Field Experiences with V -Cone Technology II

Philip A. Lawrence
McCrometer Inc
O&G Office
Houston
TX.
Abstract :
The V-Cone differential pressure meter
was introduced in the early 80s.
Initial customer
review of the
technology at that time was skeptical
due to the radical change in emphasis
of the flow regime from a central portion
of a closed conduit (orifice plate) to
fluid velocity profile around a centrally
mounted cone at that time unheard of.
Today much of the skepticism has
passed due to the acceptance of large
number of in field units > 40,000
This paper describes the principles
and field use of the V-cone D.P. flow
meter used in the role of wellhead
metering,
injection
measurement
allocation metering / custody transfer
both topside and sub-sea in on-offshore
oil
and
gas
production
applications.
Introduction :
The V-Cone meter is a differential
pressure device which, allows the fluid
to be measured to pass around the
exterior of a central dual cone the larger
cone apex being upstream of a beta
edge, and an acute angled smaller
transition
cone
being
on
the
downstream side of this edge.
Flow velocities in the up-stream core of
the pipe are then forced to mingle with
pipe wall boundary layer velocities by
radial expansion across the
larger
cone.

After passing this beta edge (formed

between the two cones and the pipe
wall ) the fluid then falls into a central
region in which high frequency vortices
form adjacent to the pipe wall and pipe
center with a low amplitude.
This parameter is particularly beneficial
if trash laden fluids are to be measured
which will be mentioned later in the
paper.
A significant flow conditioning/profiling
affect is obtained by the geometry of
the larger cone which
cause an
averaging of the fluid velocities directly
up-stream of the cone beta edge.
Independent testing has show this
affect to occur with close coupled out
of plane elbows, and single elbows at
Reynolds numbers to 8,000-10,000
and above.
Consideration must be given to any
installation that employs an upstream
disturbance producer other than an
elbow , such as a gate valve or device
which can produce jetting
or high
velocity fluid distortion past the cone.
Practical experience, has shown that a
3-4 diameter upstream section
will
suffice to allow the sufficient fluid
expansion needed to allow the cone to
regenerate the velocity profile. (Fig 1)
Pressure Distribution

High

Low
Fig 1

Standard design concepts

H . P. Port
L.P. Port

Fig 2

V-Cone with Welded Construction :

Installation Effects
Pipe flow velocity profiles are rarely
ideal, there are many installations
where flow-meters exists in which the
flow is not well developed.
Trying to measure disturbed flow can
create some problems in certain types
of DP device. The V-Cone overcomes
this problem by re shaping and
distributing the up-stream
velocity
profile. ( Fig 4 ).

Reshaping the Velocity Profile

This type
of construction uses a
support tube which acts as both a
support and low pressure conduit
connected
to the
large cone
a
horizontal low pressure tube passes
through the center of the cone assembly
and is attached to the support tube
Fig 4

( Fig 2).

This feature enables the meter to be

placed in a small space with minimum
straight run requirement. Thus saving
real estate .

Machined Construction :
High Pressure

Low Pressure

Production and Test Separators

Current design of multiphase separators
allow overall uncertainty (on all three
phases) of about 15% - 20% according
to recent API /MMS comments.

Interchangeable
Cone
( Fig 3 )

A machined mono-block in stainless

steel or other material is manufactured
to allow a cone to be supported by a
cross piece which can be removed
allowing different cone diameters to be
implemented. This allows flexibility of
the metering system in respect to large
turndowns. The meter is flangeless and
sits between pipe flanges. see : fig 3

This can be due to operator control, time

delay in stabilization of the vessel,
incorrect design involving fluid levels,
position of vessel in respect to the
pressure head requirement (on liquid
side) and also the main metering carry
over of other product fractions due to
undersizing .
In particular where orifice plates are
used it may be necessary to perform,
plate changes to facilitate turndown
(otherwise the performance of the
measurement
system
could
be
compromised), and to use upstream

flow conditioners or velocity profile

devices which add cost to a system.
Long-term vulnerability using orifice
plates in production separators can be
demonstrated by examining public
documents in the measurement field *.
(*Examples cited in this document from
Phillips Petroleum EmblaPlatform NSFMW
Gas Measurement for the Real World 1994)

Orifice Technology issues:

Beta Edge Degradation, Stagnation
Area, and Deposition.
During the use of a velocity profile
sensitive device (as an orifice) it is
necessary to confirm that the beta edge
of the device is both clean and has not
been compromised due to trash &
debris.
Current API paper standards address a
clean dry and non-polluted gas, which
does not take into account generally an
offshore usage condition i.e.:-wet gas.
This can result in
high maintenance
and intervention cost due to frequent
plate changes.
Where paraffins or sulphate deposition
occurs in the pipe in almost all cases
shift in the Cd is caused due to a recirculatory effect at the rear of the
orifice plate.
There also can be a stagnation area
up-stream of the device where heavy
end hydrocarbons can collect.

Gas" does not have an accepted

definition in the oil and gas industry. The
loose definition that is commonly agreed
upon is that "Wet Gas" states the
existence of relatively small volumes of
liquid in a gas flow.
Dry custody Gas contracts are
sometimes applied to wet gas
applications because of convenience,
the subsequent impact in neglecting this
condition can be severe during the life of
the separator facility.
In the natural gas production industry
two separate definitions have appeared
due
to
two
separate
metering
conditions. These are:
Undersized Separator
Gas fields that start operational life
producing natural gas with a set amount
of entrained liquids degrade over time
and the water and condensate quantity
in the pipeline increases.
Traditionally production natural gas
flows pass through a separator and the
dry gas line exiting the separator has a
meter. However, with the degradation of
these flows the separator is often not
capable of 100% efficiency and a small
quantity of liquid is entrained in the gas
flow outlet (see Figure 5). Some
engineers call this two-phase flow Wet
Gas.
This condition seldom has a Gas
Volume Fraction or GVF (i.e. the ratio
of the gas volume to total volume
flowing) less than 99.5%.
Traditional Conventional Gas Well Head
Dry Gas Sales Meter

(see enclosed Photo examples from

Marathon Oil site Appendix A and
longevity issues later in the paper )
Wet Gas:
Wet Gas Metering is a topic that has
become more important to industry in
recent years. However, the term "Wet

NGL/Retrograde

Separator

H2O
Well 1 Wet
Gas Flow

Well 1

Well 2 Wet
Gas Flow

Well 2

Fig 5.0 Undersized Separator

Upstream Unprocessed Flows

Common Wet Gas Metering Problems

In many conventional gas well head

locations existing infrastructure is being
utilised so that two or three wells may
go to a common liquid separation point.

There are several technical problems

common in typical wet gas flow metering
applications.

This means that two-phase flows from

different fields are going to the same
separator.
Due to increasing pressure from
industry to provide more accountability
of accurate flows per each well head, it
may now require more attention to
metering upstream of the communal
pipe to the separator.
Typically, the GVF of flows called Wet
Gas in this condition can be down to an
approximate limit of 90%. For example
see Fig 6.0.
Traditional Conventional Gas Well
Head with Wet Gas Metering
Dry Gas Sales Meter

To
Customer

NGL/Retrograde
Separator

H2O
Well 1
Wet Gas
Meter

Well 2 Wet
Gas Flow
Meter

Well 1

Well 2

2.1) In Gas Well Head Metering it is

common for the available piping length
allocated for metering to be short. It is
also common for the proposed meter
position to be close to pipe bends and
valves and there is always the possibility
of vibration and background noise. A
meter must be able to operate in these
adverse conditions.
2.2) In wet gas flows there may be a
problem of liquid gathering in the lift
system and slugging the pipe with fluid
as it travels to the separator. These
slugs may have large impact forces that
can be applied to pipe work
components. Therefore all components
including flow meters must be able to
survive slugging flow.
2.3) Wet Gas flows have the two-phases
dispersed in the pipe in different ways
depending on the flow conditions. These
different dispersions are called flow
patterns. Flow patterns are directly
relevant to wet gas meter performances.
Typical flow patterns are shown in
Fig 7.0

Fig 6.0 Upstream Two-Phase Flow

Metering Situation.

So when discussing Wet Gas Metering

it is crucial that all parties agree that
they are talking about the same type of
flow.
The V-Cone is currently capable of
operating in both types of wet gas flow.
Fig 7.0 Typical Two-Phase Flow Patterns

Flow regimes

Ultrasonic Meters

For wet natural gas production the

Annular Flow, Slug Flow and Stratified
Flow are the most common flow
patterns. Stratified Flow occurs in
horizontal pipe lay outs only. Here the
flow has separated phases, that is, the
liquid runs like a river in the pipe with
the gas flowing above the liquid.

Ultrasonic Meter manufacturers are

currently researching the possibility of
developing an Ultrasonic Meter into a
wet natural gas device but so far the
published research has shown this to be
an
extremely
difficult
technical
challenge.
Whereas for many dry gas applications
the Ultrasonic Meter is an excellent
meter it is found with wet gas a number
of problems arise.
These include the chords flooding and
therefore failing, liquid bridging the gap
between transducer face and pipe wall
(causing loss of signal), the signal
strength being reduced by absorption in
the liquid phase, the signal being
deflected away from the desired path by
refraction through the liquid phase and
the background noise of valves etc.
drowning out the signal.
There is also a question on the
sturdiness of the transducer faces in
unprocessed flows where slugs and
pressure pulses randomly occur, the
temperature is often high and the flow
contains
potentially
damaging
particulates. Most of the recent wet gas
ultrasonic research done on stratified
flow which is difficult to re-produce in
live field conditions

This flow pattern occurs with relatively

low flowrates. Annular Flow is a flow
pattern that exists at a higher flowrate
and it consists of a liquid film around the
circumference of the pipe and a gas
core traveling through the pipe center
with entrained liquid droplets.
This can occur in any orientation and it
is the most common flow pattern in wet
natural gas production.
In wet gas applications slug flow is
caused by liquid being periodically held
up and forced in lumps down the line.
It can periodically appear when a flow
conditions steady state flow pattern is
any other type.
2.4) Most of the wet natural gas flows
upstream of the platforms or processing
facilities contain particulates. A meter
has therefore to be sturdy enough to
survive impact of these particulates.
2.5) In a number of wet natural gas
metering situations the meter may not
be in a position that is easy to reach and
therefore the meter will be difficult to
maintain.
Therefore wet gas meters must be
sturdy.
The Main Types Meters Used
The main meter types being developed
as wet natural gas meters are Ultrasonic
and Differential Pressure Meters. These
are dealt with in turn here:

Differential Pressure Meters

Orifice Plate Meter
Traditionally the Orifice Plate Meter was
used to meter wet gas flows. In the last
few years this has virtually stopped as it
is now known that the liquid is held up at
the plate and the resulting flow is not
steady. The liquid tends to travel
through the orifice in slugs. The result is
an unsteady DP reading. This can be
seen from Orifice Plate Meter wet gas
photographs taken at South West
Research Institution in 1997 see fig 8.0

Fig 8.0 : An Orifice Meter in a Wet Gas

Flow.
Furthermore, the Orifice Plate is
susceptible to bending if struck by a slug
or pressure pulse and the plate tends to
act as a trap that gathers particulates.
Appendix B shows the accumulation of
debris on an orifice plate.
Accumulation of Particulates on the
upstream face of an Orifice Plate.
Accumulation of Particulates on the
downstream face of an Orifice Plate.
Venturi Meter
The Venturi Meter is a popular wet gas
meter. It does not suffer the problems of
an Orifice Plate Meter as it allows slugs
and pressure pulses to pass through
unobstructed due to the inlet being
angled. (This feature also allows the
Venturi to be self cleaning. Current Wet
Gas Metering research Joint Industry
Projects all include this meter in their
test programs and its performance is
reasonably well documented. )
A main difference between the Wet Gas
Venturi Meter and the Wet Gas V-Cone
Meter is that the minimum flow area (i.e.
the throat) of the Venturi is along the

center line and the V-Cone Meters

minimum flow area is at the periphery of
the pipe.
This gives the V-Cone an advantage as
for wet gas flows as in single-phase
flows the V-Cone can condition the flow
as it passes the cone.
The result is a steadier DP. Not only
does the Venturi not condition the flow
as effectively as the V-Cone it tends to
hold up liquid at the inlet and therefore
small slugs created by the Venturi
meters presence periodically flow
through the meter causing pressure
spikes to be read.
Venturi Meter testing in industry has led
to the publication of correlations to
correct for the liquid induced error.
The
Venturi
Meters
general
performance is similar to the V-Cone
Meters and hence these correlations are
in fact very similar to the V-Cone wet
gas correlations. However, the Venturi
data sets tend to be slightly less stable.
V-Cone
The V-Cone Meter is a self cleaning
device. The acceleration of the gas over
the cone tends to remove any liquid and
particulates that come into contact with
the meter. As a visible example of that
the photograph that was taken of the
Wafer-Cone Meter (a type of V-Cone)
which replaced the Orifice Meter shown
in Figure Two is given in Figure Three.
The cone had been in the same flow as
the orifice plate for three times as long.
The edge is clearly unaffected by the
dirt in the flow.
See Appendix A. The Cone is clean
after being exposed for three times as
long as the Orifice Plate Meter in the
same application.
A V-Cone Meter was installed in a wet
gas test rig at South West Research
Institute and the results visually showed
the conditioning of the two-phase flow
by the cone and the resulting stable DP.

Fig 9.0 below shows the same flow

conditions as Fig 8.0

conditions,hence the use of an AGA/API

standard to design a possible wet gas
metering system can also end in higher
intervention
costs
not
generally
assumed at the start up case.
Greater liquid injection over time to
obtain more products on declining wells
can result in an increase in wetness at
the gas outlet. Examples of this can
range from under-reading of the meter
or over-reading depending on Reynolds
No, Beta ratio, and liquid mass fraction
seen at the meter.
Research in this field by Chevron and
others indicates a Cd movement of over
2%-3% outside of the predicted API
requirements due to wet gas with liquid
loads of only 0.33bbl/MMscf as
indicated in research.

Fig 9.0 The V-Cone Meter with Wet

Gas Flow.
Since these tests we have been involved
in two Joint Industry Projects on Wet Gas
Flow Metering. The resulting wet gas
data sets have confirmed the good
stability of the DP read by the V-Cone
and allowed the creation of V-Cone wet
gas correlations.
As with previous DP Meter wet gas
correlations McCrometer has produced a
correlation that predicts the percentage
over-reading of the gas flow to a nondimensional number (often called the
Lockhart-Martinelli Parameter) denoted
by X. This non-dimensional number is
in fact the ratio of the superficial liquid
inertia to the superficial gas inertia and is
calculated as shown in equation 1 below:
.

ml

mg

where X = Lockhart-Martinelli Parameter

Current AGA/API paper standards do
not address wet gas installation

Reference:
Dr V.C. Ting Chevron Corp :- Effect of
Liquid Entrainment on Orifice Meters.
Wet Gas Lab Test CEESI Nunn
C.O. :
Recent Wafer
V-Cone
testing at
CEESI indicated a low susceptibility to
Cd change with liquid load, base line
values where plotted against numerous
test loop instruments in a dry condition.
Flow rates from 7 70 feet / second in a
4 inch line size where used. The liquid
rate was added to a maximum of 1
and 2 Bbl per MMSCF.The liquid
hydrocarbon was a Decane derivative
acceptable
for
use
in
closed
surroundings.
The results where plotted and
the
effects noted , further work is underway
to see the effect of low D.P. ranges on
repeatability and accuracy and Y factor
changes ( currently the welded version
has a Y factor eqution available to
correct for density changes due to
pressure )
( See Appendix C fig 8 ) - (CEESI =
Colorado Experimental Engineering Station
Courtesy of Chevron Inc USA ).

B.P Amoco Field Test

During March 2001 BP tested a VCone in an upstream field condition .
A 4 inch wafer cone was tested with
a 4 inch orifice plate 36 inches upstream and a separator downstream .
The results were very impressive.
(See Appendix C fig 7 )

Longevity, Contamination, and

Edge Damage Lab Test

sensing lines and also be retained after

the plate. The cone meter did not show
this problem due to the straight through
design.
The regular blowing off of the plate
was deemed a severe problem in man
hours and traveling to the site, plus the
effect on accuracy this caused. With the
lack of liquid retention using the Vcone the system now runs within the
BLM (us gov) guidelines.

