Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geothermics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geothermics

Real-time enthalpy measurement of two-phase geothermal fluid flow using T

load cell sensors: Field testing results
Mohamad Husni Mubaroka,b,*, Sadiq J. Zarrouka, John E. Catera, Ali Mundakirb,
Eko Agung Bramantyob, Yoong Wei Limc
a
Department of Engineering Science, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
b
PT Pertamina Geothermal Energy, Jakarta, Cakrawala Building, MH Thamrin 9, Jakarta, Indonesia
c
Contact Energy Ltd., Wairakei Power Station, Private Bag 2001, Taupo, 3352, New Zealand

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Field testing data from five different wells using load cell sensors were analysed to investigate their possible
Measuring enthalpy application for estimating geothermal two-phase fluid enthalpy. Two different data analysis approaches -
Real-time measuring the liquid phase velocity and estimating the dryness fraction - were examined. The liquid velocity was
Two-phase predicted successfully using the cross-correlation technique. However, liquid velocity cannot be used alone to
Geothermal fluid
measure the fluid enthalpy without slip ratio and void fraction. It was only possible to calculate the dryness
Load cell sensor
fraction estimate from the weight of the pipeline for one data set due to measurement noise and the results were
Field testing
found to be of low quality. The remaining technical challenges and recommendations are discussed.

1. Introduction
Most conventional geothermal wells produce a two-phase mixture
of steam and water at the wellhead (Grant and Bixley, 2011; Zarrouk
and McLean, 2019). Measurement of two-phase mass flow rate and
enthalpy from each production well after drilling is used to calculate
total available power (DiPippo, 2007; Zarrouk and McLean, 2019). It is
also crucial for day-to-day field management and, at the same time, it is
the legal obligation of the field developers to satisfy consented fluid
take conditions. Monitoring of these parameters is also important for
the early detection of technical problems in the wells, which allows for
early planning and execution of appropriate intervention (Mubarok and
Zarrouk, 2016). Enthalpy and mass flow rate of a geothermal well
change over time during operation (Watson, 2013). A continuous
measurement will capture the enthalpy and mass flow rate changes and
help the geothermal fields operators optimise their fields output and
detect potential problems in wells (Spielman, 2003).
There are several existing two-phase flow measurement techniques
in geothermal applications - the total flow calorimeter, lip pressure
method, separator method, and tracer dilution (tracer flow test) method
(Helbig and Zarrouk, 2012; Mubarok et al., 2019; Zarrouk and McLean,
2019). However, all the methods are either high in cost (separator and
tracer dilution), not in real-time (tracer dilution, calorimeter) or require
the geothermal well to be out of production (calorimeter and lip
pressure methods). Pressure differential flow meters are the most in-
vestigated alternative to two-phase mass flow rate measurement and
the sharp-edge orifice plate has been widely used since the 1980s (Lin,
1982), but with variable reported accuracy (Helbig and Zarrouk, 2012;
Mubarok et al., 2020; Zarrouk and McLean, 2019). Zarrouk et al. (2019)
presented field testing results from using a modified sharp-edge orifice
plate for the accurate measurement (prediction) of both mass flow rate
and enthalpy in two geothermal wells.
Other techniques that have been considered for measuring the
flowing geothermal fluid enthalpy, including radio frequency (Sisler,
2018; Sisler and Zarrouk, 2015), micro lip pressure (James, 1987;
Sulaiman and Freeston, 1986), resistive enthalpy meters (Spielman,
2003), and compression load cells (Sisler, 2018; Sisler et al., 2017,
2016) have been investigated by several researchers (Zarrouk and
McLean, 2019).
1.1. Radio frequency
A radio frequency (RF) experiment to measure the void fraction of
the two-phase fluid flow was undertaken by Sisler et al. (2015, 2018).
The transmitter sends an RF wave to the receiver through a fluid in the
pipeline at a specific amplitude and frequency (Fig. 1). The attenuation
of the signal (amplitude and frequency) is then converted to the local
void fraction which can possible be used to calculate the dryness

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Engineering Science, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand.
E-mail addresses: mmub714@aucklanduni.ac.nz, husnimubarok@pertamina.com (M.H. Mubarok).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2020.101930
Received 12 May 2020; Received in revised form 20 July 2020; Accepted 23 July 2020
0375-6505/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.H. Mubarok, et al. Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930

Nomenclature Δw Change of measured liquid weight (kg)

ΔX Distance between sensor 1 and sensor 2 (m)
A Cross sectional area (m2) ρ Density (kg/m3)
A′ Signal of load cell sensor (kg) τ Time-delay (s)
A Mean of signal A’ (kg)
ATF Acoustic transfer function Subscripts
B′ Signal of load cell sensor 2 (kg)
B Mean of signal B’ (kg) f Liquid phase
h Enthalpy (kJ/kg) g Steam phase
LMS Least mean square i Initial
ṁ Mass flow rate (kg/s) new New value
MDP Maximum discharge pressure (barg) 0 The pipe is empty
plip Lip pressure (barg) 1 The pipe with the two-phase fluid
RAB Normalised cross-correlation coefficient 2 The pipe full of liquid
S Slip ratio f1 The pipe in two-phase flow condition
ν Velocity (m/s) f2 The pipe in the full liquid condition
w Liquid phase measured weight (kg)
w1 Weight of a one percent liquid change in the measured Superscripts
pipe length (kg)
WHP Wellhead pressure (barg) n Correction factor for the effect of the flow restriction on
x Dryness fraction of the two-phase fluid slip ratio

