CFD Study of Calibration Factor for Cross Correlation Based Ultrasonic Flowmeter at Different Upstream Pipe Lengths

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Research Laboratory, School of Chemical, Petroleum and Gas Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 School of Chemical Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology



Despite lots of researches on the transit-time and Doppler flowmeter technologies, few researches have been done on ultrasonic cross correlation flowmeter technology. Since the mechanism of the ultrasonic cross correlation flowmeter (UCCF) differs from other ultrasonic flowmeter technologies, it strongly requires individual investigations. The upstream straight pipe length is an important item that strongly affects the UCCF accuracy. Determination of proper calibration factor concerning upstream pipe length could incredibly improve the measurement precision. In the present study, the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation was conducted and the water flow inside a pipe without any flow disturbances (e.g., valve, fitting, or bend) was simulated to investigate the calibration factor for the UCCF at different upstream straight pipe lengths and different Reynolds numbers (from 76,600 to 383,400). For accurately predicting the turbulent flow behavior, Reynolds Stress Model (RSM) was used in this study. The results indicated that by increasing the upstream pipe length up to approximately 25 times pipe diameter, the required calibration factor decreases, then increases, and finally remains constant at lengths greater than 40 times pipe diameter. Eventually, a proper correction factor on the calibration curve was developed at different flow Reynolds numbers, for the first time, in order to modify the calibration curve at various upstream pipe lengths.


  1. Alaeddin MA, Mousavi SF, Hashemabadi SH. Numerical study on the effect of circumferential position of ultrasonic transducers on ultrasonic cross-correlation flowmeter performance under asymmetric airflow profile. Ultrasonics. 2021;115:106479.
  2.  Mousavi SF, Hashemabadi SH, Jamali J. Calculation of geometric flow profile correction factor for ultrasonic flow meter using semi-3D simulation technique. Ultrasonics. 2020;106:106165.
  3. LaNasa PJ, Upp EL. Liquid Flow Measurement. Second ed. Florida: Gulf Professional Publishing; 2002.
  4. Lynnworth LC, Liu Y. Ultrasonic flowmeters: Half-century progress report, 1955-2005. Ultrasonics. 2006;44.
  5.  Zhou H, Ji T, Wang R, Ge X, Tang X, Tang S. Multipath ultrasonic gas flowmeter based on multiple reference waves. Ultrasonics. 2018;82:145–52.
  6. Coulthard J. Ultrasonic cross-correlation flowmeters. Ultrasonics. 1973;11(2):83–8.
  7. Schneider F, Peters F, Merzkirch W. Quantitative analysis of the cross-correlation ultrasonic flow meter by means of system theory. Measurment Science and Technology. 2003;14(5):573–82.
  8. Worch A. A clamp-on ultrasonic cross correlation flow meter for one-phase flow. Measurment Science and Technology. 1998;9(4):622–30.
  9. Fernandes CW, Bellar MD, Werneck MM. Cross-correlation-based optical flowmeter. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement. 2010;59(4):840–6.
  10. Beck MS. Correlation in instruments: cross correlation flowmeters. Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments. 1981;14(1):7.
  11. Lysak PD, Jenkins DM, Capone DE, Brown WL. Analytical model of an ultrasonic cross-correlation flow meter, part 1: Stochastic modeling of turbulence. Flow Measurment and Instrumentation. 2008;19(1):1–7.
  12. Lysak PD, Jenkins DM, Capone DE, Brown WL. Analytical model of an ultrasonic cross-correlation flow meter, part 2: Application. Flow Measurment and Instrumentation. 2008;19(1):41–6.
  13. Gurevich AY, Goman MG, Gurevich YG, Lopez AM. Synthetic turbulence modeling for evaluation of ultrasonic cross-correlation flow measurement. Flow Measurment and Instrumentation. 2018;60:134–43.
  14. Wada S, Tezuka K, Treenuson W, Tsuzuki N, Kikura H. Study on the optimal number of transducers for pipe flow rate measurement downstream of a single elbow using the ultrasonic velocity profile method. Science and Technology of Nuclear Installations. 2012.
  15. American Petroleum Institute. Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards Chapter 5.8, Measurement of Liquid Hydrocarbons by Ultrasonic Flow Meters. API MPMS 5.8. 1994.
  16. International Organization for Standardization. Measurement of fluid flow in closed conduits  Ultrasonic transit-time meters for liquid. ISO 12242. 2012.
  17. Zhao H, Peng L, Takahashi T, Hayashi T, Shimizu K, Yamamoto T. ANN based data integration for multi-path ultrasonic flowmeter. IEEE Sensors journal. 2014;14(2):362–70.
  18. Ton V. A mathematical model of ultrasonic cross correlation flow meters based on industrial experience. Flow Measurment and Instrumentation. 2020;75:101775.
  19. Cengel Y, Cimbala J. Essentials of Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications. Fourth ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2008.
  20. Bird RB, Stewart WE, Lightfoot EN. Transport phenomena. Second ed. Vol. 1. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2006.
  21. Pollard A, Martinuzzi R. Comparative study of turbulence models in predicting turbulent pipe flow. II - Reynolds stress and k-epsilon models, AIAA journal. 27 (1989) 1714–1721.
  22. Loyseau X.F, Verdin P.G, Brown L.D. Scale-up and turbulence modelling in pipes, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering. 162 (2018) 1–11.
  23. Kalpakli Vester A, Orlu R, Alfredsson P.H. Turbulent flows in curved pipes: Recent advances in experiments and simulations, Applied Mechanics Reviews. 68 (2016).
  24. Lysak PD, Brungart TA. Velocity spectrum model for turbulence ingestion noise from computational-fluid-dynamics calculations. AIAA Journal. 2003;41(9):1827–9.
  25. National Iranian Oil and Engineering Company. NIOEC specification for design criteria for process and mechanics. NIOEC-SP-00-50. 2006.
  26. Zhao H, Peng L, Stephane SA, Ishikawa H, Shimizu K, Takamoto M. CFD aided investigation of multipath ultrasonic gas flow meter performance under complex flow profile. IEEE Sensors Journal. 2014;14(3):897–907.
  27. Anselmet F, Ternat F, Amielh M, Boiron O, Boyer P, Pietri L. Axial development of the mean flow in the entrance region of turbulent pipe and duct flows. Comptes Rendus Mécanique. 2009;337(8):573–84.
  28. Duz H. Numerical Flow Analysis of The Variation of Central Axial Velocity Along The Pipe Inlet. The Eurasia Proceedings of Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics. 2018;2:323–33.
  29. Martins RS, Ramos R. Numerical evaluation of upstream bend installation effects on fully developed flow profiles aiming ultrasonic flow metering. 21st International Congress of Mechanical Engineering Outubro. 2011.
  30. Bryant DB, Sparrow EM, Gorman JM. Turbulent pipe flow in the presence of centerline velocity overshoot and wall-shear undershoot. International Journal of Thermal Sciences. 2018;125:218–30.
  31. Kumara WAS, Halvorsen BM, Melaaen MC. Computational study on non-asymptotic behavior of developing turbulent pipe flow. Advances in Fluid Mechanics VIII. 2010. p. 39–53.
  32. Hogendoorn J, Boer A.Ž, Danen H. An ultrasonic flowmeter for custody transfer measurement of LNG: A challenge for design and calibration. 25 th International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop. 2007; 350–365.
Volume 56, Issue 1
June 2022
Pages 133-152
  • Receive Date: 23 August 2021
  • Revise Date: 16 March 2022
  • Accept Date: 02 April 2022
  • First Publish Date: 22 April 2022