Beta

During late 98 early 99 Marathon Oil

installed test meters at there on-shore
hydrocarbon facility in central Wyoming.
The site was producing dirty wet gas
with H2s and asphaltene contaminants.
The result on the existing measurement
system was not very pleasing to the
client nor the local BLM (government)
office whom collect royalty from these
gas systems . The use of the V-cone
was to see if the contamination would
affect the meter the assumption that it
would work was a driving force to
implement the installation.
3 inch
meters where fitted and the most
severe well used as a test site. (See
appendix A & A-1:Orifice trash deposits )

Damage Test
Damage testing of the V-cone wafer
meter was recently performed, this
involved determining a base line on a
calibration rig over several flow rates,
after which intentional damage to the
cone beta edge was performed in a
somewhat severe manner.
The photographs and data * are shown below
Figs 10 and 11 overleaf

Fig 11

On inspection the orifice plate units

showed trash build up after only three
months usage with
Asphaltene /
Paraffin deposition at the up-stream
inlet to the meter and contaminants
after the plate in the low pressure
region.
On inspection of the V-Cone the unit
(Appendix A) did not show the same
severity, probably due to accelerated
flow around the cone element.
This seemed to keep the cone and
sensing ports clear of deposition , thus
maintaining a consistent D.P. across
the meter.
Entrained condensate liquid moved
into slug flow condition periodically,
which caused liquid to enter the orifice

Test Results (damage testing)

The deviation from the test shows the
Cd shifted by app. + 0.3% which is
within
the
uncertainty
of
the
McCrometer calibration station.

This initial test is currently being

superceded by further tests with
multiple damage regimes to view the
effect per incident.
This work is a pre-courser to the use of
the meter in a sub sea nonintervention environment.
(See appendix D )

Weight Penalty ( platform design):

Current design of orifice systems
require large up and downstream pipe
lengths, this is not good if you area user
since cost of real estate is premium
offshore due to the large weight related
cost in installing :- large pipe runs,
orifice
carriers,
and
supporting
structures.
Current weight penalty costs in the Gulf
of Mexico can be from app. 12$ per
pound to 25$ per pound.
Installing a system including all piping
requirements and a cast carrier can
amount to high dollar amounts in the
platform support requirements.
This can be compounded on deep water
platforms.
Therefore using a device, which has low
weight and reduced up-downstream
piping needs, can reduce overall client
installation costs
Installation cost relating to weight
penalty :
The V-Cone can perform its own
velocity profile conditioning as part of
the meter design .
The installation envelope can be
reduced significantly and direct coupling
with elbows can be straight to the meter
flange face without Cd performance

degradation due to swirl or profile

skewing.
Please note that the V-Cone weight is
approximately only 1444 lbs for a 16inch
#900 meter, 1161 lbs for 14 inch meter
and only 945lbs for a 12 inch which
is significantly lighter than both orifice
carriers and respective up-downstream
piping for these size systems ,which can
weigh more than 2.5 tons, per stream.
V-Cone
Technology
Attributes:

Technical

Real World accuracy using laboratory

calibration is possible to facilitate an
accurate
performance
over
10-1
turndown better thanthat of conventional
differential producers.
Performance of
+/- 0.5% at 10-1
turndown, with trash resistance, low
beta edge degradation ( Beta edge is
after the flow on V-Cone) and no
stagnation area make the unit ideal for
high cost intervention areas and longterm performance.
The low weight of the device will ensure
economy of installation without having to
purchase long piping lengths and high
dollar flow conditioners/profilers (certain
12 inch diameter flow profile generator
units can cost over $8-10,000 dollars).

Sub Sea Implementation and Design

Currently 45 precision tube units are
in service in a sub-sea wellhead marine
environment, in Norway, Angola, and
South China Seas .
The main usage has been water
injection metering , however, allocation
gas metering has been
a recently
accepted philosophy with the device.
Implementation to >12000 feet is
acceptable with a new configuration and
special sensor housing. (See Appendix D )

Appendix A

Wet Gas Photographs Wellhead Metering

Wafer Body of V-Cone

3 inch Diameter ( 9 month
inspection )

Appendix A-1

Wet Gas Photographs Wellhead

Three months inspection for wet gas line (H2s + paraffins)

Appendix B

GasProduction Separator
( Typical Arrangement )

( BP Champlain 457 Separator Site Wy.USA. )

Gas OUT

Orifice

30 diameters Proved Orifice Meter

With Mobile Gas Prover

V-Cone

NGL / Retrograde

4 inch line

H2O
36 inches

30 diameters

12 inches

Wellhead
Gas + Water + Hydrocarbons

V-Cone vs. Orifice Plate & Separator

540
520

MCFH

500
480
460
440

MCF-Vcone

Time

9:
00
:0
0
11
:0
0:
00
13
:0
0:
00
15
:0
0:
00

7:
00
:0
0

5:
00
:0
0

3:
00
:0
0

1:
00
:0
0

:0
0

:0
0

23
:0
0

:0
0

21
:0
0

19
:0
0

17
:0
0

:0
0

420

MCF-Norwood
MCF-Orifice

Appendix C

Data from BP/ Norwood Separator Site Wy

MCFCone

--TIME-17:00:00
18:00:00
19:00:00
20:00:00
21:00:00
22:00:00
23:00:00
0:00:00
1:00:00
2:00:00
3:00:00
4:00:00
5:00:00
6:00:00
7:00:00
8:00:00
9:00:00
10:00:00
11:00:00
12:00:00
13:00:00
14:00:00
15:00:00
16:00:00

MCFMCFNorwood Orifice

504.053
509.756
519.024
496.692
495.705
500.691
502.829
497.401
491.94
487.84
495.004
500.487
488.422
484.779
483.022
479.931
477.279
476.231
486.98
481.302
470.997
470.623
470.861
499.061

504.41
496.5
526.25
504.04
484.87
493.45
506.04
503.08
496.79
490.04
491.04
504.5
486.87
484.45
479.67
483
479.58
476.83
478.54
481.29
463.2
471.2
474
477.33

DPDPNorwood Orifice

489.526
495.586
505.496
484.337
482.686
488.556
491.551
485.979
480.75
476.625
484.341
490.445
477.947
474.372
472.455
469.689
467.129
466.232
477.817
472.392
462.513
461.351
461.711
489.357

153
148
165
152
141
145
152
152
150
145
144
152
142
142
138
142
140
138
139
145
128
131
134
136

-PSIA- -DEGF- --MMBTU--

51.5
52.5
54.7
50.6
50.3
51.3
51.9
51.2
50.2
49.1
50.6
51.8
49.4
48.9
48.6
48.3
47.6
46.9
50.7
49.4
45.4
0
45.7
54.2

373.5
375.6
374.9
371.7
371.9
373.2
373.8
369.8
369.4
371.2
371.5
372.3
370.7
369
368.4
366.5
367.8
370.9
361.3
362.8
376.7
373.2
373
355.3

119.9
119.9
119.6
119.5
119.4
119.4
119.4
119.3
119.3
119.3
119.2
119.2
119
119
119
118.9
118.9
118.8
118.6
118.6
118.7
118.7
118.7
118.6

479.708
485.135
493.955
472.702
471.762
476.507
478.543
473.376
468.18
464.277
471.096
476.314
464.831
461.364
459.692
456.75
454.226
453.228
463.46
458.055
448.248
447.891
448.119
474.957

Totals 11770.91 11736.9711508.843

Discharge Coefficient,
Cd

Wafer V-Cone CEESI Calibration Test--Wet Conditons,

0.5 Beta at 80 psig (Raw data)
0.98
0.96
0.94

Cd-Dry

0.92

Cd-1bbl/MMSCF
Cd-2bbl/MMSCF

0.9
0.88
0.86
0

200000

400000

600000

800000 1000000 1200000

Pipe Reynolds Number D=3.826"

Separator
NGL/Retrograd
H2O
Traditional
To
Dry
Customer
Gas
Well
Wet
well
12 Sales
2
Conventional
e
Meter
Gas
Flow
Gas
Well Head
Meter
ith Wet Gas
Metering

Appendix D

Reference Documents / Data :

Hayward

A Basic Guide and Source

Book for Users

1973.

Szabo / Winarski
Hypnar

V-Cone Meter for Natural

Gas Flows

1992.

Miller

Flow Measurement
Handbook

GRI

Wet Gas Research

V-Cone 4 inch Diameter

1997

Lawrence

V - Cone Technology
(Old Wine in a new Bottle)

1998

Lawrence

D.P. Metering for the New

Millennium

1999

Lawrence

Wellhead metering using V-Cone

Technology NSFMW (UK)

(Latest Edition)

2000

Bright

BP Amoco Wy Test Separator

data

2001

Steven

Wet Gas Measurement

2002