Validation of a Multi-physics Simulation A. Guada, S. Approach for - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Validation of a Multi-physics Simulation A. Guada, S. Approach for Insertion Electromagnetic Rogers Flowmeter Design Application Motivation Background Principle Virtual Current Density Voltage Output Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM Theory Numerical and Experimental Model Test Case Experimental Setup Numerical Model Turbulence Modeling Results 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion by A. Guada, S. Rogers Conclusion March 15, 2015

Motivation A. Guada, S. Rogers Markets Insertion electromagnetic flowmeters are preferred for a variety of Motivation applications where: Background Principle moving parts are not desired due to the presence of debris. Virtual Current Density Voltage Output durability is important. Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM non-disruptive installation is necessary. Theory Numerical and Experimental Model Test Case Experimental Setup Numerical Model Turbulence Modeling Results Building Automation Water and Water Waste Others 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion Conclusion

Motivation A. Guada, S. Rogers Motivation Performance Background Within these market places, there is still a need of higher precision Principle insertion electromagnetic flowmeters. Virtual Current Density Voltage Output Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM Theory Numerical and Experimental Model Test Case Experimental Setup Building Automation Water and Water Waste Others Numerical Model Turbulence Modeling Results 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion Conclusion

Background A. Guada, S. Rogers Facts Motivation Generally, electromagnetic flowmeters (EMFM) are inline devices. Background Principle Inline EMFMs are very accurate instruments due to nature of their Virtual Current Density Voltage Output designs, in comparison to insertion EMFMs. Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM Theory Numerical and Experimental Model Test Case Experimental Setup Numerical Model Turbulence Modeling Inline EMFM Insertion EMFM Results 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion Conclusion

Principle EMFMs measure an induced voltage as a result of the interaction of an A. Guada, S. Rogers electromagnetic field with a moving conductive fluid. Motivation Background Principle Virtual Current Density Voltage Output Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM Theory Numerical and Experimental Model Test Case Experimental Setup Numerical Model Turbulence Modeling Results 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion Conclusion

Virtual Current Density The current density is best understood by assuming a unit current (1 A ) A. Guada, S. travels from one electrode to the other, even though in reality the Rogers current is near zero. Motivation Background Principle Virtual Current Density Voltage Output Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM Theory Numerical and Experimental Model Test Case Experimental Setup Numerical Model Turbulence Modeling Results 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion Conclusion

Voltage Output The resultant electromagnetic field generates a voltage output that is A. Guada, S. Rogers “proportional ”to flowrate of the conductive fluid. Motivation Background Principle Virtual Current Density Voltage Output Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM Theory Numerical and Experimental Model Test Case Experimental Setup Numerical Model Turbulence Modeling Results 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion Conclusion

Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM A. Guada, S. Rogers Motivation Background Principle Virtual Current Density Voltage Output Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM Theory Numerical and Experimental Model Test Case Experimental Setup Numerical Model Turbulence Modeling Results 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion Conclusion Magnetic Field Current Density Voltage Signal Distribution

Electromagnetic Hydrodynamics A. Guada, S. Rogers Motivation Voltage Output Background Principle The voltage generated as a response to a conductive moving fluid is Virtual Current Density Voltage Output defined as Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM ��� V L = J × � B � · � U � d Ω , Theory Ω Numerical and Experimental where the time-averaged velocity field � U � interacts with a Model time-averaged magnetic field � B � , accounting for virtual current density Test Case distribution J v within fluid volume Ω. Experimental Setup Numerical Model Turbulence Modeling Results 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion Conclusion

Electromagnetic Hydrodynamics A. Guada, S. Rogers Virtual Current Density Motivation According to the Ohm’s law, the current density is defined as Background Principle J = σ ( � E � + � U � × � B � ) , Virtual Current Density Voltage Output where the conductivity σ of the moving fluid creates a time-averaged Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM electric field � E � . With a set of electrodes with different potential, a Theory current Numerical and �� Experimental I L = σ ( � E � + � U � × � B � ) d S , Model S Test Case flows from one electrode to the other, where S is the surface of the Experimental Setup Numerical Model electrodes. Finally, the virtual current density is determined as Turbulence Modeling Results J v = J I L . 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion Conclusion

Test Case A. Guada, S. Rogers Device-under-test (DUT) The insertion electromagnetic flowmeter below was tested in a Motivation 4in-SCH-40-PVC pipe. Background Principle Virtual Current Density Voltage Output Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM Theory Numerical and Experimental Model Test Case Experimental Setup Numerical Model Turbulence Modeling Results 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion Conclusion

Test Case Insertion Depth Cases A. Guada, S. Rogers The insertion EMFM was tested at the following insertion depths. Motivation Background Principle Virtual Current Density Voltage Output Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM Theory Numerical and Experimental Model Test Case Experimental Setup Numerical Model Turbulence Modeling Results 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion Conclusion 0.1D 0.5D

Experimental Setup An insertion electromagnetic flowmeter was installed and tested in the flow lab below. A. Guada, S. Rogers Motivation Background Principle Virtual Current Density Voltage Output Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM Theory Numerical and Experimental Model Test Case Experimental Setup Numerical Model Turbulence Modeling Results 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion Conclusion

Numerical Model A. Guada, S. Rogers Infolytica’s finite element method (FEM) code MagNet and ElecNet were utilized to simulate both the steady-state magnetic Motivation and current density fields. Background For Star-CCM+, Steady-state Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes Principle Virtual Current Density (SRANS) and Embedded Detached-eddy Simulation (EDES) were Voltage Output used to simulate the raw voltage signal in response to several flow Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM rates. Theory Numerical and Experimental Model Test Case Experimental Setup Numerical Model Turbulence Modeling Results 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion Conclusion

Turbulence Modeling A. Guada, S. Rogers Motivation Steady-state RANS Background Principle Virtual Current Density A variety of RANS models were used e.g. Spalart-Allmaras (S-A), Voltage Output Shear-stress Transport (SST), Elliptical Blending (EB) K-epsilon. Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM A CFD domain was sized accordingly in order to provide enough Theory run to develop a fully-developed velocity profile. Numerical and Experimental Segregated solver with the second-order upwind scheme. Model Test Case Convergence criteria ≤ 0 . 0001. Experimental Setup Numerical Model Turbulence Modeling Results 0.1D-insertion Depth 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion Conclusion

Turbulence Modeling Embedded Detached-eddy Simulation A. Guada, S. Rogers Fully-developed velocity profiles, from preceding simulation using SRANS-SST model, were prescribed to the inlet of a CFD domain. Motivation Synthetic-eddy method (SEM) was applied to the inlet boundary Background Principle conditions with a turbulence intensity I T = 3 . 0% and a turbulence Virtual Current Density length scale L T = δ/ 4. Voltage Output Inline Vs. Insertion EMFM 3 D upstream and 2 D downstream of zone of interest were used. Theory D = pipe inside diameter. Numerical and Experimental Trimmer mesh type with cell sizes ∆ = δ/ 10 and with prims layer Model accommodating y + < 1. Test Case Experimental Setup Improved Delay-detached-eddy Simulation (IDDES)/S-A Numerical Model formulation. Turbulence Modeling Results Segregated solver with hybrid second-order upwind/bounded 0.1D-insertion Depth central-differencing scheme and second-order temporal 0.5D-insertion Depth Discussion discretization. Conclusion Convergence criteria ≤ 0 . 0001. CFL < 1.