4.5 Article

Electrical resistance tomography-based multi-modality sensor and drift flux model for measurement of oil-gas-water flow

期刊

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 33, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6501/ac74a1

关键词

three-phase flow measurement; vertical upward flow; oil-gas-water flow; flow metering; electrical resistance tomography; drift flux model

资金

  1. European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper proposes a novel method to accurately measure each constituent of an oil-gas-water mixture in a water continuous flow. By utilizing a dual-plane electrical resistance tomography sensor, a gradiomanometer flow density meter, a drift flux model, and other measurements, the method can estimate volume flow rates and other operational parameters with high accuracy. The trials showed that this method can achieve a high measurement accuracy within a certain range of temperature and pressure conditions.
This paper proposes a novel method to measure each constituent of an oil-gas-water mixture in a water continuous flow, typically encountered in many processes. It deploys a dual-plane electrical resistance tomography sensor for measuring dispersed phase volume fraction and velocity; a gradiomanometer flow density meter and a drift flux model to estimate slip velocities; with absolute pressure and temperature measurements. These data are fused to estimate constituent volume flow rates. Other commonly used operational parameters can be further derived: water cut or water liquid ratio (WLR) and gas volume fraction (GVF). Trials are described for flow rates of water 5-10 m(3) h(-1); oil 2-10 m(3) h(-1) and gas 1-15 m(3) h(-1). The comparative results are included with published data from the Schlumberger Gould Research flow facility. The paper proposes the use of the described configuration for measurement of volume flow rates in oil-gas-water flows with an absolute error of +/- 10% within GVF 9%-85% and WLR > 45%.

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

4.5
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