EFFECTS OF ENTRAINED LIQUIDS ON ORIFICE MEASUREMENT
Josh Kinney and Richard Steven
Colorado Engineering Experiment Station, Inc.
54043 WCR 37
Nunn, Colorado 80648
Introduction
Orifice plate meters are one of the most widely used
technologies in industry for gas flow metering. This is
due to their relative simplicity, the extensive publicly
available data sets that led to several orifice plate meter
standards [1, 2, 3, and 4] and the fact that they are a
relatively inexpensive method of gas metering. However,
it is common in industry for gas meters to be installed in
applications where the flows are actually wet gas flows,
i.e., flows where there is some liquid entrainment in a
predominantly gas flow. This is usually done out of
economic necessity or due to the fact that the system
designers were not aware at the conceptual design stage
that the gas flow would have entrained liquid. Therefore,
with the orifice plate meter being such a popular gas flow
meter, it is by default possibly the most common wet gas
flow meter.
The effect of wet gas flow on an orifice plate meter
configured for gas flow service is complicated. There are
ongoing research programs worldwide aimed at
improving the understanding of the reaction of the
differential pressure meter family (of which the orifice
plate meter is a member) to wet gas flow. Most of the
research results are published in conference papers.
However, it is not always immediately obvious to the
technician in the field using an orifice plate meter with
wet gas how this information can be practically applied.
This paper attempts to review the current scientific
knowledge from a practical user’s standpoint.
What is Wet Gas?
A practical and universally accepted definition for the
term “wet gas” flow has proved illusive over the last
decade and despite various suggestions, no standards
board has released a technical report or standard that has
universally agreed upon definition for wet gas flow. In
fact, many in the industry now feel there is no need for a
precise definition and the term should remain an all
encompassing general term and the details of any new
research development should simply state the scope for
which that product or research is applicable. Hence, for
the purpose of this paper, the definition of wet gas flow is
simply said to be “a two-phase flow of gas and liquid
where the predominant phase is that of the gas.”
All the same, it is necessary to quantify the relative
amount of liquid in a gas flow if we are to discuss the wet
gas flow performance of an orifice meter. This can be
and is done in many different ways. However, for this
paper, only two methods are of importance. These are the
straightforward gas-to-liquid mass flow rate ratio and,
unfortunately, a rather abstract term commonly called the
“Lockhart-Martinelli parameter.” The gas and liquid
. .
mass flow rates are denoted by m g and ml , respectively.
The liquid-to-gas mass flow rate ratio (sometimes simply
.
ml
called the “mass ratio”) is denoted by:
.
mg
Fortunately, it is not necessary for a technician using an
orifice meter with wet gas to have an understanding of the
precise scientific meaning of the Lockhart-Martinelli
parameter in order to apply the results of the research,
which utilize this parameter. This term is typically
denoted by “ X LM ,” which is defined as follows:
.
ml ρg
X LM = (1)
.
mg ρl
where ρg and ρl are the gas and liquid densities,
respectively, of the wet gas flow. Note that for a
measured pressure and temperature, and known gas and
liquid properties, the gas and liquid densities of a wet gas
flow should be calculated from fluid property tables or
software. This information is known independently of
any flow meter. Therefore, for a set pressure and
temperature, the Lockhart-Martinelli parameter is directly
proportional to the “mass ratio.” The Lockhart-Martinelli
parameter can simply be thought of as a measure of the
“wetness” of the flow. For a set pressure and
temperature, the higher the Lockhart-Martinelli
parameter, the “wetter” the flow (i.e., the more liquid
mass flow relative to a unit mass of gas flow).
What Does Wet Gas Flow Look Like?
The way that a liquid phase is dispersed in a gas pipe flow
is called either the “flow regime” or “flow pattern.”
Figure 1 shows a famous generic sketch of typical wet gas
flow patterns in round, horizontal pipes. Figure 2 shows a
famous generic sketch of typical wet gas flow patterns
when the fluid is moving vertically upward in round
pipes. Vertically downward flow patterns, where gravity
and flow do not appose each other, are usually considered
mist flows, although little research is published on the
matter. Information in the literature on inclined pipe flow
patterns is very rare.
