HCBBS Forum (English)
Submit Chemical Projects / Find Solutions
Amplify Your Requirements on a Broader Chemical Platform *Engineering · Technology · Equipment · Solutions*
Submit Request

Why are mass flow meters always inaccurate when measuring liquefied gas?

2009-08-22View Original

Thread Content

What type of instrument provides high accuracy for measuring liquefied gas used in transfer calculations? Liquefied gas contains about 20% C3 components, with a pipeline pressure of 0.8 MPa
Reply #22009-08-22
It may be because the temperature at the measurement point is high, and the liquefied gas vaporizes inside the pipeline; as a result, a gas-liquid mixture exists at the measurement point, causing a two-phase flow in the mass flow meter.
Reply #32009-08-22
Which one are you using? As far as I know, the Gaozhun CNG050 sees sales of over 200 units per year in China, and its performance is fairly good. The key point, as mentioned on the first floor, is to keep the vaporization amount under control
Reply #42009-08-22
I feel that mass flow meters are not very accurate when measuring gases; I’ve used them in many gas-related applications, and hardly any of them were accurate
Reply #52009-08-22
If a mass flow meter is used for measuring liquefied gas, it is necessary to ensure that a single-phase flow is maintained during measurement, by taking measures such as increasing back pressure or reducing temperature. If measured in its vaporized state, it is necessary to ensure that no liquid remains.
Reply #62009-08-23
Some of the C3 components may vaporize at 0.8 MPa. . But our raw material liquefied gas should be in liquid form; it’s been almost a week since we started using it, and I notice that the error is increasing (when compared with the gauge reading)
Reply #72009-08-23
The temperature is at room temperature; is there any way to increase the pressure?
Reply #82009-08-23
A two-way flow meter, manufactured by Lanzhou Haier Electronics.
Reply #92009-08-23
0.8 pressure is too low; the medium is purely vaporizing. A pressure of 1.3 MPA would be much better

Submit a Project

**Looking for Chemical Technology, Equipment & Solutions?** No Registration Required Broader Platform Exposure | Global Chemical Service Provider Connections

Submit Request — Free Consultation

Disclaimer

This is an automated machine translation of the original thread. Some technical terms may have inaccuracies; the original text shall prevail. Click "View Original" at the top right to access the source page, which supports IP-based automatic real-time language translation. Please watch out for contact details and sales inducements to prevent fraud. All content and translations are for reference only, representing solely the poster's personal views. For enquiries, email service@hcbbs.com.