The effect of high‐fidelity flow models on electromagnetic flowmeter analysis
The current research is unclear regarding the sensitivity of the output of a magnetic flowmeter analysis to the fidelity of the simulated flow field. This study evaluates the effects of higher fidelity models on magnetic flowmeter analysis. An eddy viscosity model, second‐moment closure model, and a...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | AWWA water science 2022-03, Vol.4 (2), p.n/a |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | n/a |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | |
| container_title | AWWA water science |
| container_volume | 4 |
| creator | Beck, Kade J. Barfuss, Steven L. Sharp, Zachary B. Johnson, Michael C. Moon, Todd K. Dutta, Som |
| description | The current research is unclear regarding the sensitivity of the output of a magnetic flowmeter analysis to the fidelity of the simulated flow field. This study evaluates the effects of higher fidelity models on magnetic flowmeter analysis. An eddy viscosity model, second‐moment closure model, and a Large‐Eddy simulation were compared to laboratory velocity profile data 0.67D downstream of a 1.58D elbow at a Reynolds number of 34,000. The Large‐Eddy simulation results matched the laboratory velocity profile data best. The authors conclude that the fidelity of the flow field model does cause differences in the analysis of the flowmeter voltage output. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/aws2.1279 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2656042480</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2656042480</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2979-476f1987872ae43383a9c1c8f097af105707e711b2d941e9d6db26241d18a2723</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10L1uwjAQB3CraqUiytA3sNSpQ8DnOLE9ItQvCYmhVB0tk5whKMHUDkJsfYQ-Y5-kATp06eSz7nen05-QW2BDYIyP7D7yIXCpL0iPZ1ImCnK4_FNfk0GMa9ZZECLjqkdm8xVSdA6LlnpHV9Vy9f355aoS66o9UFf7PW1894vUbyjWnQu-scsNtlVxajfYYqB2Y-tDrOINuXK2jjj4ffvk7fFhPnlOprOnl8l4mhRcS50ImTvQSirJLYo0VanVBRTKMS2tA5ZJJlECLHipBaAu83LBcy6gBGW55Gmf3J33boP_2GFszdrvQndENDzPcia4UKxT92dVBB9jQGe2oWpsOBhg5hiZOUZmjpF1dnS2-6rGw__QjN9f-WniB4DQbRU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2656042480</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The effect of high‐fidelity flow models on electromagnetic flowmeter analysis</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Beck, Kade J. ; Barfuss, Steven L. ; Sharp, Zachary B. ; Johnson, Michael C. ; Moon, Todd K. ; Dutta, Som</creator><creatorcontrib>Beck, Kade J. ; Barfuss, Steven L. ; Sharp, Zachary B. ; Johnson, Michael C. ; Moon, Todd K. ; Dutta, Som</creatorcontrib><description>The current research is unclear regarding the sensitivity of the output of a magnetic flowmeter analysis to the fidelity of the simulated flow field. This study evaluates the effects of higher fidelity models on magnetic flowmeter analysis. An eddy viscosity model, second‐moment closure model, and a Large‐Eddy simulation were compared to laboratory velocity profile data 0.67D downstream of a 1.58D elbow at a Reynolds number of 34,000. The Large‐Eddy simulation results matched the laboratory velocity profile data best. The authors conclude that the fidelity of the flow field model does cause differences in the analysis of the flowmeter voltage output.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2577-8161</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2577-8161</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/aws2.1279</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>distorted velocity profile ; disturbance ; dry calibration ; Elbow ; electromagnetic ; Flow control ; flow field ; flowmeter accuracy ; Flowmeters ; high‐fidelity ; Laboratories ; large‐eddy simulation ; MHD ; Reynolds number ; Simulation ; turbulence ; Velocity ; weight function</subject><ispartof>AWWA water science, 2022-03, Vol.4 (2), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2022 American Water Works Association.</rights><rights>2022 American Water Works Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2979-476f1987872ae43383a9c1c8f097af105707e711b2d941e9d6db26241d18a2723</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2979-476f1987872ae43383a9c1c8f097af105707e711b2d941e9d6db26241d18a2723</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6680-6870 ; 0000-0002-2491-5278 ; 0000-0002-6954-0836 ; 0000-0001-7124-0384</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Faws2.1279$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Faws2.1279$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Beck, Kade J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barfuss, Steven L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharp, Zachary B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Michael C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moon, Todd K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dutta, Som</creatorcontrib><title>The effect of high‐fidelity flow models on electromagnetic flowmeter analysis</title><title>AWWA water science</title><description>The current research is unclear regarding the sensitivity of the output of a magnetic flowmeter analysis to the fidelity of the simulated flow field. This study evaluates the effects of higher fidelity models on magnetic flowmeter analysis. An eddy viscosity model, second‐moment closure model, and a Large‐Eddy simulation were compared to laboratory velocity profile data 0.67D downstream of a 1.58D elbow at a Reynolds number of 34,000. The Large‐Eddy simulation results matched the laboratory velocity profile data best. The authors conclude that the fidelity of the flow field model does cause differences in the analysis of the flowmeter voltage output.