20 25
546 420 673 0.98 0.98
Reynolds Number x10000 41 0.9869 35 0.9805 90 0.9856
71039 58 70565 391

Figure 9 Beta ratio 0.6 2

569 723 770 0.98 0.98
49 0.9827 95 0.98318 17 0.9859 94235 67 93540 487
Reynolds Number vs Coeff. of discharge
3
1.00
691 112 913 12479 0.98 12569 0.98
18 0.9851 336 0.98450 76 0.9867 8 75 4 519

0.98 4
Coeff. Of discharge

Actual coeff. Of
discharge 755 125 117 13992 0.98 13407 0.98
0.96 77 0.9854 298 0.98414 200 0.9876 6 77 4 509

Experimental 5
coeff. Of
0.94 discharge 962 144 138 15391 0.98 16088 0.98
71 0.9836 789 0.98511 236 0.9880 8 78 9 510

0.92 122 158 163 17102 0.98 19153 0.98

528 915 370 0 79 4
5 10 15 20 25 0.9825 0.98533 0.9882 479

Reynolds Number x10000 7

172 180 199 17759 0.98 21169 0.98

060 0.9848 987 0.98668 675 0.9885 8 80 6 463

Figure 10 Beta ratio 0.7 8

207 197 215 20076 0.98 22345 0.98

354 0.9839 440 0.98551 649 0.9887 3 7 7 455

Reynolds Number vs Coeff. of discharge

4.5
1.00
4.0 β=0.4
0.98
3.5
Coeff. Of discharge

Pressure drop (m)

0.96 3.0
Actual coeff. Of
discharge 2.5
0.94 β=0
2.0 .5
0.92
Experimental β=0.
coeff. Of 1.5
discharge 6β=
1.0
0.90
0.7 β=
0.5 0.8
0.88
5 10 15 20 25 0.0
Reynolds Number x10000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Actual discharge x10-6 (m3 /s)
Figure 11 Beta ratio 0.8
Figure 12 Actual discharge vs Pressure head drop

International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing, August 2016 2860 http://ijesc.org/
 Using the method of regression a unique relation has been 5. The coefficient of discharge remains higher in all cases
developed between actual discharge and pressure head drop . of simulation as compared to experimental analysis.
The equation for the unified curve so found is given below:
This is because of the losses which could not be
0.501 3
Q = 0.013H (m /s) considered in CFD and occur in physical experiment.
6. The variation of Cd with Reynolds number in both
0.005
experiment and CFD are nearly same except at low
0.0045
Reynolds number.
0.004
= 0.013x 0.5018
Actual discharge (m3/sec)

y
0.0035 R² = 1
V.REFERENCES

0.003 [1]. A merican Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME).

0.0025 1971. Fluid meters: Their theory and application. Ed ited by
0.002 H.S. Bean. 6ed. Report of ASM E Research Co mmittee on Fluid
Meters.
0.0015
0.001 [2]. A merican society of Mechanical Engineers. (ASM E).
0.0005 1991. “Performance Test Codes, Flow Measurement”, Sect ion
0 5-Nozzles and Venturi, ASM E PTC 19.5-2004.
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
H = β5 x h (m) [3]. A NSI/ASM E MFC, Differential Producers Used for the
Measurement of Fluid Flow in Pipes (Orifice, No zzle, Venturi),
ANSI, New York, December 1983.
Figure 13 Variation of actual discharge and modified
Head drop for beta ratio 0.5 [4]. A run R, Yogesh Ku mar K J, V Seshadri, Predict ion of
discharge coefficient of venturi meter of low Reynolds number
IV. CONCLUS IONS
by analytical and CFD method ISSN: 2321-0869, Volu me -3,
On the basis of the simulat ion work carried using five
Issue-5, May 2015
nozzles of β ratio = 0.4, .05, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8 following
conclusions have been drawn: [5]. Bansal R.K (2010) “A text book o f Flu id Mechanics and
Hydraulics Machine” Ninth Edition” pp 433
1. A unified equation has been developed for the
Discharge versus Pressure Drop. The relation between [6]. Brian P. Whelan, Anthony J. robinson (2008) “Nozzle
the two variable came out with the coefficient of geometry effects in liqu id jet array imp ingement” Applied
Thermal Engineering. pp 2211-2221
correlation as R2 =1 which shows the accuracy of
equation developed. [7]. Buckland B.O., Schenectady N.Y. (1990) “Flu id Meters
Nozzle” volu me nu mber 2 pp22-26(5).
2. The coefficient of discharge (Cd ) increases with the
increase in Reynolds number for all β ratios. However, [8]. Choudhury M.R, Determination of pressure loss and
Cd beco mes constant and independent of β ratio in coefficient of discharge for non Newtonian fluid in long square
edged orifice, A THESIS REPORT JULY 2010.
case of simu lation, where as Cd varies in unpredictable
way in case of experimental analysis. [9]. Chunhui Li an, Bodo Mickan, Flow Characteristics and
Entrance Length Effect fo r M EMS No zzles, Flow Measurement
3. The simu lation results are found to be more accurate &
and Instrumentation 33 (2013) pp 212-217.
near to the consistency as compared to experimental
results. [10]. Eren H., Flowmeters, in Survey o f Instrumentation and
Measurement, S.A. Dyes, Ed., John Wiley & Sons , New Yo rk,
4. In experimental results for small Reynolds number, Cd 2001, 568-580.
varies rapidly as compared to that of for higher
[11]. Garde R.J, Mirajgaoker A.G. (2003), “Engineering Fluid
Reynolds number, whereas according to simu lation
Mechanics” Third Ed ition pp (5.8-5.12)
analysis Cd doesn’t get much affected with change in
Reynolds number [12]. Halmi D., Metering performance investigation and
substantiation of the Universal Venturi Tube, J. Flu ids Eng,
February 1994.
International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing, August 2016 2861 http://ijesc.org/