Advertisement

International Journal of Thermophysics

, Volume 35, Issue 6–7, pp 1290–1298 | Cite as

Validation of Primary Water Dew-Point Generator for Methane at Pressures up to 6 MPa

  • R. BosmaEmail author
  • D. Mutter
  • A. Peruzzi
Article
  • 182 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, the validation of the water dew-point generator with methane as a carrier gas in the temperature range from \(-41\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\) to \(+15\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\) and at pressures up to 6 MPa is reported. During the validation, the generator was used with both nitrogen and methane to investigate the effect of methane on the generator and the chilled mirror dew-point meters. The effect of changing the flow rate and the dew-point temperature of the gas entering the generator, on the gas exiting the generator was investigated. As expected, methane at high pressures created hydrates in combination with water and low temperatures, thus limiting the temperature range of the generator to \(+8\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\) to \(+15\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\) at its maximum operating pressure of 6 MPa. A lower operating pressure extended the temperature range; for example, at 3 MPa, the temperature range was already extended down to \(-15\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\), and at 1 MPa, the range was extended down to \(-41\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\). The validation showed that, in its operating range, the generator can achieve with methane the same standard uncertainty of \(0.02\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\) frost/dew point already demonstrated for nitrogen and air carrier gases.

Keywords

Dew-point generator High pressure Hydrates Methane 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Netherlands and by the European Commission through the EMRP Program, Project ENG01, “Characterization of Energy Gases.”

References

  1. 1.
    M.J. de Groot, Papers and Abstracts from the Third International Symposium on Humidity and Moisture, vol. 1 (NPL, London, 1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Nielsen, M.J. de Groot, Metrologia 41, 167 (2004)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Stevens, S.A. Bell, Meas. Sci. Technol. 3, 943 (1992)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    C.W. Meyer, W.W. Miller, D.C. Ripple, G.E. Scace, Int. J. Thermophys. 29, 1606 (2008)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Zvizdic, M. Heinonen, D. Sestan, Int. J. Thermophys. 33, 1536 (2012)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Benyon, T. Vicente, Int. J. Thermophys. 33, 1550 (2012)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Bosma, A. Peruzzi, Int. J. Thermophys. 33, 1511 (2012)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Bosma, D. Mutter, A. Peruzzi, Metrologia 49, 597 (2012)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D. Sonntag, Z. Meteorol. 40, 340 (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Hardy, Papers and Abstracts from the Third International Symposium on Humidity and Moisture, vol. 1 (NPL, London, 1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    T. Maekawa, S. Itoh, S. Sakata, S.-I. Igara, N. Imai, Geochem. J. 29, 325 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VSLDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.MBW Calibration AGWettingenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations