Conversion of METL Diagnostic Flowmeters to Permanent Magnet Based Electromagnetic Flowmeters
The Mechanisms Engineering Test Loop (METL) uses three flowmeters to monitor sodium circulation through the main loop, the Cold Trap leg, and the Plugging Meter leg. When constructed, the Cold Trap flowmeter (CTFM) and Plugging Meter flowmeter (PMFM) were equipped with permanent magnets and Hall Sensors. By October of 2019, during normal operations, both the CTFM and PMFM failed, producing either erroneous or zero signals. Repairs to the flowmeters were attempted in January of 2020 but failed to resolve the issues. Therefore, starting in March of 2021, a plan was developed to convert the installed flowmeters to more robust permanent magnet based electromagnetic flowmeters (EMFMs). The Cold Trap EMFM (CT EMFM) and Plugging Meter EMFM (PM EMFM) were fully installed by August of 2021. Initial testing and commissioning were completed in November of 2021. Finally, the first calibration runs were finished in March of 2022. This report discusses the design, conversion, and calibration of the as-built CTFM and PMFM to robust permanent magnet based EMFMs. During the design phase, theoretical models were used to estimate the signal output and required magnet sizes. Then, the CTFM and PMFM were disassembled and converted to EMFMs. After commissioning, the CT EMFM and PM EMFM were calibrated using a ‘Time Transfer Procedure’ carried out with METL Expansion Vessels and Test Vessel Two. The accuracy of the calibration was estimated through an uncertainty analysis. Finally, the report describes some lessons learned for future flowmeter conversions and follow-up work. In total, both METL EMFM’s met the desired performance targets. Testing data showed that the METL EMFMs provide a output signal of roughly 2 mV at 1 GPM and 250 °C. During calibration, flowrates between 0.7 GPM and 2.4 GPM were achieved. In this flow range, calibration coefficients of 0.485 and 0.935 were measured as with errors ranging from 15-5% and 16-5% for the CT EMFM and PM EMFM, respectively. Above 1.5 GPM, the error was assumed to be about 5% for both METL EMFMs. Several points will be considered for future follow-up work on the METL EMFM’s. First, the signal noise issues in the PM EMFM will be addressed. It is likely the source of the noise is due to some stray EMF from a heater. Secondly, the NdFeB magnets will be replaced with a grade that has a Curie temperature above 80 °C. For example, a few grades of NeFeB magnets have Curie temperatures which exceed 150 °C and some SmCo magnets have Curie temperatures as high as 500 °C. Third, more calibration runs will be completed in the range of 0.5-2.5 GPM. This will further improve the accuracy of the calibration coefficient. Fourth, calibration runs will be completed up to 5 GPM. This requires a larger pressure relief valve to be installed on the Expansion Vessel and Test Vessel 2, as well as a revised calibration procedure. Lastly, calibration runs will be completed to account for cold spots in the system, which reduced the inlet temperature of the METL EMFMs. Overall, these points will improve the calibration coefficients derived in this work and also improve the performance of the METL EMFMs.