Greek letters

α Void fraction

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of radio frequency flow meter (modified from Sisler and Zarrouk, 2015).

fraction inside the pipeline and hence the enthalpy of the two-phase
fluid. To prevent RF energy reflection to the transmitter, a protection of
RF power needed to be improved. The reflected RF to the transmitter
causes a significant challenge in the inaccuracy of this measurement
technique (Sisler and Zarrouk, 2015). At the same time measuring the
void fraction is not enough to calculate the dryness fraction because the
different phases (liquid and steam) travel at different velocities.
1.2. Micro lip pressure
Sulaiman and Freeston (1986) and James (1987) tested a micro lip
pressure tube to determine the mixture of steam-water enthalpy
through field experiments in several geothermal wells. A pressure
vessel/pipe of 100 mm diameter was connected to the wellhead or two-
phase pipeline (Fig. 2). The two-phase fluid from the vessel then dis-
charged to the atmosphere through a lip pressure tube with a 10.7 mm
throat diameter and the lip pressure is recorded using a pressure gauge.
The field test results showed that micro lip pressure was useful in de-
termining the two-phase fluid enthalpy; however, further field testing is
necessary to ensure this technique can be applied with a wide range of
pipe sizes (James, 1987; Sulaiman and Freeston, 1986).
1.3. Resistive enthalpy meter
Spielman (2003) laboratory tested a sharp-edge office plate in-
stalled with a water resistivity sensor to measure the two-phase geo-
thermal fluid enthalpy in real-time. The device was called the ‘resistive
enthalpy meter’, and it was installed on a flow line of the well test
facility (Fig. 3). The enthalpy is quantified from the liquid volume
fraction, which is converted from the measured resistivity. However,
this technique required further improvement in equipment design, and
more experiments are required to reduce the error, through the ad-
justment of the correlation factors and liquid hold-up corrections.
1.4. Load cell
A load cell is a real-time sensor that is commonly used for measuring
stress, using the piezoelectric principle where an electrostatic signal is
obtained by converting a mechanical force from the measured object
together with a strain gauge (Karaus and Paul, 1992; Money and Sims,
1988; Wiercigroch et al., 1998). To reduce measurement error, me-
chanical and electrical calibrations are recommended before the mea-
surement. Money and Sims (1988) explained that in general load cell
sensors can be divided into two different types - compression and ten-
sion. In the compression type, an object is placed above a platform and

2
M.H. Mubarok, et al.
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of micro lip pressure (modified from James, 1987).
this is connected directly to the sensor (Fig. 4a). A tension sensor is
installed above the object, and in this case the sensor is used as a sus-
pending hanger (Fig. 4b).
The implementation of a load cell sensor for measuring the dryness
fraction of geothermal two-phase flow has been investigated by Sisler
et al. (2016, 2017, 2018) through field-testing at geothermal well sites.
Two compression load cells were installed separately under the pipe
and load cells were attached to the existing sliding pipe supports, as
shown in Fig. 5. The measured weight captured by the load cell sensors
was assumed to be the combined weight of liquid and the pipeline.
Sisler et al. (2016) concluded that a 1% change in measured liquid
weight by the load cell was similar to a change in dryness of 1%, ex-
pressed by:
Δw
x new = x i − ,
w1 (1)
where x new is the new value of dryness, x i is the initial value of dryness,
Δw is the change of measured liquid weight (kg), and w1 is the weight
of a 1% liquid change in the measured pipe length (kg).
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of resistive enthalpy meter (modified from Spielman, 2003).
3
Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930
An initial value of dryness is needed in Eq. (1). This is measured
using a discharge test performed in the field and can contribute to
uncertainty in the result when the initial dryness has relatively large
errors. Moreover, obtaining a pipe weight measurement is challenging,
due to thermal expansion that can change the measured weight of the
pipeline in hot and cold conditions. The cold condition weight is ne-
cessary to know the empty pipe weight as a baseline ( x = 1). The hot
condition weight consists of the pipe and the fluid, either full of liquid
( x = 0) or two-phase (0 < x < 1). These tests should be performed in
the field and will have to be repeated at every location where the load
cells are to be deployed.
In this present study, the enthalpy measurement focusses on using
load cell sensors with different installation and data analysis methods
for field-testing at five geothermal wells in Indonesia and New Zealand.
2. Field testing
The first field-testing was performed at four geothermal wells in
Indonesia - UBL-K/3 in the Ulubelu field (Lampung province), SBY-3 in
M.H. Mubarok, et al.
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram for installation of (a) compression and (b) tension load cell sensors (modified from Money and Sims, 1988).
the Sibayak field (North Sumatera province), LHD-37/2 in the
Lahendong field (North Sulawesi province), and the BDN-A/1 in the
Bukit Daun field (Jambi province). The second set of field-testing was
conducted at well WK-124 in the Wairakei field, New Zealand. The
schematic installation of the load cells at the five geothermal wells in
Indonesia and New Zealand are shown in Figs. 6 and 7 respectively.
The load cells and their accessories are explicitly designed to ac-
commodate a large diameter two-phase pipeline (≥ 10 inch). A com-
bination of tension and compression load cell types were selected for
field testing in Indonesia (Fig. 6), while two compression load cells
were used for the field testing in New Zealand (Fig. 7). The reason for
using two different load cells in Indonesia was to investigate the ap-
propriate type (compression or tension types) for geothermal pipeline
applications. While having the orifice plate in-between (Fig. 6) is in-
tended to allow the measurement of the mass flow rate (Mubarok et al.,
2019). At the same time to insure that, at the orifice plate, both steam
and liquid travel at the same velocity.
Two sets of load cells were purchased. The load cells had been la-
boratory tested and calibrated at the manufacturer facility before de-
livery to the warehouse (Fig. 8a). The load cells and accessories were
set up by connecting cables, interface and computer for the no-load
tests in the workshop, as shown in Fig. 8b. The test was performed using
five measurements set with various known weights.
The two load cells were installed in the two-phase pipeline of the
geothermal well for field-testing (Fig. 8c). The load cells were placed at
a known distance from each other and the two signals were recorded on
Fig. 5. Schematic of a compression load cell sensor installation in a geothermal two-phase pipeline (adopted from Sisler et al., 2016).
4
Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930
a data logger. Fig. 8c shows an example of load cells (1 and 2) installed
in well WK-124 at a distance of 7.57 m apart. It was essential to make
sure the pipeline is seated properly on the load cell cap (Fig. 8b) so that
the signals record the entire load/weight of the pipeline. In this work, a
minimum 3 mm gap was specified between the bottom of the pipeline
and the existing support (Fig. 9). During installation, the pipeline was
lifted using a chain block (crane) or a hydraulic jack to install the
support and the load cell sensor below the pipeline.
During field-testing, the load cell data were validated using a hor-
izontal discharge lip pressure test (Fig. 10d) or separator test (Fig. 10c)
(Mubarok et al., 2019). In the horizontal discharge test (Fig. 10d), the
two-phase enthalpy and mass flow rate data were recorded from a lip
pressure (Fig. 10d) along with the water level in the weir box (Fig. 10e).
In the separator test (Fig. 10c), the separated steam (ṁg ) and liquid flow
rate (ṁf ) were obtained from the separator discharge (Fig. 10c). The
data were recorded continuously at the same frequency as the orifice
data readings. The digital pressure gauges in Figs. 10a and 10d were
used to measure wellhead pressure (WHP) (Fig. 10a) and plip (Fig. 10d),
while the water level in the weir box was measured and recorded using
a digital infra-red sensor (Fig. 10e).
Several challenges were encountered during the experiments at
some locations, including the pipe falling from its support due to
thermal stress/shock (Fig. 11b), a broken load cell platform (Fig. 11b),
load cell software that did not work, equipment transportation (do-
mestic and international shipment delays), a broken sensor, and im-
proper cable connections. These happened as the load cells could not be
M.H. Mubarok, et al.
Fig. 6. Schematic of load cell installation for field-testing in Indonesia for wells UBL-K/3, SBY-3, LHD-37/2 and BDN-A/1.
Fig. 7. Schematic of load cell installation for field-testing in New Zealand for well WK-124.
adapted in geothermal environments, including high temperature and
corrosive gases which can damage the electronic (Copper and Silver)
parts of the load cell sensor and connecting cables.
3. Measurement approaches
The basic principle for testing the load cell sensors, is to measure the
weight change of the pipeline with the flowing two-phase fluid inside
during well discharge/operation (Sisler, 2018; Sisler et al., 2017, 2016).
The magnitude of weight change is expected to be converted to the
velocity, dryness or enthalpy of two-phase geothermal fluid. Real-time
discharge data were used to compare and validate the results. Pro-
duction testing (Fig. 10) was performed at the same time as the load cell
experiment, to validate the results. Two different approaches were
performed in this work - a time-delay and liquid phase weight.
3.1. Two-phase flow regime
Considering liquid phase wave is based on the field observation.
Even though the well is not slugging (the fluid is of annular flow re-
gime), there is always small level vibration which can be felt by hand
placed on the two-phase pipeline connected to a well under long term
steady-state operation (Beuthe, 1997). This could also be due to the
change in the flow regime from the two-phase geothermal fluid flowing
vertically in the well then change in direction to horizontal flow at the
ground surface (Chadha et al., 1993). These waves maintain their shape
for some distance in the straight pipeline with no obstruction which we
have tried capture in this work to calculate the velocity of the liquid/
water flowing at the bottom of the pipeline. However, even if it possible
to calculate the velocity of water, we will not be able to measure the
mass flow rate/velocity of steam as it is not possible to estimate/mea-
sure the slip ratio. Therefore, this technique will not be suitable for
measuring the mass flow rate and the work is focused on using one load
cell to calculate the enthalpy.
5
Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930
Geothermal two-phase annular flow is not totally smooth as the flow
of the steam is much faster than the flow of water/liquid (Austrheim
et al., 2007). The steam flow will create small waves (this is not as
visible as wave flow regime) in the liquid that is flowing at the bottom
of the pipeline, which creates changes in the weight of the pipeline on
the supports.
When choosing the wells for field-testing, slugging wells are avoided
because it can highly induced vibration, which is detrimental to the
operation of the load cells in the long term. For some cases slug flow
also causes the pipeline to jump from its support (Beuthe, 1997),which
will make these measurements not very useful and can cause high
sudden loads beyond the load cell design limit.
It is important to note that the use of two-phase flow regime map to
help predict the type flow regime before considering the well is not
accurate. This is because, most of these maps have been developed for
water and air using much smaller diameter pipelines, which makes
them not very accurate in large diameter geothermal pipelines. For
example, The test data from the five wells used in this study are plotted
on the Mandhane map as shown in Fig. 12 (Mandhane et al., 1974).
These wells have the same visible behaviour from field observation and
as demonstrated by the load cell data. Three different flow regimes –
annular, dispersed and slug flow – are predicted by the Mandhane map
(Fig. 12). We believe that a dedicated geothermal two-phase flow re-
gime map should be developed from field test data.
3.2. Liquid velocity through two-phase wave time-delay
The first approach is to determine the time-delay (τ ) between two
signals from two load cell sensors installed at a fixed distance (ΔX ), as
shown in Fig. 13. With a known distance between two load cell sensors
and an estimated signal time-delay, then the liquid velocity can be
calculated as:
M.H. Mubarok, et al. Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930

Fig. 8. Images of the load cell system during (a) calibration, (b) equipment set up and no-load test at the workshop and (c) the installation in the two-phase pipeline
at well WK-124 (images acquired by author).

νf =
ΔX
, phase fluid can be considered homogeneous at the vena-contracta zone
τ (2)
where νf is the liquid velocity (m/s), ΔX is the distance between sensor
1 and sensor 2 (m), and τ is the time-delay between sensor 1 and sensor
2 (s). In this work, it was not possible to measure the steam velocity (νg )
using load cells because the steam is much less dense and travels at a
higher velocity above the liquid phase.
The first field-tests were performed in Indonesian geothermal fields
using the two different Load Cell types. The tension (Sensor 1) and
compression (Sensor 2) sensors were installed upstream and down-
stream of a two-phase orifice plate respectively (Fig. 6). The placement
of the two sensors between the orifice plate is intended to ensure that
the liquid and steam velocity slip ratio (S ) is close to unity (Eq. 3) near
the orifice plate.
νg
S= ≡1
νf (3)
Another expression for S comes from the combination of the
Chisholm (1983) and Kojasoy et al. (1997) correlation:
n load cell method. However, the slip ratio is still necessary to estimate
⎡ ⎛ ρf ⎞⎤
S = ⎢ 1 + x ⎜ − 1⎟ ⎥ ,
⎢ ρ
⎣ ⎝ g ⎠⎥⎦ (4)
3
where x is the dryness, ρf is the liquid density (kg/m ), ρg is the steam
density (kg/m3), and n is the correction factor for the effect of the flow
restriction on S . Roul and Dash (2012) noted that the mixture of two-
(Fig. 6) of the orifice plate so that n is zero, and S becomes unity (S = 1)
or very close to unity. The void fraction (α ) is also an important para-
meter that needs to be known for characterising the two-phase fluid
flow, which is calculated from the ratio of steam ( Ag ) and liquid ( Af )
cross-section area (Eq. 5), as shown in Fig. 14.
Ag
α= .
(Ag + Af ) (5)
Campos et al. (2014) explained that the two parameters, void
fraction (α ) and slip ratio (S ), need to be known to determine the
dryness fraction ( x ):
−1
⎡ 1 − x ⎛ ρg ⎞ ⎤
α = ⎢1 + ⎛ ⎞ S⎥ .
⎝ x ⎠ ⎜⎝ ρf ⎟⎠ (6)
⎣ ⎦
Abdul-Majeed (1996) proposed a void fraction model without the
dryness fraction. This void fraction is a function of liquid and steam
velocity. In the present study, the liquid velocity can be estimated using
the steam velocity (Eq. 3).
In the second field tests at well WK-124, two compression load cells
were placed under the pipeline between existing sliding supports in a
straight two-phase pipeline, as shown in Fig. 7. The liquid and pipe
weight were measured by the two sensors to estimate the time-delay
and calculate the liquid velocity. In this case, the two-phase fluid is

6
M.H. Mubarok, et al. Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930

flowing without the restriction of an orifice plate (Fig. 7).

The pipeline weights from the tension (Fig. 15a) and compression
(Fig. 15b) load cells are received at an interface through a fibre optic
cable. The electrical signal from the sensors is then converted to the
weight in the interface and a computer records signals in real-time, as
shown in Fig. 15c.
Sun et al. (2016) showed that the time-delay between two sensors
can be calculated using cross-correlation, least mean squares (LMS),
acoustic transfer function (ATF), or time-frequency energy methods. In
the present study, the cross-correlation method was used because it is
the most accurate to estimate the time-delay (Shi et al., 2015). The
time-delay is estimated by detecting the lag for the highest peaks
(caused by the passage of liquid water waves inside the pipeline) of the
cross-correlation coefficient (RAB ) from the data.
The cross-correlation function between two sensor signals - A′ (from
sensor 1) and B′ (from sensor 2) - is expressed as (Nelson-Wong et al.,
2009):
1 N
∑ (Ai
N i=1
− A )(Bi − B )
RAB = ,
1 N N
N
∑i = 1 (Ai − A )2∑i = 1 (Bi − B )2 (7)

where RAB is the normalised cross-correlation coefficient (between

0–1), N is the number of data points in the record of signal input, Ai is
signal A′ (kg), A is the mean of signal A′ (kg), Bi is signal B′ (kg), and B
is the mean of signal B′ (kg). In the present work, the cross-correlation
was carried out using the built-in function (CORREL) in Microsoft®
Excel®. The relationship criteria based on the value of RAB introduced
by Cohen (1988) has been adopted, as shown in Table 1.

3.3. Liquid phase weight

Fig. 9. Image of compression load cell showing the gap (more than 3 mm)
between the bottom of the two-phase pipeline shoe and the existing support A second approach to estimate the enthalpy is estimating the dry-
(image taken by author).
ness ( x ) based on the liquid phase measured weight of the pipe in empty

Fig. 10. Photographs of (a) a geothermal well, (b) a silencer, (c) a separator, (d) a lip pressure recorder and (e) weir box with digital water level recorder (images
taken by author).

7
M.H. Mubarok, et al. Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930

Fig. 11. Photographs of pipe-load cell support conditions, (a) before and (b) after well discharge of UBL-K/3 (images taken by author).

Fig. 12. Mandhane map with data from field-testing results.

Fig. 13. Concept of time-delay (τ ) estimation from the profile of

measured pipe and fluid weight from two load cell sensors.

8
M.H. Mubarok, et al. Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930

Table 1
Cross-correlation. relationship criteria (Cohen, 1988).
RAB Criteria

< 0.3 Weak relationship

0.3 – 0.5 Moderate relationship
0.5 – 1.0 Strong relationship

Fig. 14. Schematic of a two-phase pipeline with the cross-section areas of steam
and liquid.
(w0 ), two-phase fluid (w1) and full of liquid (w2 ) conditions, as shown in
Fig. 16. In this method, the measured weight recorded by the load cell is
assumed to be the liquid phase weight while steam is neglected. The
pipe in the cold empty condition is measured where the fluid is not
flowing. The measured weight (w0) is used as a baseline. If the empty
pipe is not adjusted to zero, the liquid phase (w1 or w2 ) is effectively the
measured weight minus the pipeline weight (w0 ). The correlation be-
tween three parameters (w0 , w1 and w2 ) and x can be expressed as:
wf 1 = (w1 − w0), (8)

wf 2 = (w2 − w0), (9)

Fig. 15. Photographs of (a) tension, (b) compression load cells and (c) the real-time data visualisation of the weight measured pipe during data acquisition (images
taken by author).

9
M.H. Mubarok, et al. Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930

Fig. 16. Schematic of liquid phase to estimate the dryness by measuring three conditions of weight: (a) empty (only air), (b) two-phase fluid and (c) full of liquid.

Fig. 17. Simplified of schematic testing facility diagram and the operation process to get the full liquid condition during the field-testing at well UBL-K/3.

wg = (wf 2 − wf 1), (10) practically is not easy to achieve the full liquid condition using fluid
from a two-phase flowing wells and cold water is safer to handle.
wg (wf 2 − wf 1 ) When the well is closed, the wellhead pressure (WHP) will increase
x= = , to the maximum discharge pressure (MDP) (Zarrouk and McLean,
wf 2 (w2 − w0 ) (11)
2019). The pressure beyond MDP will drop gradually to zero, and in
where x is the dryness fraction, wf 1 is the liquid phase weight in the this case the fluid will stop discharging from the well and the well may
two-phase flow condition (kg), wf 2 is the liquid phase weight in the full require discharge stimulation (Mubarok and Zarrouk, 2017).
liquid condition (kg), and wg is the steam weight (kg). Filling the pipeline with cold water was practically difficult to carry
Theoretically, the full liquid condition in a pipeline can be obtained out on remote sites, moreover cold water is not exactly representative
by filling the pipe with cold water or by closing the throttle valve in the of the geothermal fluid due to the difference in density. At the same
downstream location to 100 %, as shown in Fig. 17. When the valve is time cold water will not allow the pipeline to heat up (thermally ex-
fully closed, the line pressure will increase, and the steam phase will pand) as in normal flow conditions. Therefore, we attempted the ap-
change to liquid ( x = 0) in the mixture of two-phase flow. However, proach given in Fig. 17, which is not ideal, because filling the pipeline

10
M.H. Mubarok, et al. Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930

Fig. 18. Load cell data from field-testing at well UBL-K/3.

Fig. 19. Load cell data from field-testing at well SBY-3.

Fig. 20. Load cell data from field-testing at well LHD-37/2.

with hot geothermal fluid can cause the brine to drain back into the
well leaving the pipeline full of steam, which can be a weakness in the
calibration method. Possibly adding the equivalent weight (of pipe full
of liquid) to the outside of the pipeline would be a better option for
future testing.
4. Results
The results of the real-time signal 1 and 2 data acquired using the
load cells are shown in Figs. 18–22 respectively. Two load cells were
installed with different separation distances for each well, as summar-
ized in Table 2. From Fig. 21, ‘signal 1′ at well BDN-A/1 was not re-
corded, as the measured pipeline weight was over the maximum ca-
pacity of the sensor (> 5000 kg). Thus, the time-delay for well BDN-A/
1 could not be calculated.
The load cell signals for each well show different trends
(Figs. 18–22), due to various factors including pipeline arrangement,
pipe size, flow regime, operating pressure, and load cell installation
(Table 2). In Figs. 18–20 and Fig. 22, the cross-correlation coefficient
(RAB ) is estimated using Eq. (7). The summary of the cross-correlation
delay for wells UBL-K/3, SBY-3, LHD-37/2 and WK-124 are shown in
Figs. 23–26 respectively.
The entire original signals were cross-correlated in Figs. 23–26 to
find the relationship between the two signals. The cross-correlation
coefficient RAB is presented in Table 3. From Figs. 23–26, it is apparent
that only WK-124 test data has a peak RAB value greater than 0.5. The
other wells (UBL-K/3, SBY-3 and LHD-37/2) have a poor correlation
due to the noise that resulted from having the orifice plate between the

11
M.H. Mubarok, et al. Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930

Fig. 21. Load cell data from field-testing at well BDN-A/1.

Fig. 22. Load cell data results from the field-testing at well WK-124.

Table 2 two sensors, causing a major disturbance to the flow or having a low
Load Cells Installed. data frequency setting (1 Hz), as shown in Table 3. The peak RAB values
Well Load Cell Type Orifice Plate Distance between
in the overall cross-correlation of the wells are summarised in Table 3.
between Load Load Cells Table 3 shows that; the time-delay of the two load cell signals can be
Sensor 1 Sensor 2 Cells (m) estimated for well WK-124, which is indicated by the strong relation-
ship (Peak RAB = 0.99) for the correlation. Unfortunately, the other
UBL-K/3 Tension Compression Installed 7.00
SBY-3 Tension Compression Installed 4.94
three wells (UBL-K/3, SBY-3 and LHD-37/2) do not allow the time-
LHD-37/2 Tension Compression Installed 15.58 delay to be calculated using cross-correlation, because the three have a
BDN-A/1 Tension Compression Installed 16.00 weak correlation relationship (Peak RAB < 0.3).
WK-124 Compression Compression None 7.57 From the load cell field-testing in five wells, the test for liquid phase
weight was only measured in well UBL-K/3 due to technical problems
and test time limitations on the other wells. An average measured liquid

Fig. 23. Cross-correlation of signal 1 and signal 2 from well UBL-K/3.

12
M.H. Mubarok, et al. Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930

Fig. 24. Cross-correlation of signal 1 and signal 2 from well SBY-3.

Fig. 25. Cross-correlation of signal 1 and signal 2 from well LHD-37/2.

Fig. 26. Cross-correlation of signal 1 and signal 2 from well WK-124.

Table 3 weight is 813 kg. In this case, the average value is defined as wf 2, be-
Cross-correlation Peak Value from Wells UBL-K/3, SBY-3, LHD-37/2 and WK- cause the fluid in the pipeline is assumed to be full of liquid. The pi-
124. peline weight in the empty condition is reset to zero, so the w0 = 0 kg. A
Well Data Frequency Peak RAB Correlation Criteria real-time profile for wf 1 is provided in Fig. 27. The data shown in Fig. 27
(Hz) will be used in Eq. (11) to calculate the dryness fraction which is used to
calculate the enthalpy at the pipeline pressure.
UBL-K/3 1 0.292 < 0.3, weak relationship
From the observation of the overall cross-correlation profile of well
SBY-3 1 0.298 < 0.3, weak relationship
LHD-37/2 1 0.268 < 0.3, weak relationship WK-124 in Fig. 28, the profile was partitioned into shorter samples, in
WK-124 50 0.990 0.5−1.0, strong relationship this case every 60 s (sec) of measurement to gain an averaged τ in every
minute of the total measurement. Fig. 28 shows an example for ob-
taining the τ in the first minute of measurement from the original

13
M.H. Mubarok, et al.
Fig. 28. (a) Real-time load cell data and (b) cross-correlation in the first minute of measurement from well WK-124, Wairakei, New Zealand.
signals (Fig. 28a) and the cross-correlation (Fig. 28b). From Fig. 28b,
the peak RAB value occurs at τ = 0.16 s. By using the information of τ
and distance between load cell sensors (ΔX = 7.57 m), the velocity
(ν = ΔX / τ ) will be 47.31 m/s.
5. Discussion
Fig. 29 shows the peak RAB , τ and v in real-time measurement. From
Fig. 29, the velocity (solid green line) over the 23 min of measurement
decreases from 43 to 8 m/s. These velocities are very high for liquid
14
Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930
Fig. 27. The measured weight profile for wf 1 in a real-time mea-
surement at well UBL-K/3.
Fig. 29. Real-time profiles for: time-delay, peak RAB and liquid
velocity of well WK-124.
phase flow. However, after 23 min of measurement, the velocity de-
clines rapidly and becomes stable around 4 m/s.
The high liquid velocity in the early 23 min measurement could be
related to well discharge transient effects and pipeline thermal expan-
sion. The transient effects usually occur in the beginning of the well
discharge due to the two-phase fluid flow from the feed zone in the well
bore (Grant and Bixley, 2011). Pipeline expansion takes place because
of the heat transfer (convective and conductive) from the geothermal
two-phase fluid. However, the pipe weight remains steady after the
transient region. This phenomenon is shown in the load cells data
M.H. Mubarok, et al.
Fig. 30. The real-time estimated velocities from the load cells with comparison to field data (liquid velocity, steam velocity, two-phase velocity and slip ratio).
Fig. 31. The real-time enthalpy measurements, comparison between load cell and actual field data for UBL-K/3.
Fig. 32. The predicted and field data of enthalpy at UBL-K/3 using load cell-
liquid phase weight.
(Fig. 22) and the estimated velocity (Fig. 30).
From Fig. 30, the estimated velocity (load cell) after 23 min follows
the liquid velocity (field data) trend with an average slip ratio of 10.6
(S = νg / νf ). This result confirmed that the load cell method is capable of
estimating the liquid velocity by measuring the time-delay of two sig-
nals from load cell sensors. However, the load cell method requires a
slip ratio (S ) and a void fraction (α ) to calculate the dryness ( x ) of two-
phase fluid (Eq. 6), which, can possibly be measured by other devices,
15
Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930
including the radio frequency sensor (Sisler and Zarrouk, 2015).
However, those option was not investigated in this work.
Therefore, on its own, the load cell method cannot provide accurate
measurement of two-phase mass flow rate or enthalpy. At the same
time, the technical challenges encountered during field-testing show
that more work is needed to improve the reliability of the sensor
system.
From the liquid phase weight at well UBL-K/3, the real-time profile
comparison between load cell and field data is shown in Fig. 31. The
trend of estimated h (red solid line) is higher than the field data (black
dots). The prediction of h using liquid phase weight over-predicts the
measured h from field data by 13.7 %, as shown in Fig. 32.
The high relative error of the enthalpy prediction results (Figs. 31
and 32) could be caused by two factors. Firstly, the measurement of the
empty pipe is carried out in cold condition, while w1 and w2 are mea-
sured in the hot condition, so the thermal stress of the pipe due to heat
transfer will contribute to the measured pipe weight. Secondly, the
measured wf 1 is assumed to be liquid weight only, but the steam, which
has some weight (approximately 1–5 % of the total fluid weight), is
neglected.
Some technical problems were faced during the field-testing due to
the complexity of the equipment setup and remote site operation.
Future work is necessary to enhance the accuracy, simplify the in-
stallation and enhance the repeatability of the load cell method. It is
recommended that future field-testing consider including a longer
straight pipe length (> 20 m) and a longer testing duration (at least one
day), avoiding the installation between orifice plates, valves or other
pipeline components and use a minimum frequency of 50 Hz for data
acquisition. Furthermore, selecting the appropriate maximum load cell
M.H. Mubarok, et al.
capacity is also important to accommodate the heavy pipe system in the
field to prevent malfunctions or sensor damage.
6. Conclusions
A pair of load cells were installed in geothermal two-phase pipelines
with two installation setups during field-testing. First, two different
load cell types were placed at a particular distance either side of an
orifice plate; these were tension and compression sensors. The second
installation scheme was carried out using two identical load cells
(compression) with no orifice plate in-between.
The cross-correlation results show that the data from the two sen-
sors in the first scheme are not correlated, thus this scheme cannot
estimate the time delay of the load cell signals. In contrast, the cross-
correlation results from the second scheme (two compression load cells
with no restriction between them) have a better cross-correlation re-
lationship (RAB ) between the two sensors signals.
From the field-testing results, estimating enthalpy using load cell
sensors is difficult to achieve. Measuring the liquid velocity is possible
with two parallel load cells; however, the input parameters of slip ratio
and void fraction from other measurement/devices is necessary to find
the enthalpy. Estimating the dryness fraction to obtain enthalpy is
possible, but the result shows low accuracy (the mean relative error is
13.7 %).
Further field testing of load cells should be carried out to optimise
the equipment setting to improve the enthalpy measurement technique.
It would be also interesting to combine the load cell with other mea-
surement techniques, such as the radio frequency, micro lip pressure, or
resistive enthalpy meter.
All persons who meet authorship criteria are listed as authors, and
all authors certify that they have participated sufficiently in the work to
take public responsibility for the content, including participation in the
concept, design, analysis, writing, or revision of the manuscript.
Furthermore, each author certifies that this material or similar material
has not been and will not be submitted to or published in any other
publication before its appearance in the Geothermics.
Authorship contributions
Please indicate the specific contributions made by each author (list
the authors’ initials followed by their surnames, e.g., Y.L. Cheung). The
name of each author must appear at least once in each of the three
categories below.
Category 1
Conception and design of study: M.H. Mubarok, S.J. Zarrouk, J.E.
Cater; acquisition of data: M.H. Mubarok; analysis and/or interpreta-
tion of data: M.H. Mubarok, S.J. Zarrouk, J.E. Cater
Category 2
Drafting the manuscript: M.H. Mubarok, J.E. Cater, S.J. Zarrouk;
revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content:
M.H. Mubarok, S.J. Zarrouk, J.E. Cater
Category 3
Approval of the version of the manuscript to be published (the
names of all authors must be listed): M.H. Mubarok, S.J. Zarrouk, J.E.
Cater, A. Mundakir, E.A.B. Bramantyo, Y.W. Lim
Declaration of Competing Interest
The New Zealand ASEAN Scholarship (NZAS) and PT Pertamina
Geothermal Energy (PGE) are providing financial support and field-
testing to our research but had no involvement in the conduct of the
research or preparation of the article and there is no restriction is im-
posed on publishing the work, thus, there are no interests to declare.
16
Geothermics 89 (2021) 101930
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank New Zealand ASEAN Scholarship
and PT Pertamina Geothermal Energy for their financial and technical
supports. We would also like to thank Contact Energy Ltd for facil-
itating the field work at Wairakei geothermal field.
References
Abdul-Majeed, G.H., 1996. Liquid holdup in horizontal two-phase gas-liquid flow. J. Pet. Sci.
Eng. 15, 271–280.
Austrheim, T., Gjertsen, L.H., Hoffmann, A.C., 2007. Re-entrainment correlations for demisting
cyclones acting at elevated pressure on a range of fluids. Energy Fuels 21, 2969–2976.
Beuthe, T.G., 1997. Review of two-phase water hammer. In: Proceedings of the 18th Canadian
Nuclear Society Conference. Toronto, Canada. pp. 20.
Campos, S.R.V., Baliño, J.L., Slobodcicov, I., Filho, D.F., Paz, E.F., 2014. Orifice plate meter
field performance: formulation and validation in multiphase flow conditions. Exp. Therm.
Fluid Sci. 58, 93–104.
Chadha, P.K., Malin, M.R., Palacio-Perez, A., 1993. Modelling of two-phase flow inside geo-
thermal wells. Appl. Math. Model. 17, 236–245.
Chisholm, D., 1983. Two-phase Flow in Pipelines and Heat Exchangers, 1st ed. George Godwin,
Michigan.
Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Lawrence
Erlbaum.
DiPippo, R., 2007. Geothermal power plants: principles, applications. Case Studies and
Environmental Impact, 2nd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, USA.
Grant, M.A., Bixley, P.F., 2011. Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, 2nd ed. Elsevier, United
Kingdom.
Helbig, S., Zarrouk, S.J., 2012. Measuring two-phase flow in geothermal pipelines using sharp
edge orifice plates. Geothermics 44, 52–64.
James, R., 1987. Discharging through an orifice determines steam-water enthalpy. Proceedings
of the 12th Workshop on Geothermal Rerservoir Engineering. Stanford University,
California, USA, pp. 301–304.
Karaus, A., Paul, H., 1992. Load cells with small nominal load based on strain gauges using thin-
film techniques. Measurement 10, 133–139.
Kojasoy, G., Landis, F., Kwame-Mensah, P., Chang, C.T., 1997. Two-phase pressure drop in
multiple thick-and thin-orifice plates. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 15, 347–358.
Lin, Z.H., 1982. Two-phase flow measurements with sharp-edged orifices. Int. J. Multiph. Flow
8, 681–693.
Mandhane, J.M., Gregory, G.A., Aziz, K., 1974. A flow pattern map for gas-liquid flow in
horizontal pipes. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 1, 537–553.
Money, M.W., Sims, G.D., 1988. Calibration of quartz load cells; An in-situ procedure for in-
strumented falling weight impact machines. Polym. Test. 8, 429–442.
Mubarok, M.H., Zarrouk, S.J., Cater, J.E., 2019. Two-phase flow measurement of geothermal
fluid using orifice plate: field testing and CFD validation. Renew. Energy 134, 927–946.
Mubarok, M.H., Cater, J.E., Zarrouk, S.J., 2020. Comparative CFD modelling of pressure dif-
ferential flow meters for measuring two-phase geothermal fluid flow. Geothermics 86,
1–18.
Mubarok, M.H., Zarrouk, S.J., 2016. Steam-field design overview of the ulubelu geothermal
project, Indonesia. Proceedings of the 38th New Zealand Geothermal Workshop.
Mubarok, M.H., Zarrouk, S.J., 2017. Discharge stimulation of geothermal wells: overview and
analysis. Geothermics 70, 17–37.
Nelson-Wong, E., Howarth, S., Winter, D.A., Callacghan, Jack, P., 2009. Application of
Autocorrelation and Crosscorrelation Analyses in Human Movement and Rehabilitation
Research. ournal Orthop. N. Am. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 39, 287–295.
Roul, M.K., Dash, S.K., 2012. Single phase and two-phase flow through thin and thick orifices in
horizontal pipes. J. Fluids Eng. 134, 1–14.
Shi, B., Wei, J., Pang, M., 2015. A modified cross-correlation algorithm for PIV image proces-
sing of particle-fluid two-phase flow. Flow Meas. Instrum. 45, 105–117.
Sisler, J.R., 2018. Real-time sensors for multi-phase flows: results of Field trials and further
study. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering.
Stanford University. pp. 1–4.
Sisler, J.R., Zarrouk, S.J., Urgel, A., Lim, Y.W., Adams, R., Martin, S., 2016. Measurement of two
phase flows in geothermal pipelines using load-cells: Field trial results. In: Proceedings of
the 41st Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering. Stanford University, California,
USA. pp. 1–10.
Sisler, J.R., Boetzer, K.D., Zarrouk, S.J., 2017. Weight-based Phase Composition Ratio
Determination. US, pp. 1–16.
Sisler, J.R., Zarrouk, S.J., 2015. Measurement of two phase flows in geothermal pipelines using
radio frequency (RF) power measurements: experimental results. In: Proceedings of the
37th New Zealand Geothermal Worksop. International Geothermal Association, Taupo,
New Zealand. pp. 1–7.
Spielman, P., 2003. Continuous enthalpy measurement of two-phase flow from a geothermal
well. In: Geothermal Resources Council. California, USA. pp. 413–416.
Sulaiman, S., Freeston, D.H., 1986. Geothermal Two-Phase Field and Laboratory Measurements.
Mech. Eng. The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Sun, H.M., Jia, R.S., Du, Q.Q., Fu, Y., 2016. Cross-correlation analysis and time delay estimation
of a homologous micro-seismic signal based on the Hilbert-Huang transform. Comput.
Geosci. 91, 98–104.
Watson, A., 2013. Geothermal Engineering: Fundamental and Applications, 1st ed. Springer,
New York, USA.
Wiercigroch, M., Neilson, R.D., Player, M.A., 1998. Load cell for dynamic measurement of
cutting forces generated during ultrasonic drilling and milling of hard materials.
Proceedings of the Instrumentation Mechanical Engineers 263–270.
Zarrouk, S.J., McLean, K., 2019. Geothermal Well Test Analysis : Fundamentals, Applications
and Advanced Techniques, 1st ed. ed. Elsevier, London, UK.
Zarrouk, S.J., Mubarok, M.H., Cater, J.E., 2019. The geothermal Two-phase orifice. ULUSAL
TESISAT MHENDISLIGI KONGRESI. Izmir, Turkey.