| Literature DB >> 32354018 |
Liang Ge1,2, Junxian Chen1, Guiyun Tian3, Wen Zeng4, Qi Huang1, Ze Hu1,2.
Abstract
Under the conditions of low flow rate and strong noise, the current electromagnetic flowmeter (EMF) cannot satisfy the requirement for measurement or separate the actual flow signal and interference signal accurately. Correlation detection technology can reduce the bandwidth and suppress noise effectively using the periodic transmission of signal and noise randomness. As for the problem that the current anti-interference technology cannot suppress noise effectively, the noise and interference of the electromagnetic flowmeter were analyzed in this paper, and a design of the electromagnetic flowmeter based on differential correlation detection was proposed. Then, in order to verify the feasibility of the electromagnetic flow measurement system based on differential correlation, an experimental platform for the comparison between standard flow and measured flow was established and a verification experiment was carried out under special conditions and with flow calibration measurements. Finally, the data obtained in the experiment were analyzed. The research result showed that an electromagnetic flowmeter based on differential correlation detection satisfies the need for measurement completely. The lower limit of the flow rate of the electromagnetic flowmeter based on the differential correlation principle could reach 0.084 m/s. Under strong external interferences, the electromagnetic flowmeter based on differential correlation had a fluctuation range in output value of only 10 mV. This shows that the electromagnetic flowmeter based on the differential correlation principle has unique advantages in measurements taken under the conditions of strong noise, slurry flow, and low flow rate.Entities:
Keywords: correlation detection; differential amplification; electromagnetic flowmeter; weak signal detection
Year: 2020 PMID: 32354018 PMCID: PMC7248810 DOI: 10.3390/s20092489
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Induction electromotive signal.
Figure 2Correlation detection principle of the electromagnetic flowmeter (EMF).
Figure 3Structure of the differential correlator.
Figure 4Diagram of the electromagnetic flowmeter based on differential correlation detection.
Figure 5System diagram of the experimental platform.
Figure 6Relationship between the system output value and flow rate.
Data obtained from the flow test.
| Flow Test Point (Frequency Hz) | Flow of Standard Meter (m3/h) | Flow of Tested Meter (m3/h) | Flow Difference (m3/h) | Relative Error of Each Point in Single test (%) | Relative Error of Each Verified Point (%) | Repeatability (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 38 | 54.361 | 54.460 | 0.099 | 0.182 | −0.029 | 0.188 |
| 54.527 | 54.430 | −0.097 | −0.178 | |||
| 54.446 | 54.396 | −0.050 | −0.092 | |||
| 32 | 43.641 | 43.562 | −0.079 | −0.181 | −0.034 | 0.204 |
| 43.702 | 43.789 | 0.087 | 0.199 | |||
| 43.689 | 43.637 | −0.052 | −0.119 | |||
| 20 | 27.552 | 27.441 | −0.111 | −0.403 | 0.052 | 0.398 |
| 27.563 | 27.656 | 0.093 | 0.337 | |||
| 27.631 | 27.692 | 0.061 | 0.221 | |||
| 12 | 15.287 | 15.429 | 0.142 | 0.929 | −0.255 | 1.026 |
| 15.353 | 15.218 | −0.135 | −0.879 | |||
| 15.441 | 15.315 | −0.126 | −0.816 | |||
| 8 | 7.637 | 7.568 | −0.069 | −0.903 | 0.552 | 1.261 |
| 7.704 | 7.799 | 0.095 | 1.233 | |||
| 7.618 | 7.719 | 0.101 | 1.326 | |||
| 4 | 4.573 | 4.505 | −0.068 | −1.487 | 0.685 | 1.883 |
| 4.632 | 4.718 | 0.086 | 1.857 | |||
| 4.627 | 4.705 | 0.078 | 1.686 |
Figure 7Distribution of the relative error of each test point in single verification.
Figure 8Distribution of the relative error of each flow test point.
Figure 9Distribution of the repeatability of each test point.
Low flow rate test of the differential structure.
| Frequency (Hz) | Standard Flowmeter (m/s) | The Output of Self-Made Electromagnetic Flowmeter (mV) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| min | max | avg | min | max | avg | |
| 1.8 | 0.083 | 0.085 | 0.084 | 93.9 | 96.1 | 95.4 |
| 1.9 | 0.088 | 0.090 | 0.089 | 92.5 | 94.2 | 93.1 |
| 2 | 0.094 | 0.096 | 0.095 | 91.8 | 93.1 | 92.6 |
| 2.1 | 0.098 | 0.101 | 0.099 | 90.7 | 92.4 | 91.7 |
| 2.2 | 0.101 | 0.103 | 0.102 | 89.6 | 91.3 | 90.5 |
| 2.3 | 0.106 | 0.108 | 0.107 | 88.5 | 90.2 | 89.5 |
| 2.4 | 0.100 | 0.102 | 0.111 | 87.4 | 89.7 | 88.2 |
| 2.5 | 0.114 | 0.117 | 0.116 | 86.6 | 88.3 | 87.8 |
| 2.6 | 0.119 | 0.124 | 0.122 | 85.4 | 87.6 | 86.1 |
| 2.7 | 0.128 | 0.131 | 0.129 | 84.8 | 86.1 | 85.2 |
| 2.8 | 0.132 | 0.135 | 0.133 | 83.2 | 84.7 | 84.3 |
| 2.9 | 0.136 | 0.138 | 0.137 | 82.1 | 83.5 | 82.9 |
| 3 | 0.141 | 0.145 | 0.143 | 80.4 | 81.6 | 81.0 |
Figure 10Relationship between the system output voltage and flow in the standard flowmeter.
Relative error of the three flowmeters.
| High Accuracy EMF Readings (m/s) | Relative Error of Traditional EMF (%) | Relative Error of Lock-in Correlation EMF (%) | Relative Error of Differential Correlation EMF (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.100 | 21.0 | 2.4 | 1.5 |
| 0.114 | 17.5 | 2.0 | 1.3 |
| 0.123 | 15.4 | 1.8 | 1.0 |
| 0.130 | 14.6 | 1.5 | 0.6 |
| 0.135 | 14.1 | 0.9 | 0.7 |
| 0.140 | 12.9 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
Figure 11Relative error of the three flowmeters.
Figure 12Test results of the EMF based on differential correlation detection under strong noise.
Figure 13Test under slurry interference of the EMF based on differential correlation detection.
Figure 14Test results of comparison experiments under slurry interference.