Flow Meter Lab Report:

Team 3

Anna Grace Keel

BSEN 3310 - Dr. Fasina

November 13, 2023

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 5
Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 7
Initial Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 7
Volumetric Flow Rate Comparative Analysis ............................................................................. 7
Flow Meter Device Analysis ....................................................................................................... 9
Energy Loss Assessment ......................................................................................................... 9
Pressure Drop Assessment .................................................................................................... 10
Discharge Coefficient Assessment .........................................................................................11
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 12
References ..................................................................................................................................... 14

2
Abstract

A flow metrology apparatus allows for the investigation of unique flow meter characteristics

affecting the quantified energy loss and efficiency for a device. The methodology of the EDIBON

FNE18 system includes analyzing the venturi, rotameter, and orifice device by performing trials

of six set rotameter volumetric flow rates. The rotameter flow rates were compared to the eight

manometer taps and the dump valve system flow rates. A comparison analysis for the volumetric

flow rates between the rotameter and the dump valve system revealed a large percentage error

between the respective devices. The Bernoulli Equation provided a basis for the energy loss and

pressure drop assessment. The venturi meter is the most effective flow meter device and has

minimal energy losses in comparison to the orifice and rotameter. For example, at a flow rate of

3.7 x 10-4 m3/s the venturi had an energy loss of .137 J/kg, the rotameter had an energy loss of

2.335 J/kg, and the orifice had an energy loss of 1.138 J/kg. The pressure drop assessment confirms

the relationship between pressure drop and flow meter efficiency. For example, at a flow rate of

2.1 x 10-4 m3/s, venturi had a pressure drop of 58.86 Pa, orifice had a pressure drop of 470.88 Pa,

and rotameter had a pressure drop of 2295.54 Pa. The experimental data confirmed that a higher

pressure drop provided greater inefficiency for the flow meter. A coefficient discharge analysis

was performed on venturi and orifice. Venturi provides a theoretical value of 0.98 and estimated

value of 1.97 while orifice provides a theoretical value of 0.61 and estimated value of 0.76.

Through the analysis, it was confirmed that larger data outliers provide a greater percent error

for the venturi and smaller data outliers provide a smaller percent error for orifice. It was proven

that the order of efficiency in flow meters from least to greatest are rotameter, orifice, and venturi.

The experiment highlights how the volumetric flow rates, energy loss, pressure drop, and

coefficient of discharge relate to the efficiency of the flow metrology devices.

3
Introduction

The experimental lab highlights the EDIBON FN18 flow metrology apparatus. It analyzes the

relationship between the volumetric flow rates in the rotameter and dump valve system, quantifies

the energy losses for each flow meter device, assesses the pressure drop for each flow meter device,

and compares the estimated and theoretical discharge coefficient for both venturi and orifice flow

meters. The flow meter devices analyzed in the experiment include venturi, rotameter, and orifice.

The venturi meter was invented by Clemens Herschel and is the most costly and accurate flow

measurement device, however, it is often only utilized for challenges containing small pressure

drops (Cengel & Cimbala, 2018). The oil industry, for example, relies heavily on flow meters for

the accuracy of product flow. High oil prices cause companies to drill for highly viscous oils with

significantly lower Reynolds numbers, resulting in problematic accuracy for oil flow measurement

(Hollingshead et al., 2011). Each flow meter device is unique to its own advantages and

disadvantages. For example, the venturi meter is preferred for larger pipe diameters while the

orifice meter is preferred for higher pressure drops (Meribout et al., 2020). The venturi, rotameter,

and orifice flow metrology devices are analyzed to determine their respective energy losses,

pressure drops, and discharge coefficients. The experiment identifies how the rate of pipe flow

through a system alters the characteristics of a fluid mechanic apparatus.

Objectives

The focus of the flow meter lab is to highlight the EDIBON FN18 flow metrology apparatus which

includes the venturi flow meter, rotameter flow meter, orifice flow meter, manometer taps, and a

dump valve system. The experimental objective is to determine the discharge coefficients for the

4
venturi and orifice flow meter and assess the energy losses from the pipe flow in the venturi,

rotameter, and orifice flow meter.

