4.4 Article

Signal processing for slug flow analysis via a voltage or instantaneous liquid holdup time-series

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2021.101968

关键词

Slug flow; Signal processing; Holdup; Gas-liquid flow; Slug characterization; Slug frequency; Slug length

资金

  1. Mexican Council of Science and Technology, Mexico (CONACyT) [207653]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Slug flow is a common gas-liquid flow pattern in pipes, and its characteristics play a crucial role in engineering processes. This paper presents a new signal processing analysis method that utilizes statistical algorithms to accurately determine slug flow characteristics, with validation from experimental data showing good results. The proposed algorithm is recommended for slug flow characterization based on its performance against the experimental data.
Slug flow is one of the most observed gas-liquid flow patterns in pipes. Owing to its high occurrence, the estimation of slug characteristics is essential for many engineering processes. The slug flow characterization is usually carried out by models and correlations previously calibrated with experimental data generated by the interpretation of voltage or instantaneous liquid holdup time-series. Historically, this interpretation required algorithms that depended on subjective parameters, which created high dispersion on the data. This paper proposes a new signal processing analysis, which does not require any subjective parameter. A statistical algorithm is used to calculate the film and slug cut threshold values, the disregard cut value to group slug pulses, and the disregard cut value to remove slug pulses, which are required to determine the slug characteristics. An experimental data set was used to validate the proposed methodology. The consistency check process followed two independent ways, both with good results. Based on the performance against the experimental data, the proposed algorithm is recommended for slug flow characterization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据