Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 20 (2009) 6974

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Flow Measurement and Instrumentation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/flowmeasinst
Study on the effect of vertex angle and upstream swirl on the performance
characteristics of cone flowmeter using CFD
R.K. Singh, S.N. Singh

, V. Seshadri
Department of Applied Mechanics, IIT Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 24 May 2007
Received in revised form
14 September 2007
Accepted 2 December 2008
Keywords:
Computational fluid dynamics
Cone flowmeter
Discharge coefficient
Reynolds number
Inlet swirl
Cone vertex angle
a b s t r a c t
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has emerged as a revolutionary tool for optimizing the design of
any flowmeter for given conditions. The flow features obtained with CFD are more extensive compared
to experiments. In the present study, CFD code FLUENT after validation has been used to investigate
the effect of cone vertex angle and upstream swirl on the performance of cone flowmeter. The values
of discharge coefficient (C
d
) evaluated for different vertex angles shows that the value of discharge
coefficient is independent of Reynolds number and its value decreases with increase in vertex angle.
In the presence of upstream disturbance in the form of swirl, the value of discharge coefficient is also
independent of Reynolds number and its value is only marginally affected by the magnitude of swirl. The
flow in a longitudinal plane shows the presence of a pair of contra-rotating vortices in the recirculation
region just downstream of the cone. The velocity profile downstream becomes stable after a distance of
about 5D.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Flowmeters used in industries are often subject to highly
disturbed upstream flow conditions due to constraints on the
space available for laying the pipeline network. The disturbances
may be caused due to the presence of valve, elbow, pipe fitting,
bend etc at the upstream of the flowmeter. Conventional flow
measuring devices like Orifice meter, Rotameter, Flow nozzle etc.,
require minimum upstream and downstream straight lengths and
hence can not be used under these conditions. Over the years,
cone flowmeter has emerged as one of the best alternatives for
flow measurement under highly disturbed flow conditions [1]. It
is rather insensitive to outside vibration, cone configuration and
pressure tap location. It also provides flowmeasurement with high
accuracy over for a turn down ratio as high as 30:1 with a much
higher repeatability as compared to other flow measuring devices.
Besides these advantages, cone flowmeter has high durability
and high resistance to abrasion due to its tapered design. Its
taper design minimizes wear (erosion) by reduction in contact of
primary element with high velocity [2]. Liptak [3] has reported
that velocity profile due to presence of cone element tends to
flatten in the center resulting in uniform velocity profile in the
transverse plane. This could be the reason that cone flowmeter
does not require long straight pipe lengths upstream of the

Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 11 26591180; fax: +91 11 26581119.

E-mail address: sidhnathsingh@hotmail.com (S.N. Singh).
flowmeter. Genisi et al. [4] have shown that the cone creates a
controlled turbulence region that reshapes the velocity profile in
the pipeline. Flow is also directed away from the cone edge due
to the development of Boundary layer and hence makes the edge
wear resistant. Ifft et al. [5] have concluded that cone flowmeters
performance does not get affected by disturbances caused by the
single and double elbows in different planes even if upstream
pipe length is small. Later Peter et al. [6] have shown that cone
flowmeter is capable of measuring the flow of liquid and gas
with same accuracy. In non-standard tests, they have observed
less difference (0.5%) compared to base line tests and have also
emphasized the need of additional tests to cover a wide range
of parameters, to assess the performance of the meter at non-
standard installation conditions. Prabhu et al. [7] have shown that
discharge coefficient of cone flowmeter is less sensitive to flow
disturbances than the other flow metering devices and pumping
requirements also reduce by about 50% compared to normal orifice
meter.
With the development of powerful computers, Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has become an effective tool which is being
used extensively as an alternative to elaborate experiments. It
has diverse applications in various industries like aerodynamics,
automobile, chemical engineering etc. Simulation of any flow
measuring device using CFD is still a complex phenomena but it
offers an opportunity to optimize the performance of a flowmeter.
Buckle et al. [8] have demonstrated the capability of CFD in
the improvement of an existing design of rotameter and also
emphasized that CFD gives a better insight to the flow structure
particularly with respect to strong velocity gradient in the gap
0955-5986/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2008.12.003
70 R.K. Singh et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 20 (2009) 6974
Symbols
D Pipe diameter
d Cone diameter (maximum)
Equivalent cone diameter ratio
Re Reynolds number

m
Density of manometric fluid

f
Density of working fluid
p Static pressure
C
d
Discharge coefficient
Q Discharge rate (kg/s)
C
1
, C
2
, C

Empirical constants of turbulence model

k,

Turbulent Prandtl number based on k and

G
k
Generation term (kinetic energy)
Y
M
Contribution of the fluctuation dilation
k Turbulent kinetic energy
M Number of dependent variable
R
i
Sum residual for a dependent variable
S
m
Mass added to the continuous phase
S
N
Normalizing factor
U
avi
Mass average inlet velocity
u Mean velocity
u

Velocity perturbation
u
b
Bulk velocity
V Cell volume
V
f
Mass flux (velocity) through the face
X Longitudinal coordinate
Under relaxation factor
Turbulence dissipation rate
Dynamic viscosity

t
Eddy viscosity (turbulence viscosity)

ij
kroneker delta
around the body and recirculation zone above the float. Erdal and
Anderson [9] have shown that standard k model is inefficient for
flow prediction for orifice meters. They have also recommended
the use of more advanced turbulence models to improve the flow
prediction in these devices. Puri et al. [10] have evaluated the
drag force on the conical body of variable area orifice meter using
CFD and have also attempted to optimize the shape of the conical
body. The combination of frustum of cone and parabolic apex at
the top gives the streamlined shape of the conical body. A new
design for the variable area orifice meter has been proposed by
Singh et al. [11]. Drag force and pressure drop characteristics at
various sections were determined for the design of the flowmeter.
Seshadri et al. [12] have established the effect of body shape on
the annubar factor using CFD and have concluded that annubar
factor reduces with increase in blockage factor. Annubar factor
for elliptical shape with high slenderness ratio has the highest
annubar factor and minimum permanent pressure loss. Gandhi
et al. [13] have numerically investigated the flow behaviour of
Vortex shedding meter and have shown that triangular shape
having 60

vertex angle with splitter plate or diamond shape body

is optimum choice for vortex shedding meter.
The study of above literature emphasizes the utility of CFD as
a design tool for flow measuring instruments after its validation
against experimental results and shows this can be exploited
further. Literature available shows that no attempt has been made
to study the effect of vertex angle of the cone and swirl on the
performance of cone flowmeter. Various disturbances upstreamof
the meter installation can produce high level of swirl at the meter
and it is possible that this can adversely affect the performance of
cone flowmeter. The present study investigates the effect of cone
vertex angle and swirl on the performance of cone flowmeter using
CFD as a tool.
2. Working principle of cone flowmeter
The geometry of the cone flowmeter is shown in Fig. 1. The
working principle of the cone flowmeter is same as that of
any obstruction type flowmeter. The flow rate is calculated by
application of the Bernoulli principle across the cone by measuring
the differential pressure.
The standard relationship used for liquid flow measurement is
given as:
Q = C
d

1
_
1
4


4

_
D
2
d
2
_

_
2 P (1)
where, =
_
D
2
d
2
D
2
. (2)
3. Mathematical formulation
Basically, CFD is the numerical solution of governing equations
of motion, which describe the flow behavior of fluids. In the
modelling, mass, momentum, energy conservation equations (if
necessary) must be satisfied. The governing equations for steady
incompressible flows are:

x
i
(u
i
) = S
m
. (3)
The mass conservation equation is valid for both incompressible
and compressible flows. The source term S
m
is the mass added to
the continuous phase from the dispersed phase.
The momentum conservation equation for steady flow is
written as,

x
j
_
u
i
u
j
_
=
P
i
x
i
+

i,j
x
j
+g
i
+F
i
(4)
where, P
i
is the static pressure, g
i
is the gravitational body force
and F
i
is the external body force.
ij
is the stress tensor and is
computed as:

ij
=
_
u
i
x
j
+
u
j
x
i
_

2
3

ij
u
k
x
k
. (5)
3.1. Turbulence model
Most of the practical flows are turbulent and are characterized
by the fluctuation of velocity around its time average value, u =
u + u

[14]. Substituting this value in the Navier Stokes Equation

and taking time averaging leads to Reynolds Average Navier Stokes
equations (RANS);

x
j
_
u
i
u
j
_
=
P
i
x
i
+

i,j
x
j
+g
i
+F
i
+

x
j
_
u

i
u

j
_
. (6)
The additional terms in the above equation are the Reynolds
stresses and these need to be modeled for closure solutions. The
Boussinesq hypothesis [14] is used to relate the Reynolds stresses
to the mean velocity gradient as
u

i
u

j
=
t
_
u
i
x
j
+
u
j
x
i
_

2
3
_
k +
t
u
i
x
i
_

ij
. (7)
In the present investigation two-equation turbulence model (RNG
k [15]) has been used for closure solution of the set of equations.
The additional two equations in this model are
u
i
k
x
i
=

x
i
_

eff
k
x
i
_
+G
k
(8)
u
i

x
i
=

x
i
_

eff

x
i
_
+C
1

k
(G
k
) C
2

2
k
R (9)
R.K. Singh et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 20 (2009) 6974 71
Fig. 1. Design and drawing details of V-cone flowmeter used for validation [18].
where G
k
is the generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to the
mean velocity gradient and is calculated as
G
k
=
t
S
2
(10)
and S is the mean rate of shear stress tensor defined as
S =
_
2S
ij
S
ij
and S
ij
=
1
2
_
u
i
x
j
+
u
j
x
i
_
. (11)
The effective viscosity is modeled in the RNG theory using scale
elimination procedure resulting in a differential equation for
turbulent viscosity as
d
_

2

_
= 1.72

_

1 +c

d
where =

eff

and c

= 100. (12)
In the high Reynolds number limit, the above equation gives
t
=
C

k
2

with C

= 0.0845. The effective viscosity is calculated by

using this expression. The additional termR (rapid strain term) in
the equation is
R =
C

3
(1 /
0
)
1 +
3

2
k
(13)
where, = Sk/.
The values of constants in the turbulence model used are
the standard values reported in literature [C
1
= 1.42, C
2
=
1.68, C

= 0.0845,
k
=

= 0.7179,
0
= 4.38 and =
0.012].
4. Solution scheme
Flow Investigations have been carried out using CFD Code
FLUENT [16] which is based on cell centered finite volume
approach. Second order discretization scheme was used for all
governing equations since the grid which consists of tetrahedral
cells are usually not collinear to the flow direction. Under
relaxation factor has been used for all parameters to satisfy
Scarborough condition for convergence. Coupling between the
pressure and velocity field was established using PISO[17] scheme
which is based on the higher degree of the approximate relation
between the corrections for pressure and velocity as it is more
appropriate for swirling flows. All discretized equations have been
solved using segregated solver. An implicit solution scheme with
conjunction of Algebraic Multigrid (AMG) has been used for faster
convergence. Double precision was used in the computation and
solutions were convergeduntil the sumof the all the residual terms
was less than 10
6
.
5. Validation of the computer code
Any prediction made using CFD code is accepted only after
the validation of the code. Validation of the CFD code establishes
the extent of accuracy and reliability of the turbulence model. In
the present investigation, CFD code FLUENT has been validated
against the experimental data of Singh et al. [18]. The geometry
of the cone flowmeter used for validation of the CFD code
is given in Fig. 1. Flow prediction using different turbulence
models was carried out using different turbulence models with
water as working fluid. It was found that RNG k model gives
best matching with experimental results. Similar observation
has also been made by Erdal and Andersson [9] who have also
concluded that standard k model fails to describe flow features
of flowmeter. For sake of brevity, comparison of RNG k model
results with experimental data is only presented. Fig. 2a shows
the comparison of predicted C
d
with corresponding experimental
values for = 0.64. The deviation of between the experimental
values and the predicted values are of the same order as that of
the experimental uncertainties with the computed values. Further,
validation is carried out by predicting the flow for cone flowmeter
having = 0.77 and similar trends are observed (Fig. 2b). The
maximum difference between the experimental and predicted
results for both configurations is of the order of 4%, which is
within acceptable limits for validation. These deviations could be
attributed to the limitations of the turbulence model, uncertainty
in the experimental results, roughness of the pipe etc. Having
demonstrated the validation of the CFD code, it has been used for
parametric investigations.
72 R.K. Singh et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 20 (2009) 6974
Fig. 2a. Comparison of predicted C
d
with experimental values for a V-cone
flowmeter having = 0.64.
Fig. 2b. Comparison of predicted C
d
with experimental values for a V-cone
flowmeter having = 0.77.
6. Geometry details, boundary conditions and parameters
investigated
Flow predictions have been carried out for a cone flowmeter
consisting of a concentric cone placed inside a 52.10 mm diameter
pipe. The cone has maximum diameter of 40 mm and minimum
diameter of 18 mm for = 0.64. The tube housing the pressure
taps is sufficiently strong to support the cone centrally inside
the pipe and hence radial support struts have been deleted for
the parametric investigation. Details of the geometry of the cone
flowmeter analysed are given in Fig. 1. The upstream length of the
pipe was 5D whereas 20D downstream length was provided for
flow simulation. The longer downstream length has been chosen
in order to ensure that boundary condition at the exit has no effect
on the computational flow field close to the cone. Geometry of
the flow domain has been modelled using bottom up approach in
GAMBIT, the preprocessor of CFD code FLUENT [16]. 3-D model
of the flow domain which includes the cone is shown in the
Fig. 3. The process of grid generation is very crucial for accuracy,
stability and economy of the prediction. A fine grid leads to better
accuracy and hence it is necessary to generate reasonably fine grid
in the region of high velocity gradients whereas regions having
smooth flow condition can be meshed with coarser grids. In the
latest version of GAMBIT, tetrahedral and hexagonal core mesh
can be generated in the same flow domain, which is helpful in
the discretization of the complex flow domains with adequate
number of grids in computational domain. In the flow simulation,
the flowdomainwas meshedwithbothstructure andunstructured
mesh. For efficient discretization, geometry was divided into three
Fig. 3. 3-D model of central region of the flowmeter including cone.
Table 1
Geometry details for different cone vertex angles studied ( = 0.64).
Cone vertex angle (

