[go: up one dir, main page]

 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

remove_circle_outline

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (1)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = flowestimation

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
24 pages, 24251 KiB  
Article
A New Development of Cross-Correlation-Based Flow Estimation Validated and Optimized by CFD Simulation
by Xiong Gao, Lane B. Carasik, Jamie B. Coble and J. Wesley Hines
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(15), 6687; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14156687 - 31 Jul 2024
Viewed by 403
Abstract
The accurate measurement of mass flow rates is important in nuclear power plants. Flow meters have been invented and widely applied in several industries; however, the operating environment in advanced nuclear power plants is especially harsh due to high temperatures, high radiation, and [...] Read more.
The accurate measurement of mass flow rates is important in nuclear power plants. Flow meters have been invented and widely applied in several industries; however, the operating environment in advanced nuclear power plants is especially harsh due to high temperatures, high radiation, and potentially corrosive conditions. Traditional flow meters are largely limited to deployment at the outlet of pumps, on pipes, or in limited geometries. Cross-correlation function (CCF) flow estimation, on the other hand, can estimate the flow velocity indirectly without any specific instruments for flow measurement and in any geometry of the flow region. CCF flow estimation relies on redundant instruments, typically temperature sensors, in series in the direction of flow. One challenge for CCF flow estimation is that the accuracy of the flow measurement is mainly determined by inherent, common local process variation across the sensors, which may be small compared to the uncorrelated measurement noise. To differentiate the process variations from the uncorrelated noise, this research implements periodic fluid injection at a different temperature than the bulk fluid before the temperature sensors to amplify process variation. The feasibility and accuracy of this method are investigated through flow loop experiments and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations. This paper focuses on a CFD simulation model to verify the previous experimental results and optimize CCF flow estimation with different configurations. The optimization study is carried out to perform a grid search on the optimal location of the sensor pair under different flow rates. The CFD results show that the optimal sensor spacing depends on the flow rate being measured and provides guidance for sensor location implementation under various anticipated flow rates. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue CFD Analysis of Nuclear Engineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>A general schematic of a hardware installation for CCF flow estimation [<a href="#B21-applsci-14-06687" class="html-bibr">21</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Sensor X and Sensor Y signals versus time [<a href="#B21-applsci-14-06687" class="html-bibr">21</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Computational domain used for CCF flow estimation, with fluid injection pipe, temperature sensor region, and flow direction shown.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Computational domain, indicating the boundary conditions, including the injection fluid boundary conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>One injection period for the injection pipe boundary condition in CFD simulations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>One example of a meshing model for low-flow-rate simulation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Detailed meshing around the injection pipe.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Temperature and velocity locations for the mesh sensitivity study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Area-weighted average temperature traces at (<b>a</b>) 0.1 m, (<b>b</b>) 0.3 m, and (<b>c</b>) 0.5 m from the inlet.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Two local temperatures at the star-marked locations shown in <a href="#applsci-14-06687-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Area-weighted average velocity traces at (<b>a</b>) 0.1 m, (<b>b</b>) 0.3 m, and (<b>c</b>) 0.5 m from the inlet.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Two local velocities at the star-marked locations shown in <a href="#applsci-14-06687-f008" class="html-fig">Figure 8</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>One example of 3D velocity distribution of fully developed turbulent pipe flow.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Absolute percentage errors between the meshing (area-weighted average velocity) at (<b>a</b>) 0.1 m, (<b>b</b>) 0.3 m, and (<b>c</b>) 0.5 m from the inlet.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Absolute percentage errors of two local velocities.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p><math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mi>u</mi> <mo>+</mo> </msup> </semantics></math> vs. <math display="inline"><semantics> <msup> <mi>y</mi> <mo>+</mo> </msup> </semantics></math> relationship based on G1, G2, and G3 meshing models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Temperature distribution when the target flow rate is at 178.3 GPM (highest flow rate).</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Temperature comparison under a low flow rate (∼40 GPM).</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Temperature comparison under a medium flow rate (∼133 GPM).</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>Temperature comparison under a high flow rate (∼170 GPM).</p>
Full article ">Figure 21
<p>Velocity distribution under a low flow rate after water injection.</p>
Full article ">Figure 22
<p>Local flow-rate changes along the two sensor paths under a low flow rate.</p>
Full article ">Figure 23
<p>Velocity distribution under a high flow rate after water injection.</p>
Full article ">Figure 24
<p>Local flow-rate changes along the two sensor paths under a high flow rate.</p>
Full article ">Figure 25
<p>CCF flow estimation. The x-axis is the flow rate measured from the flow meter in the test facility.</p>
Full article ">Figure 26
<p>Candidate sensor locations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 27
<p>Top 10 temperature sensor pair locations for (<b>a</b>) low, (<b>b</b>) medium, and (<b>c</b>) high bulk flow rates with an 80 psi injection pressure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 28
<p>Top 10 temperature sensor pair locations for (<b>a</b>) low, (<b>b</b>) medium, and (<b>c</b>) high bulk flow rates with a 30 psi injection pressure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 29
<p>Two-dimensional heat map of the weighted performance of the sensor locations for (<b>a</b>) low, (<b>b</b>) medium, and (<b>c</b>) high bulk flow rates with an 80 psi injection pressure.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop