OTC-25111-MS

Evaluation Of A Composite Device With An Embedded Non-Intrusive Water

Cut Sensing Platform For Production Tubing And Well Completions
Alan Parker, Giles Edward, and Ramesh M Ladwa, M Flow Technologies Limited

Copyright 2014, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 5– 8 May 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the
written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words;
illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
We present the development of a unique water-cut/component meter with sensor elements embedded in
a composite thermoplastic pipe. It is suitable for use in a high pressure, high temperature, and / or sour
service environment. Composite construction allows the sensor elements to lie outside the flow path,
without flow obstruction or contact with the flow-line fluids, and the sensing is capable of measuring the
full flow line diameter without the need for active mixing, or vertical orientation of the meter. The sensing
systems are low power, robust and are designed for zero planned intervention during a multi-year life. The
sensor device is monolithic and suitable for high hydrostatic and flow line pressure and applicable for
production tubing and well completions. The meter design is embodied in an number of patent applica-
tions.
Background & Introduction
Monitoring the water content of the fluid flowing through a pipe has many applications in the oil & gas
industry. These range from process control at the well head, through pipe line allocation from a multi-well
system sharing common transport piping, to fiscal allocation at the refinery. A wide variety of systems
have been developed for this application using a variety of technologies 1, 2 Many of these systems are
limited in their applications for a number of reasons:
The sensor design often involves adding some form of intrusion into the pipe that disturbs the flow
pattern within the pipe & can lead to a significant pressure drop across the sensor. In addition these
intrusive sensor parts are subject to fouling & corrosion which can lead to measurements issues and the
need for frequent service or replacement of the sensor in the field. Finally these intrusions prevent the pipe
system from being pigged.
As an alternative, intrusive sensors can be mounted on a by-pass line to prevent any of the above issues
from complicating the main pipe network. In this case, there are issues with ensuring that the sample
flowing through the by-pass is representative of the whole flow in the pipe. This can only be achieved in
practise by significant active mixing of the sample which requires an inline mixer to be installed into the
pipe system prior to the by-pass.
One reason for having sensor parts intruding into the pipe is the need to put the sensing elements inside
the pressure containing area of the steel pipe. For many electromagnetic sensing techniques, such as
2 OTC-25111-MS

microwave & capacitive based sensors, the sensing signal will not pass through a metal pipe & therefore
the sensing system must be inside the pipe. In many cases the metal pipe is part of the sensing system.
This can lead to issues with sensor performance due to restrictions on the pipe geometry.
Ideally it would be better to separate the sensing technology from the fluid being sensed by embedding
it into the wall of the pipe system. This removes the intrusion effects discussed above. In addition, if the
sensor system can be designed to measure across the full bore of the pipe, the whole of the fluid can be
measured without active mixing & the sampling issues discussed above also disappear. We are developing
sensors that are embedded in the wall of an advanced thermoplastic carbon pipe that has been developed
by a specialist risers and tubing manufacturer for use in the oil & gas industry 3, 4 We believe that the
performance of many sensing technologies used for water content measurement & other applications in
pipes could be improved by adopting this approach.
For example, and as discussed earlier, for many electromagnetic sensing techniques it is not possible
to embed the sensors in the pipe wall of a metallic pipe due to the shielding effects of the metal pipe.
However, this is not an issue with an appropriately constructed monolithic polymer composite where part
of the pipe wall can be made to be transparent to electromagnetic energy, without impacting on
mechanical integrity. Our initial application is the development of an electromagnetic resonant cavity
sensor built into the pipe wall for monitoring the water volume fraction (WVF) in oil continuous
hydrocarbon/water mixtures. This form of sensor has been tried before in metallic pipe systems with some
success 5, 6 However we believe that a resonator sensor based on m-pipe technology is likely to have a
number of practical advantages compared with previous designs which will make it easier to develop field
deployable devices based on this concept.
Finally, in many upstream environments it is currently necessary to install very expensive & complex
multiphase meters to measure water cut in a 3 phase environment. We believe it may be possible to
produce a gas tolerant water cut meter based on composite technology to address this area in a simpler
& less costly manner.
Initial Application
The meter technology is based on a high frequency resonant cavity concept based on proven monolithic
non metallic riser pipe construction. The pipe is oriented along the main axis of the sensor & the resonant
structure is built into the non- metallic pipe wall but is sensitive to the contents of the pipe. A resonant
cavity sensor works by tracking the variation in frequency of an EM field in a pipe as the proportions of
oil, water and gas, and therefore the permittivity, of a fluid mixture in the flow changes.
The sensor resonates at a number of frequencies that are dependent on the sensor dimensions &
electrical permittivity of the contents. There is a significant difference between the electrical permittivity
of water (81) & oil (2.1) & gas (1) so these resonance frequencies will vary with the water content of the
pipe. Changes in these frequencies are used to derive the water volume fraction in the material flowing
through the pipe.
The unique advantages of this approach derive from the fact that the microwave sensor is embedded
into the wall of a high pressure, high temperature, polymer composite pipe. The polymer is transparent
to the microwaves and so the sensor can sit outside the flow path. This means that it can be non-intrusive
to the flow, and also allows a different approach to the EM field propagation, significantly enhancing
sensing ability.
The embedding of the sensor elements in the non metallic pipe would not be viable if it compromised
the integrity of the body as the high pressure. The technology build method, based on the monolithic, non
metallic riser construction allows the sensor to be embedded in a manner which retains a monolithic
structure to the pipe wall without damaging the sensor during manufacture. It can not only be built to
withstand high internal and external pressures, but is also resistant to rapid gas decompression issues
common to lined pipe or un-bonded flexibles.
OTC-25111-MS 3

Figure 1—External & Internal Views of an M-Flow Surecut Sensor

Figure 2—Experimental data showing sensor response as spherical inclusions of water are added to an oil matrix

This design has been developed for pipe diameters between 1” and 4” and the concept has been tested
extensively using mixed and un-mixed samples (see figures 1 and 2).
In addition the design has been modelled using Comsol 7 FEM modelling software. These finite
element models have been an important design aid in understanding the behaviour of the sensor system
and predicting its performance in different flow regimes.
Following initial testing & modelling a prototype sensor was constructed around a piece of 3⬙ diameter
m-pipe for flow rig testing.
Flow Loop Testing
Flow Loop
The flow loop used was the Cranfield University Process Systems Engineering Group Three-Phase Test
Facility 8. The operation of this facility is as follows:
A controlled and measured rate of oil, water and air mixture from the flow metering area is supplied
into the test area and finally into the phase separation area where the oil, water and air are separated. After
a three-phase gravity separator, the oil and water are cleaned in their respective coalescers before being
returned to the main tanks while the air is exhausted into the atmosphere.
The oil used is a low viscosity dielectric mineral oil of S.G. 0.811 and viscosity 7.0 mPa s and the water
is mains supply non saline water. The oil and water legs are measured independently with flow meters
4 OTC-25111-MS

(magnetic and coriolis) before comingling. The

data sheet accuracy of the metering is ⫹/- 0.2% for
the oil leg and ⫹/- 0.5% for the water leg. How-
ever, no information is available on the validation
of those accuracies for this installation.
The test facility is controlled by a DeltaV con-
trol and data acquisition (SCADA) software. The
pressure in the rig range from 1m of static fluid
head to a maximum pressure of air from the com-
pressors at 7 barg. Liquid flow rates of 2l/s to 4l/s
were run in the loop. However it was noted that
below 2l/s the flow regime slugged due to the
presence of a riser section in the piping close to the
sensor and above 4l/s the residence time in the
Figure 3—FEM Plot of Sensor Electric Field Response three phase separator was not sufficient and the oil
and water legs became contaminated limiting sta-
ble flow to less than 15 minutes.
Prototype Meter
The meter used was prototype meter # 001 and is based on a pipe ID of 80mm, i.e.3” nominal piping
diameter. The overall length of the metering spool is 322mm. Data acquisition and sensor control was
provided by the Sure-Cut® Electronics Package v1.0. Data processing was carried out in real time using
a custom GUI running under Microsoft Windows™ on a fairly standard laptop. Data sample rates of ~
2Hz and ~100Hz were obtained for the final measurement in these tests.
Meter Configuration in the Flow Rig
The meter was placed in a horizontal section of the rig with approximately 40 m of straight horizontal pipe
before the meter. A 2-3” expander joint was placed at the beginning of a 2m test section, with a
corresponding reducer placed at the end. A 2” Perspex viewing section was supplied post reducer. The
sure cut meter was tested in 2 configurations. Firstly with a 0.77 m length 3” Euromixer TM static mixer
section placed immediately before the meter, and secondly with the mixer removed.

Test Program
The majority of tests were carried out with a 2 phase oil and water mixture with water volume fractions
(WVF) varying between 0% and 45%.
In addition 3 phase tests were carried out with GVF values between 23% and 48% at a range of fixed
WVF values.
The tests were carried out over a 2 week period from the 7th to the 18th October 2013. All tests were
carried out at ambient temperature which varied between approximately 16 and 25 degrees Celsius.

Meter Calibration
Calibration of the meter was carried out at the company’s Abingdon laboratory using homogenised static
oil/water mixtures between 0 and 27% WVF. The oil used was a commercial grade hydraulic oil of higher
viscosity than the flow rig oil. To obtain stable samples at the higher end of this WVF range a commercial
detergent needed to be added to these mixtures. Mixtures above 27% WVF separated too quickly to allow
calibration.
Theory and modelling predicted that variation in the oil characteristics result in a variation of oil
permittivity, and that this variation will be seen as a fixed offset in WVF reading against a standard
calibration curve obtained from samples made up using a different oil. Tests were carried out with a
OTC-25111-MS 5

Figure 4 —Prototype Meter installed in the Cranfield Flow Loop

Figure 5—Correlation between Measured and Flow Rig WVF to 25% WVF for several days data.

sample of low viscosity mineral oil provided by Cranfield University, However the mixtures created even
at low WVF values could not be maintained long enough in suspension for transfer to the metering section
of the test spool. A 100% oil sample of the Cranfield oil was tested to give a zero WVF calibration point,
the offset between 100% hydraulic oil and 100% Cranfield oil was the equivalent of 2.0% WVF. This
offset measurement was combined with the laboratory calibration generated using the hydraulic oil/water
samples to generate a “factory” calibration to 25% WVF for the meter.
Flow Rig Validation of calibration curve to 25% WVF
An initial set of tests was carried out at 0% - 25% WVF to validate the calibration curve developed in the
laboratory. These were repeated over a number of days to establish repeatability data & to look at the
effects of variable flow rate & the presence & absence of an inline mixer (see figure 5). In addition, a
straight line extrapolation of this calibration curve was used to take measurements at 30% & 35% WVF
in the rig. It was forecast by modelling that a straight line extrapolation would lead to the WVF value
being overstated using this calibration in this range as the sensor response is not linear. This proved to be
the case.
6 OTC-25111-MS

Figure 6 —Correlation between Measured and Flow Rig WVF in range 25% WVF to 45% WVF

The tests validated the assumption that a calibration curve produced for a standard oil can be varied for
different oils with a single point adjustment. The small offset in the 100% oil measurements on the flow
rig obtained using the laboratory calibration (0.5%) may have a number of causes including calibration
error and the retention in solution of water in the circulating oil compared with the pure oil sample tested
in the laboratory. However, it was decided not to correct the factory calibration for this effect.
Validation of calibration curve to 45% WVF
Having demonstrated that it was not possible to produce a calibration curve through a straight line
extrapolation beyond 27% from the initial laboratory data and confirmed that the straight extrapolation
above this WVF value leads to the value being overstated, the straight line extrapolation was corrected for
the higher oil continuous region using the first run results and this data was used to generate measurement
data in the range 25 to 45% WVF.
Overall 2 Phase Accuracy Results
Results obtained across 2 to 4 l/s and with and without static mixing are plotted in figure 7 below.
The statistics on this data are as follows:
ΠThe average difference of all test points vs the flow rig set point is 0.22%
ΠThe standard deviation of the differences for the data set is 0.4%
Œ The accuracy is expressed as 2 x SD ⫽ 0.8% or ⫹/-0.8% for 95% confidence
Discussion of Accuracy Results
As discussed previously in the calibration analysis there was a small offset in the zero WVF reading
between the factory calibration and the flow rig data. The results show a trend from mainly over reading
to under reading. This could be for a number of reasons including calibration error, retained water in the
oil leg of the flow rig following separation uncertainty in flow rig control or varying hold-up in the rig
(the meter is located at a low point). At this stage it is hard to know whether this requires adjustment to
the calibration curve.
However, it is reasonable to adjust results presented here to take account of the documented accuracy
of the flow rig set points. The accuracy of the meter for the oil leg is given as ⫹/- 0.2% and the water
leg ⫹/- 0.5%. Thus, the accuracy results for the meter should be considered to include this magnitude of
uncertainty and repeatability in the flow rig set point.
OTC-25111-MS 7

Figure 7—2 Phase Accuracy Results

Figure 8 —Comparison of Meter Performance with & without in line static mixer

Flow Rate Independence

Initial testing runs were carried out at 0-25% at liquid flow rates of 1, 2, 3 and 4 l/s. 1 l/s results were
discarded due to uncertainties in the WVF in the test section seen when the flow entered a slugging flow
regime. The flow rig has a height change of over 10m in its flow path and the horizontal test section lies
at the low point, a few meters before a vertical 10 m section. Results at 2 l/s to 4 l/s showed no variation,
and the meter is judged to be flow rate independent.
Impact of static mixing
Three full sets of results can be collated from 0% to 45% WVF. Two of these sets of results were obtained
with an inline static mixer and the third without. These results are plotted in figure 8 below. As can be
seen from the data there is no significant deviation between mixed and unmixed results. However, it
should be noted that even without the static mixer the flow regime remained largely turbulent at flow rates
of 2l/s and above.
8 OTC-25111-MS

Figure 9 —3 Phase Transient Response

3 Phase Transient Results

Data was taken in a 3 phase environment for a fixed water cut of 15% at GVF values between 23% and
48%. At the higher GVF values this produced a markedly slugging flow in the system. A typical plot is
shown in figure 9 below:
Data taken demonstrates the ability of the sensor to follow the transients of the gas and liquid slugs at
a sampling frequency of 100 Hz. Further numerical analysis of the results alongside developing an
understanding of the flow rig response in terms of superficial and slip velocities in the test section is
ongoing.
Summary
The prototype meter was tested across a full range of oil continuous water volume fractions (0 to 45%)
with volume flow rates between 2l/s and 4l/s (corresponding to flow velocities between approximately 0.5
and 1 m/s). The tests were performed with and without an inline static mixer in the test piece. The meter
demonstrated accuracy of 0.8 % water volume fraction vs the declared flow rig set point. A summary of
the statistics of the data is as follows:
● Average difference of all test points vs the flow rig set point is 0.22%
● Standard deviation for the data set is 0.4%
● Accuracy is expressed as 2 x SD ⫽ 0.8% or ⫹/-0.8% for 95% confidence.
A significant part of this accuracy figure is likely to be accountable to the uncertainty and repeatability
of the flow rig set points. Based on instrumentation specification on the rig this is in the region of
⫹/-0.5%. Thus, the meter accuracy is likely to be better than the quoted figure. These results were
produced using a factory calibration curve generated with non-flowing WVF samples. The calibration
curve was not tuned for the flow rig environment. Initial results taken using a 3 phase mixture
demonstrated an ability to accurately track liquid and gas slugging transients.
We have an ongoing research program to further develop this sensor. This includes investigating the
performance of the sensor on oil continuous fluids with water over a wide range of salinities. Further
validation of the 2 phase response on a certified flow rig (e.g TUV NEL in East Kilbride 9), with higher
viscosity oil and saline water. Further flow rig work will also be performed on 3 phase response in the
horizontal & vertical orientation alongside an independent density measurement in an attempt to produce
gas tolerant measurements of the water volume fraction in different flow regimes.
Field deployment of several of these devices on oil continuous applications will take place in mid-2014.
The development of the meter from an oil continuous to water continuous range with full range water cut
and GVF tolerant capability and subsequently to a full three phase fraction meter is planned.
OTC-25111-MS 9

Note on Terminology
For the avoidance of confusion this paper expresses 2 phase (oil & water) measurement results in terms
of Water Volume Fraction (WVF).
WVF is defined as the percentage of the metered volume containing water.
Where the expression water-cut is used in discussing 3 phase (oil, water, gas) results it refers to a
volumetric percentage of water as compared to the total volume of liquids (oil & water).

References
1 E.A. Hammer et al, Chapter 14.1, “Multiphase Flow Handbook”. Crowe, Clayton T. CRC Press.
2006
2 G. Falcone et al, Chapter 4, “Multiphase Flow Metering - Principles & Applications”. Elsevier
B.V 2010.
3 S. Hatton et al, “Development and Quantification of End Fittings for Composite Riser Pipe”,
OTC 23977, 2013.
4 http://www.magmaglobal.com
5 S. Al Hajeri et al, “Real Time EM Waves Monitoring System for Oil Industry 3 Phase
Measurement”. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 178 p12030, 2009
6 S.R. Wylie et al, “Electromagnetic Cavity Sensors for Multiphase Measurement”, Exploration &
Production, 9 .
7 http://www.comsol.com
8 http://www.cranfield.ac.uk
9 http://www.tuvnel.com/