Figure 1. Horizontal, Wet Gas Flow Patterns
Figure 2. Vertically Upward Wet Gas Flow Patterns
The majority of the wet gas flow pattern map literature is
for horizontal flow and vertically upward flow. Even
then, there is not a great deal of literature available. Most
knowledge comes from practical experiments. The
mathematical models that exist are still in their infancy
and do not predict the flow patterns well across various
parameter changes (e.g., pipe diameter, line pressure,
mass ratio, pipe orientation, etc.).
In Figure 1, there are several types of horizontal wet gas
flow patterns. The first is “stratified flow” (sometimes
called “separated flow”). This is usually prevalent at low
flow rates and low pressures. Here, the liquid flows along
the bottom of the pipe (like a river) with the gas phase
flowing above the phase interface. This is a common
flow pattern and orifice meter wet gas performance
research has been conducted for this flow pattern.
However, under different conditions, e.g., faster flow
rates and higher pressures, for a set mass ratio, this
stratified flow has waves at the interface. This is
sometimes called “wavy flow” or “wavy stratified flow.”
As conditions continue to change for a set mass ratio
(e.g., increasing pressure and flow rate), these waves can
become large compared to the diameter of the pipe. This
flow is sometimes called “semi-slug flow.” If there is a
high enough mass ratio, the waves can be large enough to
completely fill the cross sectional area of the pipe and this
condition is called “slug flow.” Semi-slug flow and slug
flow are not stable flow patterns and, therefore, these
conditions are not the best conditions for flow metering.
Finally, if for any set mass ratio, the pressure and gas
flow rate values are large enough, the gas will flow
through the center of the pipe with entrained liquid
droplets and a liquid “ring” flowing along the periphery
of the pipe. As the pressure and gas flow rate continue to
increase to extreme values, the liquid ring will diminish
and then disappear as all the liquid is entrained in
continually smaller liquid droplets. In reality, it is not
possible to know the details of the annular ring thickness
and average droplet size, so these flow patterns are
collectively called “annular mist flow,” “annular
dispersed flow,” “dispersed flow,” or “mist flow.”
Vertically upward wet gas flow has fewer flow patterns
than horizontal wet gas flow. If there is not a high
enough gas dynamic pressure (i.e., the combination of
pressure and gas flow rate), there is not enough energy in
the gas flow to cleanly drive the liquid phase up the pipe
against gravity in a semi-steady / steady way. The liquid
then tends to periodically fall downward on itself. This
occurrence is commonly called “churn flow” due to the
energetic mixing of the phases. Churn flow is highly
unstable and it is strongly advised that metering not
attempted in this flow pattern. However, if the flow does
have a high enough gas dynamic pressure, the flow
pattern will be a semi-steady or steady annular mist flow
(or the equivalent terms listed above). Again, as the
pressure and gas flow rate continue to increase for a set
mass ratio, the liquid annular ring will diminish in depth
and liquid entrainment as the gas core increases, with the
average droplet diameter reducing until all the liquid is
entrained in droplets.
Note, that at very high gas dynamic pressures (i.e., high
pressures and gas flow rates for set mass ratios) for either
horizontal or vertically upward wet gas flows, the mist
flow could have such small average droplet size that the
liquid could be called atomized and the resulting flow
could be called a “pseudo-single phase flow” or a
“homogenized flow.” That is, the wet gas flow starts to
behave like a single-phase fluid, since the two phases are
so well mixed. This is a common assumption among
some in the industry but a warning is given here that it is
very rare for a wet gas industrial flow to reach the
extreme conditions required for an orifice meter to behave
with wet gas flow as it does with single-phase flow.
It should be noted that slug flow and a special pipe flow
condition called “severe slugging” are not always the
same phenomenon. Slug flow, as described above, where
the slug (i.e., the liquid mass that fills the cross section of
the pipe) is caused by the interaction of the gas phase with
an unstable liquid / gas interface can be relatively steady
and the slugs only have moderate kinetic energy. It is
unlikely that a slug flow pattern could cause significant
damage to an orifice plate. However, “severe slugging” is
a term often used that describes a different more
problematic phenomenon. In industrial pipe flows that
can have wet gas flows at low points in pipe work (or
during shutdown periods), excessive liquid quantities can
gather in the pipe work. As the flowing gas is blocked by
this occurrence, the pressure behind the blockage can rise
considerably and result in a large liquid column or “slug”
being propelled downstream at high velocity. The impact
of such a slug with high kinetic energy on pipe work
components can cause significant damage. Orifice plate
meters have been buckled by such impacts. Figure 3
(courtesy of Chevron, Inc.) shows an example of an
orifice plate bent by a liquid slug. Such strike damage on
orifice plates has led to the “wok with a hole” plate
description.
Figure 3. Orifice Plate Buckled by a Slug Strike
While in Wet Gas Service
Buckled orifice plate meters have unknown single phase
performance (as all plate damage is unique) and all wet
gas flow performance is based on knowing the single
phase baseline performance. Also, note that in natural gas
production environments, wet gas flows tend to have
entrained particulates, so wear of the sharp leading edge
of the plate bore can be an issue. A damaged orifice plate
meter will have unknown single-phase performance
characteristics, so the baseline for wet gas flow
performance is also lost. It is important that the condition
of the plate be checked regularly when in service with wet
gas flow. (Removing a buckled orifice plate from an
orifice fitting can be a very time consuming and awkward
task.)
Orifice Plate Meter Wet Gas Flow Performance
The original work on the response of orifice plate meters
to wet gas flows was carried out by Schuster [5] in the
late 1950s. By the early 1960s, Professor Murdock [6]
had written a seminal paper on the topic and then Dr
Chisholm developed these ideas and published a series of
technical papers on this and related subjects over a period
of twenty five years from 1958 to 1983. Two of these
papers [7, 8] are most important with regard to the topic
of wet gas metering with orifice plate meters.
Much of the research up until 1977 was conducted by the
power industry, which was more focused on wet steam
flow, although there were wet natural gas flow data sets
used by Murdock and Chisholm. After 1977, interest in
wet gas flow metering seemed to wane but by the late
1980s, the oil and gas industry was reviving this old
research and adopting it as the starting point for future
research. In general, though, the new researchers
assumed that orifice plate meters could not be good wet
gas meters because the plate would likely act as a dam,
causing liquid holdup upstream of the plate and instability
in the meter readings. However, none of the early
research from Murdock and Chisholm suggested such a
problem existed. Nevertheless, the oil and gas industry
research concentrated on Venturi and cone-type
differential pressure meters.
Rare, brief descriptions of wet gas flow orifice plate
performances at very low mass ratios were released by
McConaghy [9] in 1989 and Ting [10] in 1995. These
papers discussed the effect of extremely small mass ratios
that were at or below the minimum values included in
Murdock and Chisholm’s datasets. McConaghy and Ting
agreed that for very small liquid content, the gas orifice
plate meter would give a lower gas flow prediction than
the actual value (i.e., the reference gas meter used in their
tests). Ting stated:
“McConaghy studied the effect of low liquid entrainment
rate for 4” and 8” meters at β = 0.6. A relatively large
under-measurement error of up to 1.0% was detected at a
Reynolds number range of 3 to 8 million. Lower
measurement errors were detected at β = 0.2.”

Figure 4. Low Mass Ratio Flow Results Through 2”
Diameter Orifice Plate Meters
Ting then showed wet gas data for 2” diameter orifice
plate meters with three beta ratios (i.e., β = 0.37, 0.54,
0.68). The tests were run with air and water at the low
Reynolds number of 90,000 and the low pressure of 4
psig. The maximum mass ratio was approximately 0.13.
Figure 4 shows the results. Like McConaghy, Ting found
a small under-prediction of the gas flow rate (i.e., a
negative bias usually now called an “under-reading”).
The maximum under-reading was approximately -1.5%.