</description><subject>distorted velocity profile</subject><subject>disturbance</subject><subject>dry calibration</subject><subject>Elbow</subject><subject>electromagnetic</subject><subject>Flow control</subject><subject>flow field</subject><subject>flowmeter accuracy</subject><subject>Flowmeters</subject><subject>high‐fidelity</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>large‐eddy simulation</subject><subject>MHD</subject><subject>Reynolds number</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>turbulence</subject><subject>Velocity</subject><subject>weight function</subject><issn>2577-8161</issn><issn>2577-8161</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10L1uwjAQB3CraqUiytA3sNSpQ8DnOLE9ItQvCYmhVB0tk5whKMHUDkJsfYQ-Y5-kATp06eSz7nen05-QW2BDYIyP7D7yIXCpL0iPZ1ImCnK4_FNfk0GMa9ZZECLjqkdm8xVSdA6LlnpHV9Vy9f355aoS66o9UFf7PW1894vUbyjWnQu-scsNtlVxajfYYqB2Y-tDrOINuXK2jjj4ffvk7fFhPnlOprOnl8l4mhRcS50ImTvQSirJLYo0VanVBRTKMS2tA5ZJJlECLHipBaAu83LBcy6gBGW55Gmf3J33boP_2GFszdrvQndENDzPcia4UKxT92dVBB9jQGe2oWpsOBhg5hiZOUZmjpF1dnS2-6rGw__QjN9f-WniB4DQbRU</recordid><startdate>202203</startdate><enddate>202203</enddate><creator>Beck, Kade J.</creator><creator>Barfuss, Steven L.</creator><creator>Sharp, Zachary B.</creator><creator>Johnson, Michael C.</creator><creator>Moon, Todd K.</creator><creator>Dutta, Som</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6680-6870</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2491-5278</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6954-0836</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7124-0384</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202203</creationdate><title>The effect of high‐fidelity flow models on electromagnetic flowmeter analysis</title><author>Beck, Kade J. ; Barfuss, Steven L. ; Sharp, Zachary B. ; Johnson, Michael C. ; Moon, Todd K. ; Dutta, Som</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2979-476f1987872ae43383a9c1c8f097af105707e711b2d941e9d6db26241d18a2723</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>distorted velocity profile</topic><topic>disturbance</topic><topic>dry calibration</topic><topic>Elbow</topic><topic>electromagnetic</topic><topic>Flow control</topic><topic>flow field</topic><topic>flowmeter accuracy</topic><topic>Flowmeters</topic><topic>high‐fidelity</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>large‐eddy simulation</topic><topic>MHD</topic><topic>Reynolds number</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>turbulence</topic><topic>Velocity</topic><topic>weight function</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Beck, Kade J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barfuss, Steven L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharp, Zachary B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Michael C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moon, Todd K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dutta, Som</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>AWWA water science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Beck, Kade J.</au><au>Barfuss, Steven L.</au><au>Sharp, Zachary B.</au><au>Johnson, Michael C.</au><au>Moon, Todd K.</au><au>Dutta, Som</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The effect of high‐fidelity flow models on electromagnetic flowmeter analysis</atitle><jtitle>AWWA water science</jtitle><date>2022-03</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>2</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>2577-8161</issn><eissn>2577-8161</eissn><abstract>The current research is unclear regarding the sensitivity of the output of a magnetic flowmeter analysis to the fidelity of the simulated flow field. This study evaluates the effects of higher fidelity models on magnetic flowmeter analysis. An eddy viscosity model, second‐moment closure model, and a Large‐Eddy simulation were compared to laboratory velocity profile data 0.67D downstream of a 1.58D elbow at a Reynolds number of 34,000. The Large‐Eddy simulation results matched the laboratory velocity profile data best. The authors conclude that the fidelity of the flow field model does cause differences in the analysis of the flowmeter voltage output.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/aws2.1279</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6680-6870</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2491-5278</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6954-0836</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7124-0384</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 2577-8161 |
| ispartof | AWWA water science, 2022-03, Vol.4 (2), p.n/a |
| issn | 2577-8161 2577-8161 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2656042480 |
| source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | distorted velocity profile disturbance dry calibration Elbow electromagnetic Flow control flow field flowmeter accuracy Flowmeters high‐fidelity Laboratories large‐eddy simulation MHD Reynolds number Simulation turbulence Velocity weight function |
| title | The effect of high‐fidelity flow models on electromagnetic flowmeter analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T02%3A53%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20effect%20of%20high%E2%80%90fidelity%20flow%20models%20on%20electromagnetic%20flowmeter%20analysis&rft.jtitle=AWWA%20water%20science&rft.au=Beck,%20Kade%20J.&rft.date=2022-03&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=2&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=2577-8161&rft.eissn=2577-8161&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/aws2.1279&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2656042480%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2656042480&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |