Hi Everyone ,
we had recently supplied a 3" CMF300H corilolis coupled with a 2700 transmitter configured for 2 analog outputs, were 1 output is configured for gas flow rate in MMSCFD and the second analog output for density in SGU. However, we have got a complain from our customer saying the output seems to be fixed at a constant value.The density range they expect to be hovering around 0.575 to 0.790. But the meter constantly returns a value around 0.590 +/- with very slight increment or decrements. Thereafter, i asked them to check the wiring and also if the output was fixed using prolink III but they said it was all ok .Hence, can anyone please shed some light on something i might have missed out or recommendations i can give to the client.
PS: the Coriolis is mounted in the flag up position in the outlet of a horizontal separator
Many thanks in advance.
Best regards
Alan
Hi Alan,
technically speaking the meters operate perfectly fine, but the application is not within the recommended scope.The density measurement with a coriolis meter is based on the natural frequency of a system which is made up by the mass of the coriolis tubes and the mass of the fluid they are filled with.As the mass and the volume of the tubes is constant the shift in frequency is based on the change in density of the fluid that fills the tube volume.
In the technical data sheet there is an accuracy stated for the density measurement of liquids and slurries, but not for the density measurement of gases.Reasons for that are the compressibility of the gas and the very small mass of gas in the tubes compared to the mass of the tubes.
Applying the density accuracy of liquids to the gas would lead to the following:The stated accuracy of +-0.5 kg/m³ equals +- 0.031 lb/ft³.At a given density of 0.59 lb/ft³ you would have to expect an error of at least +- 5.3 %.
Does the application require an exact measurement of the density, which is out of scope or would it be good enough to see a trend, which should work?
To wrap this up, the meter is working fine within technical and physical limits.
Thomas
In reply to Thomas Otten: