APMP TC Initiative Project - Research on the Calibration of 3D Pitot Tubes and
Flow Measurements of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Participants:
CMS: Hsin-Hung Lee, Chun-Min Su
NMI: Liang Zhang, Chi Wang
KRISS: Woong Kang, Yong-Moon Choi
NIST: Iosif I. Shinder
September 2014
Speaker: Chun-Min Su
Contents
• Introduction
• Objective and collaboration
• Activities between project members
• Current progress
• Future work and planning
Where on earth are you most likely to die early from air pollution?
Introduction
Stationary Source Emissions in air quality terminology is any fixed emitter of air
pollutants, such as fossil fuel burning power plants,
petroleum refineries, petrochemical plants, food
processing plants and other heavy industrial
sources
Objective and Collaboration
Pitot tube characterization
(CMS, NIM, KRISS, NIST)
• L-type, S-type, Prism-type, Omni, Cobra
• CFD, Smoke visualization
Standard traceability (CMS)
• Differential pressure
Calibration method and facility
(CMS, KRISS, NIST)
• Nulling & Non-nulling method
• Traversing stage design
Uncertainty evaluation (KRISS)
• Stack flow
Calibration of 3D
Pitot Tubes and
Flow Measurements
of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Activities between Project Members
• Guest research at NIST (Dr. Hsin-Hung Lee, CMS)
– November 2012 to June 2013
• Guest research at NIST (Dr. Liang Zhang, NIM)
– June 2013 to June 2014
• Guest research at NIST (Dr. Woong Kang, KRISS)
– March to September 2014
• Project and progress discussion at NIST (Hsin-Hung
Lee, Liang Zhang, Woong Kang, Iosif I. Shinder)
– April 8th to 12th, 2014
Current progress (1) - Omni-type probe and pressure scanner
Omni type of 3D pitot tube Pressure scanner
𝐶𝑃_𝑃𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ = (𝑃3 − 𝑃2)/(𝑃1 − 𝑃 ) (1)
𝐶𝑃_𝑌𝑎𝑤 = (𝑃5 − 𝑃4)/(𝑃1 − 𝑃 ) (2)
𝐶𝑝𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = (𝑃1 − 𝑃𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 )/(𝑃1 − 𝑃 ) (3)
𝐶𝑝𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 = (𝑃 − 𝑃𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 )/(𝑃1 − 𝑃 ) (4)
𝑃 = 𝑃2 + 𝑃3 + 𝑃4 + 𝑃5 4 (6)
Piston-type Pressure Generator (CMS)
10 kPa 差壓 600 Pa 差壓
1 2 3 4
USB HUB
MOXA
10 kPa 600 Pa
活塞壓力
產生器
被校件 查核件 標準件 被校件 查核件 標準件
Range of differential pressure / Extended uncertainty
(0 to 600) Pa / U = 2.5 Pa
Current progress (1) - Pressure calibration
Current progress (1) - Calibration of pitot tube and traversing stage design
Pitch angle vs. Pitch angle pressure coefficient
Pitch angle vs. Velocity pressure coefficient
Pitch angle vs. Total pressure coefficient
Step 1: Align the probe so that the center hole is pointing towards a reference position. Step 2: Rotate probe until P2=P3. This is the Yaw angle. Step 3: Calculate Pitch Angle Pressure Coefficient [(P4-P5)/(P1-P23)]. Step 4: Determine Pitch Angle. Step 5: Determine Velocity Pressure Coefficient [(Pt-Ps)/(P1-P23)]. Step 6: Calculate Velocity pressure (Pt-Ps). Step 7: Determine Total Pressure Coefficient [(P1-Pt)/(Pt-Ps)]. Step 8: Calculate (P1-Pt) and obtain Pt.
Step 3
Step 4
Step 4
Step 5
Step 4
Step 7
Current progress (1) - Comparison of nulling and non-nulling calibration
Adaptive-Network-based Fuzzy Inference System (ANFIS)
0
2
4
6
8
Pitc
h
Yaw
CpA
CpB
CpB
C
pA
CpB
Y
aw
CpB
P
itch
CpB
P
itch Y
aw
CpB
P
itch C
pA
CpA
C
pB
P
itch Y
aw
Training (Circles) and Checking (Asterisks) Errors
RM
SE
ANFIS sequence forward search
Meshing
Pitot tube simulation data is very sensitive to the boundary layer
mesh
Ansys Meshing patch confine method is not consistent
Tetrahedral mesh fit experimental data better than Hexahedral
mesh
Finally the mesh was generated by the Octree method inside
Ansys Meshing(mesh independent and select ICEM File Output)
Current progress (2) - Meshing of pitot tube CFD simulation
Turbulent Models
k-e relizable, ke RNG, ke standard (different wall treatment)
K-w
K-w SST
RSM Linear Pressure Strain, RSM Quadratic Pressure Strain,
RSM Stress Omega
Transition SST
Transition SST and K-w SST give the best result compare
to the experimental data, same calibration factor,
Transition SST give more detailed flow filed
Current progress (2) - Turbulence model of pitot tube CFD simulation
Effects of drawing the total pressure hole and static pressure
hole
It is very important to draw the total hole
When the wind angle is zero, draw the static hole has no effect
Current progress (2) - Structure analysis of pitot tube by CFD simulation
Pitot tube mouth shape is important for calibration factor at
higher wind speed
It is better to get the exact mouth shape
Boundary condition test of wind
tunnel @10m/s
Stationary wall
Moving wall
No viscous wall
Pressure far field
After correction all give the same
calibration factor
Standard flowrate
measured
Current progress (2) - Boundary conditions of pitot tube CFD simulation
For the boundary layer of pitot tube, Y+ should be around 1
Current progress (2) - Boundary layer of pitot tube CFD simulation
Prism-shaped DAT type 3D Probe according to US EPA Method 2F Diameter = 1/4”, length = 20”, 5 holes for comparison with other types of 3D Pitot tubes Conduct calibration at NIST wind tunnel(August) and CMS wind tunnel(November) Investigate characteristics of yaw and pitch angle effects at KRISS wind tunnel Uncertainty analysis of calibration process and coefficients
NIST Wind Tunnel - Test section : 1.5m 1.2m up to 75 m/s
CMS Wind tunnel - Open type test section up to 25 m/s
KRISS Wind tunnel -Test section : 0.9m 0.9m up to 15 m/s
P1(Total Pressure) P3 P2 (Yaw angle)
P4 P5(Pitch angle) Y
X
Z
Flow
Pitch Yaw
Current progress (3) - 3-Dimensional probe for measuring stack gas velocity
Calibration procedure and ranges Nulling calibration procedure according to US EPA method 2F Pitch angle : -45° to 45 ° with interval 2.5 ° (Uncertainty 0.5 ° ) Yaw angle : nulling method (-4 ° to 4 ° ) Velocity : 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 m/s (Red= 2,100 to 12,600)
Pitch angle
Yaw angle
Traverse resolution = 0.1°
Current progress (3) - Calibration of Prism-Shaped DAT Probe at NIST
Experimental Set-up Calibrated NIST’s L-type Pitot tube as Reference velocity Simultaneous measurements in the uniform velocity profile area
Reference Pitot Tube
Prism-shaped 3D Probe
Temperature Sensor
Humidity sensor
Test Section 1.5 m 1.2 m
P1(Total Pressure)
P3 P2
(Yaw angle)
P4 P5(Pitch angle)
* Pressure Transducer Connections MKS A MKS B MKS C MKS D
Total (+) P1 P1 P1 P1
Ref (-) P2 P3 P4 P5
YOKOGAWA MKS E
Total (+) P1 P2
Ref (-) P2 P3
MKS A Total P1
MKS A Ref P2
Experimental Set-up 6 Pressure transducers for 5 holes and reference velocity
Manometer MKS 698A (1 Torr )
Signal conditioner MKS 670B
Manometer YOGOKAWA MT210(500 kPa)
Calibration Results Pitch angle calibration curve (versus pitch angle)
𝐹1 = 𝑃4 − 𝑃5
𝑃1 − 𝑃2
Calibration Results Velocity calibration curve (versus pitch angle)
𝐹2 = 𝐶𝑃
∆𝑃𝑠𝑡𝑑
𝑃1 − 𝑃2
Cp : Reference Pitot tube Coefficients ∆Pstd : Reference Pitot differential Pressure
Future work and planning
Pitot tube characterization
• L type pitot tube in different pitch and yaw angle
• Effect of static hole
• Cobra probe simulation
• Investigate characteristics of yaw and pitch angle
effects near prism-shaped probe
Standard traceability
• Integrated testing with pressure scanner and
traversing stage for 3D pitot tube calibration
Calibration method and facility
• Conduct calibration at KRISS wind tunnel and
CMS wind tunnel
• Comparison of calibration methods
Uncertainty evaluation
• Uncertainty analyses for calibration procedure and
coefficients at each system
• Uncertainty analyses for measuring volumetric flow
rate in stack by Prism-shaped probe
Calibration of 3D
Pitot Tubes and
Flow Measurements
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Thanks for Your Listening
Top Related