Methodology

The EDIBON FNE18 utilized in the experiment contains three flow metrology devices: venturi,

rotameter, and orifice. The FNE18 device consist of eight manometer taps which measure the head

loss for each respective flowmeter. Tap 1 through 3 correlated with venturi, tap 4 through 5 with

rotameter, and tap 6 through 8 with orifice. Tap 1 minus tap 3 calculated venturi head loss, tap 4

minus tap 5 calculated rotameter head loss, and tap 6 minus tap 8 orifice head loss. A dump valve

system attached to the device measured the volumetric flow rate through the system. The flow rate

was initially set to 1315 L/h for an increment of 30 seconds. For each set flow rate, the initial and

final volume of the water was observed at the tank. Simultaneously, measurements of manometer

taps 1-8 were recorded. The measurements for the rotameter volumetric flow rates, dump system

volumes, and manometer taps were observed and recorded for each of the remaining five trials.

The trials gradually decreased the set flow rates to 1000 L/h, 750 L/h, 500 L/h, 350 L/h 200 L/h

respectively.

5
F igure 1. EDIBON F NE18 F low Met er Dem onst rat ion Device

F igure 2. Sett ing t he Rot am et er Volum et ric F low Rat e

6
Results and Discussion

Initial Data Collection

Given the objectives for the experiment, the initial data was collected over a repeated process of

six trials starting from a flow rate of 1315 L/h and gradually decreasing to 200 L/h. The

measurements recorded included the manometer tap height (mm) for tubes 1-8 (Table 1), rotameter

flow rates (L/h), and the initial and final volumes (L) for the dump valve system (Table 2).

Table 1. Manom et er Tap Recordings

Table 2. Rot am et er and Dump Syst em F low Rat es

Volumetric Flow Rate Comparative Analysis

The dump system initial and final observed volumes were converted into a volumetric flow rate

by calculating the change in volume divided by the set time increment of 30 seconds (Table 3).

7
 Table 3. Rot am et er and Dump Syst em F low Rat es

The percent error of the rotameter and dump system flow rates were calculated (Figure 3). The

calculated percent error decreased as the observed flow rate form the rotameter increased. It is

notable that the large percent error potentially results from incorrect observations collected for the

rotameter along with the initial and final volumes from the dump system. The rate of pipe flow

could impact the difference between the two volumetric flow rates, resulting in an inconsistent

conclusion for the accuracy of the rotameter. It is advisable to perform more experimental testing

before employing the rotameter and dump valve system into the industry.

F igure 3. Relat ionship Bet ween P ercent Error of t he Rot am eter and Dum p Syst em F low Rat e

8
Flow Meter Device Analysis

Energy Loss Assessment

The graphical representation between energy loss and increasing flow rate reveals the order of

efficiency for each flow meter device (Figure 4). The most to least effective flow meter device in

respective order is the venturi, orifice, and the rotameter. The venturi’s energy loss increases

slightly as volumetric flow rate increases from a flow rate of 6x10-5 m3/s to 3.7x10-4 m3/s. The

venturi meter includes a converging and diverging section connected by a throat allowing the

pressure drop to determine the flow rate (Mokhatab et al., 2018). The venturi meter design results

in significantly lower pressure drops, providing a system that results in minimizing energy loss.

𝑃 𝑃2
ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 (𝑚) = ℎ𝐿 = 𝜌𝑔1 − (1)
𝜌𝑔

P = Pressure (Pa)

𝑘𝑔
𝜌 = 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 (1000 )
𝑚3

g = gravitational constant (9.81 m/s2)

𝐽
𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 𝑙𝑜𝑠𝑠 (𝑘𝑔) = ℎ𝐿 ∗ 𝑔 (2)

9
 F igure 4. Relat ionship Bet ween Energy Loss and F low Rat e

Pressure Drop Assessment

The graphical representation between flow rate and square root of pressure drop reveals as the

pressure drop increases, the flow rate increases. The graphical intercepts were set to zero. Venturi

and orifice flow meters have a strong linear trendline with an R 2 parameter of 0.9467 and 0.9933

respectively. It is notable that the rotameter trendline is not linear and remains vertical at an

approximate constant pressure between 47 and 48 Pa. Due to the efficient design of the venturi, it

proves to have the lowest pressure drop values. For example, for trial 1 at flow rate of 3.7x10-4 m3

/s, the venturi square root pressure drop is 12.914 Pa while the orifice square root pressure drop is

33.734 Pa. The graphical representation provides further evidence of the correlation between

pressure drop values and flow meter efficiency; higher pressure drop equals greater flow meter

inefficiency. It is notable to consider the relationship between pressure drop and flow rate to

10
determine the size of pump or motor to employ as an engineer. Higher pressure drops across a pipe

will maximize the energy loss and therefore require a more powerful pump or motor (Pomelo,

2023).

𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑑𝑟𝑜𝑝 (𝑃𝑎) = ∆𝑃𝐿 = ℎ𝐿 ∗ 𝜌 ∗ 𝑔 (3)

0.00040
0.00035 y = 3E-05x
R² = 0.9467
0.00030
Flow Rate (m^3/s)

0.00025
0.00020
0.00015
0.00010 y = 1E-05x
R² = 0.9933
0.00005
0.00000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Square Root of Pressure Drop (Pa)

Venturi (Pa) Rotameter (Pa) Orifice (Pa)

F igure 5. Relat ionship Bet ween F low Rat e and Square Root of t he Pressure Drop

Discharge Coefficient Assessment

Coefficient of discharge analysis was calculated from the slope provided in (Figure 4). The

theoretical discharge coefficient for venturi is 0.98 (Cengel & Cimbala, 2018). The estimated

venturi discharge coefficient of 1.97 was determined by the given equation (4). The percent error

between the two values is 100.68%, this could be linked to a calculated pressure drop of 0 Pa for

trial 5. It is possible that manometer taps 1 and 3 were not the same value but instead incorrectly

read due to human error during the experimental observation. The orifice theoretical discharge

11
coefficient was calculated to be 0.61 for high Reynolds numbers from the developed theoretically

determined equation on page 399 (Cengel & Cimbala, 2018). The estimated discharge coefficient

was determined by equation (4) and was determined to be 0.76. The orifice meter data contain less

significant outliers resulting in a smaller percentage error of 24.47%.

(4)

Cd = Coefficient of Discharge

A1 = cross sectional area (m2)

A2 = cross sectional area (m2)

Table 4. P ropert ies of Vent uri and Orif ice F low Met ers

Flow meter ΔP A1 (m^2) A2 (m^2)

Venturi P1-P2 8.04E-04 3.14E-04
Orifice P6-P7 9.62E-04 2.83E-04

Table 5. Coef f icient of Discharge Com parat ive Asse ssm ent

Discharge Analysis Venturi Orifice

Estimated Discharge 1.97 0.76
Theoretical Discharge 0.98 0.61
Percent Error 100.68 24.47

Conclusion

In conclusion, the flow meter lab highlights the EDIBON FN18 flow metrology apparatus which

includes the venturi flow meter, rotameter flow meter, orifice flow meter, manometer taps, and a

12
dump valve system. A volumetric flow rate comparative analysis was performed between the

rotameter and dump valve system. A percentage error analysis between the two values provided

evidence that percent error decreased as the observed flow rate form the rotameter increased. It

also alluded that the large percentage error values signified inconsistency in devices and team

observations. The graphical representation between energy loss and increasing flow rate revealed

the efficiency order of the flow meter devices from least to greatest: rotameter, orifice, and venturi.

The venturi meter design results in significantly lower pressure drops, providing a system that

results in minimizing energy loss. The graphical representation between flow rate and square root

of pressure drop provide significant evidence of the correlation between pressure drop values and

flow meter efficiency. It was revealed that higher pressure drop provide greater inefficiency in the

flow meter device, supporting the theme that the venturi flow meter is the most accurate and

efficient device due to its’ design. The theoretical discharge coefficient for venturi is 0.98 and the

estimated discharge coefficient is 1.97. The theoretical discharge coefficient for orifice is 0.61 and

the estimated discharge coefficient is 0.76. The large percentage error for venturi is from a

calculated pressure drop of 0 Pa for trial 5, likely due to misreading the manometer height taps

during team observations. The experiment determined the discharge coefficients for the venturi

and orifice flow meter along with assessing the energy losses from the pipe flow in the venturi,

rotameter, and orifice flow meter.

13
References

Cengel, Y. A., & Cimbala, J. M. (2018). Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications.

McGraw-Hill Education.

Hollingshead, C. L., Johnson, M. C., Barfuss, S. L., & Spall, R. E. (2011). Discharge coefficient

performance of Venturi, standard concentric orifice plate, V-cone and wedge flow meters

at low Reynolds Numbers. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 78(3–4), 559–

566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2011.08.008

Meribout, M., Azzi, A., Ghendour, N., Kharoua, N., Khezzar, L., & AlHosani, E. (2020).

Multiphase flow meters targeting oil & gas industries. Measurement, 165, 108111.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2020.108111

Mokhatab, S., Poe, W. A., & Mak, J. Y. (2018, October 26). Gas Processing Plant Automation.

Handbook of Natural Gas Transmission and Processing (Fourth Edition).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128158173000204

Pomelo. (2023b, September 7). Understanding the relationship between flow and pressure. Atlas

Scientific. https://atlas-scientific.com/blog/relationship-between-flow-and-pressure

14