It should be noted however, that due to the extremely low
pressure, the maximum Lockhart-Martinelli parameter
that the maximum mass ratio of 0.13 converted to was
0.005. Ting suggested such a wet gas flow was possible
downstream of inefficient separators or if liquid was to
condense out of a flowing gas stream. Ting reported a
visual description of the flow pattern: “No liquid
accumulation in front of the orifice plate was observed for
the beta ratios tested. Water streaks were seen flowing
over the orifice plate to the other side.” That is, there was
such a low liquid quantity that none of the flow patterns
described above could form.
Murdock and Chisholm tested orifice meters with much
higher mass ratios / Lockhart-Martinelli parameters and
the results were different from those of McConaghy and
Ting’s later, low mass ratio tests. The Murdock and
Chisholm tests were for 0.005 ≤ XLM ≤ 0.3; i.e., the
majority of the data were for a mass ratio an order of
magnitude higher than the McConaghy and Ting trace
liquid tests. There is no overlap between Murdock and
Chisholm’s earlier work and the work of McConaghy and
Ting.
Figure 5. Sketch of Chisholm’s DP Meters Gas to
Liquid Density Ratio Wet Gas Effect
Figure 5 shows a sketch of Chisholm’s findings at higher
mass ratios. The x-axis is the Lockhart-Martinelli
parameter, i.e., for a set gas-to-liquid density ratio, a
direct measure of the liquid content in the gas. The higher
the Lockhart-Martinelli parameter, the greater the liquid
content of the flow. The y-axis shows positive bias on the
actual gas flow rate due to the presence of the liquid.
This is sometimes called the “over-reading.” Here, the
uncorrected gas flow rate value predicted by the orifice
.
meter is denoted as “ m g , Apparent .” The “over-reading” of
the orifice meter with wet gas is:
.
m g , Apparent (2)
Over − Re ading =
.
mg
or
⎛ . ⎞
⎜ m g , Apparent ⎟ (2a)
Over − Re ading % = ⎜ − 1 ⎟⎟ *100%
⎜ mg
.
⎝ ⎠
Chisholm and Murdock stated that as the liquid content of
a gas flow increased, so did the over-reading of an orifice
plate meter. Chisholm went on to show that when all
other conditions were held constant, the pressure
increased (i.e., the gas-to-liquid density) while the over-
reading reduced. Recent research has shown the
Chisholm wet gas orifice plate meter correction factor
published in 1977 agrees extremely well with modern wet
gas orifice meter data from CEESI. Figure 6 shows
results for a 4” diameter, 0.5 beta orifice plate meter
tested with wet natural gas at CEESI.
 CVX COP 4", 0.5 Beta Orifice Meter
All Data with Separated DR g/l, Corrected by Chisholm
40
35
30
25
20
% Error
15
10
5 +2%
0 accordingly to avoid possible DP transmitter saturation.
-5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
-2%
0.3
-10
Xlm
Figure 6. 4” Diameter, 0.5 Beta Orifice Plate Meter
Data
In Figure 6, the solid points are the uncorrected orifice
meter gas flow predictions and the hollow points show the
prediction after the application of the Chisholm equation:
. different. This information is not at all easy to come by in
. m g Apparent
mg =
1 + CX LM + X LM
2 the liquid flow rate in natural gas production are to either
where
1 1
⎛ρ ⎞ 4 ⎛ ρl ⎞ 4
C = ⎜⎜ g ⎟⎟ + ⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎟
⎝ ρl ⎠ ⎝ ρg ⎠
It can be seen that without the Chisholm equation
correction, some of the higher Lockhart-Martinelli
parameter value datasets have over-readings up to
approximately +35%. After the Chisholm correction is
applied, all the data are corrected to less than ±5% error in
the gas flow rate. The majority of the data are corrected
to within ±2%. Chisholm produced his correction factor
by modeling separated flow. It should be noted that the
data that have a “corrected” result >+2% are for flow
patterns that are described as annular mist flows and that
have DPs >500” Water Column (“WC”). This is a
relatively large DP and, in practice, if an orifice meter
experiences DPs >500” WC, the beta ratio should be
increased to reduce the DP to <500” WC. If this is done,
the Chisholm equation corrects the over-reading to give a
gas flow rate within ±2% of the actual gas flow rate value.
In Figure 6, the only exception to this rule is the lowest
pressure (or gas-to-liquid density) tested. Here, it was the
lowest velocities at the lowest pressure that produced the
poorest results. A camera at CEESI identified the
problem to be slugging flow in the test section. That is,
this was an unsteady flow and all meters would give some
error under this inherently unsteady flow pattern. This
was a poor flow condition to attempt to measure.
Chisholm’s wet gas correction for orifice meters,
therefore, worked if the DPs were kept below 500” WC
(i.e., a reasonable request in the field) and the wet gas
flow was steady. It should be noted, however, that
Chisholm’s correction was formulated from test data for
orifice meters in wet gas where the meter diameter was
2½” to 4.” There is little information on the effect of
applying Chisholm’s correction to other pipe diameters.
Note that the over-reading originates from the fact the
liquid in a flow of a set gas mass flow rate increases the
DR g/l 0.018 Uncorrected
DR g/l 0.018 Corrected
DP amount read by the meter. That is, the DP is higher
than expected for the gas flow alone. It is very important
DR g/l 0.045 Uncorrected
DR g/l 0.045 Corrected
DR g/l 0.083 Uncorrected
that meter users understand that wet gas causes unusually
DR g/l 0.083 Corrected high DPs and that the DP transmitters should be selected
A good rule of thumb for wet gas flows with XLM ≤ 0.3 is
to size the DP transmitters to twice the upper range limit
expected for the gas phase alone.
The Liquid Mass Flow Rate
The Achilles heel of most DP meter wet gas corrections is
that the liquid mass flow rate is required to be known
before it can be applied. The Chisholm correlation is no
real applications. Two common methods for obtaining
(3)
use test separator history or apply a wet gas tracer dilution
technique. Here, tracer chemicals (usually fluorescent
dyes) are injected into a wet gas at a known rate. At a
(3a) distance judged suitably far downstream to have allowed
fully-mixed flow to be achieved, samples are taken. The
relative intensity of the fluorescence of the liquid sample
and the injection tracer provides an indication of the
liquid flow rate. Further details of this technique are
outside the scope of this paper.
Worked Example of Applying the Chisholm Correction
The following example shows how the Chisholm wet gas
orifice plate equation can be applied in the field for the
case of a known liquid mass flow rate. An actual test
point from a 4” diameter, schedule 40, 0.5 beta ratio
orifice plate meter tested at the CEESI wet gas test loop is
used.
This wet natural gas at 43.8 bara (635.3 psia) and 306°K
(910F) has a gas density ( ρ g ) of 32.9 kg/m3 (2.06
lbm/ft3) and a liquid density ( ρ l ) of 718.2 kg/m3 (44.84
lbm/ft3). An operator in the field would know such
information. The liquid injection reference meter
indicates that the liquid mass flow rate is 1.98 kg/s (4.37
lbm/s). In the field, this would be information obtained
independently from the orifice plate meter and Chisholm
equation (e.g., from the test separator history or a tracer
dilution technique). The reference gas meter indicates
that the actual gas mass flow rate is 1.60 kg/s (3.53
lbm/s). A meter operator in the field would not know this
gas flow rate information. The resulting differential
pressure produced across the orifice plate meter by the
wet gas flow is measured as 44,160 Pa (177.6” WC).
Applying the standard dry gas calculation method with
this differential pressure gives a gas mass flow reading
 . Comments on the Published Research and his Worked
(i.e., m g , Apparent ) of 2.14 kg/s (4.72 lbm/s). Here, we see Example
that the presence of the liquid has caused the meter to
over-read the actual gas mass flow rate. The difference Note the measured differential pressure was 177.6” WC.
between the uncorrected gas mass flow rate prediction Steven, et al. [11], suggest the Chisholm equation is only
and the actual (or reference) gas mass flow rate is 33.7%. applicable if the differential pressure is less than 500”
Of course, in the field, the operator only knows the gas WC, so this example is within this limit.
and liquid densities, and the raw differential pressure and,
therefore, the uncorrected gas flow rate prediction Note that Chisholm created his correlation from orifice
. meter data with a pipe diameter range of 2.5” to 4.” This
( m g , Apparent ). He or she, as yet, does not know the example is for a 4” diameter meter. The effect of
actual gas mass flow rate. Now, if the liquid mass flow extrapolating the diameter value in either direction is not
rate is available through an independent source, the well understood. Chisholm used multiple datasets with
Chisholm equation can be applied to find the gas mass several types of liquid. Researchers currently believe that
flow rate. orifice plate meters are relatively resilient to the effect of
changing the liquid properties on wet gas flow over-
The gas to liquid density ratio is: readings. Hall, et al. [12], showed 2”, schedule 80, 0.515
beta orifice meter wet gas data for natural gas with
different mixes of water and hydrocarbon liquid. It was
2.06 lbm / ft 3
Density Ratio = = 0.0458 found that the liquid phase had little effect on the wet gas
44.84 lbm / ft 3 over-reading, but all the 2” diameter pipe data (regardless
of the ratio of water and hydrocarbon liquid) tended to
agree and give a smaller over-reading than the data for the
Applying Equation 3a gives: 2.5” to 4” diameter pipe data. This resulted in the
Chisholm correlation over correcting the gas flow rate to
1 1 1
give an under prediction. Figure 7 shows this result as
⎛ρ ⎞ 4 ⎛ ρl ⎞ 4
⎟⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ = (0.0458)4 + ⎛⎜
1 1 ⎞4
C = ⎜⎜ g ⎟ = 2.62 shown by Hall.
⎜ρ ⎟
⎝ ρl ⎠ ⎝ g⎠ ⎝ 0.0458 ⎠
60
200 psia Uncorrected
Now, with Equation 1 used in Equation 3 with this value 200 psia Chisholm Correction
of “C,” we get: 50 400 psia Uncorrected

. 400 psia Chisholm Corrected

40 800 psia Uncorrected
. m g Apparent
mg = 800 psia Chisholm Corrected

2 30
⎛ .
⎞ ⎛ .
⎞
% Error

⎜ ml ρg ⎟ ⎜ ml ρg ⎟
1 + C⎜ . ⎟⎟ + ⎜⎜ . ⎟⎟
20
⎜ mg ρl ρl
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ mg ⎠ 10
+2%
0
.
Now, if we know m g , Apparent , ρ g , ρl , C , and if we -10
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 -2% 0.4 0.5

. Xlm
know the liquid mass flow rate, m l , we can iterate the
Chisholm equation for the only unknown, i.e., the actual Figure 7. BP 2” Diameter, 0.515 Beta Orifice Meter
. Wet Gas Data from CEESI - Uncorrected
gas mass flow rate, m g . That is: and with Chisholm Correction
. 4.72 Hall pointed out that Chisholm’s correlation is a data fit
mg = and, hence, new data fits can be made on the model
2
⎛ 4.37 1 ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜ 4.37 ⎞
1 + 2.62⎜ . 0.0458 ⎟
created by Chisholm for orifice meters out of Chisholm’s
+ .
⎜ 0.0458 ⎟ ⎜ m ⎟ data range. For Hall’s very limited 2” diameter data set, it
⎝ mg ⎠ ⎝ g ⎠ was found that the following correction factor worked
well:
.
The result is m g equals 3.57 lbm/s (i.e. 1.62 kg/s). That 1 1

⎛ρ ⎞ 5 ⎛ ρl ⎞ 5
is +0.9% difference from the reference gas meter, C = ⎜⎜ g ⎟⎟ + ⎜ ⎟ (3b)
⎜ ⎟
compared to an uncorrected +33.7% from the reference ⎝ ρl ⎠ ⎝ ρg ⎠
gas meter.
Figure 8 shows the performance of equation 3b with the
uncorrected data shown in Figure 7. However, Hall
expressly stated that this was an example from only a
small dataset and users should apply it to a 2” diameter
orifice meter wet gas flow situation at their own risk.
More research is required to understand better the
response of smaller orifice meters to wet gas.
60
200 psia Uncorrected
50
200 psia Corrected
400 psia Uncorrected
400 psia Corrected
40 800 psia Uncorrected
800 psia Corrected
30
% Error
20
10
0 References
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
-10
Xlm
Figure 8. BP 2” Diameter, 0.515 Beta Orifice Meter
Wet Gas Data from CEESI - Uncorrected
and with Altered Chisholm Correction
Finally, it should be noted that little has been said with
regard to vertical flow applications. Little information is
in the public domain with regard to this. It is widely
agreed that no meter should be installed where there could
be churn flow. Annular mist flow installations are more
appropriate, but little to no data and correction factors
have been published on the issue.
Conclusions
It is very important to check the plate regularly for
damage when the orifice meter is in wet gas service. A
damaged plate must be replaced.
All published research is for horizontal flow (although tap
position - whether an orifice meter has flange taps, corner
taps, or pipe taps - appears to make little difference to the
wet gas response). No public information is available for
vertical wet gas flow orifice meter installations. If an
orifice meter has to be installed for a vertically upward
wet gas flow application, it should at least be in a
situation where annular mist flow exists and not churn
flow.
An operator should check to confirm that the DP
transmitter is not reading the upper range limit of the
device. If it is, the device is likely saturated and the DP
reading is not reliable. This is a very common problem
with wet gas flow measurement with any DP meter -
including the orifice meter.
Trace liquids in a gas flow can cause an under-reading of
the actual gas flow rate by up to 2%. However, there are
no correction factors available in the literature.
Considerable liquid mass flow rate with the gas flow will
cause an orifice meter to over-predict the gas flow rate.
For a liquid mass flow rate known from another source,
there are correction factors published for horizontal meter
applications. The Chisholm correction factor is widely
considered to be the best, but users should be aware that
this is for DPs ≤ 500” WC and for pipe diameters of
between 2 ½” and 4.” For within this range and with an
accurately known liquid mass flow rate, the Chisholm
correction is said to predict the gas flow rate to within
±2% of the true value. Use of this correlation outside this
operating range can lead to unspecified additional
uncertainties. As yet, no published correlation is widely
accepted for use with meter diameters outside the range of
½” and 4.”
+2%
-2% 0.5
1. International Standard Organization, 5167 Part 2.
2. American Gas Association Report No. 3, Part 1.
3. Gas Processors Association GPA 8185-90, Part1.
4. American National Standard Institution ANSI/API
MPMS 14.3.1
5. Schuster, R.A., “Effect of Entrained Liquids On A
Gas Measurement,” Pipe Line Industry Journal,
February 1959.
6. Murdock, J.W., “Two-Phase Flow Measurements
with Orifices" Journal of Basic Engineering, Vol.84,
pp 419-433, December 1962.
7. Chisholm, D., "Flow of Incompressible Two-Phase
Mixtures through Sharp-Edged Orifices," Journal of
Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 9, No.1, 1967.
8. Chisholm, D., "Research Note: Two-Phase Flow
Through Sharp-Edged Orifices," Journal of
Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 19, No. 3,
1977.
9. McConaghy, B.J., D.G. Bell, and W. Studzinski,
“How Orifice-Plate Condition Affects Measurement
Accuracy,” Pipe Line Industry Journal, December
1989.
10. Ting V.C., et al., “Effect of Liquid Entrainment on
the Accuracy of orifice Meters for Gas Flow
Measurement,” International Gas Research
Conference, 1993.
11. Steven, R., F. Ting, and G. Stobie, “A Re-Evaluation
of Axioms Regarding Orifice Meter Wet Gas Flow
Performance”, South East Asia Hydrocarbon Flow
Measurement Workshop, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
March 2007.
12. Hall, A. and R. Steven, “New Data for the Correction
of Orifice Plate Measurements in Wet Gas
Conditions,” South East Asia Hydrocarbon Flow
Measurement Workshop, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
March 2007.

Josh Kinney