) A (mm) B (mm) C (mm) d (mm) E (mm)

60 18.00 41.00 8.00 40.00 18.00
80 18.00 30.00 8.00 40.00 18.00
100 18.00 23.50 8.00 40.00 18.00
part, upstream, downstream and central parts, with the cone and
pressure taps being in the central part. Upstreamand downstream
region have been meshed with coarse hexagonal grids. The central
region has been meshed with tetrahedral mesh since the geometry
is complicated. The size of mesh has also been kept fine to account
for the high velocity gradients expected in this region. Analyses
have been carried out for cone flowmeter having different cone
vortex angles. The geometrical details of the various cases studied
are given in the Table 1. Further, for one cone, the effect of
upstream disturbance in the form of swirl has been studied. For
eachcase, optimumnumber of grids has beenarrivedafter carrying
out the grid independency test by comparing the value of C
d
obtained with different grid sizes. Details of optimum number of
mesh and its numbers for each case are given in Table 2. Due
to space constraints, detailed results of convergence tests are not
presented. Meshing scheme for the different parts of the geometry
of flow domain is depicted in Fig. 4.
The boundary conditions used for flow analysis through the
cone flowmeter include the specification of velocity at the inlet
of the pipe, pressure outlet with zero gauge pressure at the exit
of the pipe. Remaining faces of the flow domain that include pipe
and cone surface were specified as wall with no slip condition.
These walls have been modelled using standard wall function with
0.001 mm roughness height and 0.5 roughness constant. At the
inlet and outlet of the pipe, the turbulence intensity I = 0.16
(Re)
1/8
and hydraulic diameter H = 4A/P were specified under
turbulence quantities. Further, flow simulations have been carried
out for three cone angle namely 60

, 80

and 100

over a range
of Reynolds numbers. To study the effect of upstream swirl on the
performance of cone flowmeter, flow simulations have also been
carried out for a 10

, 20

and 30

swirl angles for range of Reynolds

numbers.
For evaluating the performance of cone flowmeter under
different conditions, 112 converged runs have been performed.
R.K. Singh et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 20 (2009) 6974 73
(a) Upstream and downstream section. (b) Inlet and outlet of pipe. (c) Central region of the flowmeter including the
meshing of cone.
Fig. 4. Meshing scheme used for discretization of the flow model.
Table 2
Details of flow domains discretization for each case studied.
Sl. no. Case Type of Mesh Number of
Cells Faces Nodes
1. Validation Both tetrahedral hybrid and Hexahedral 712547 1781397 366629
2. Vertex angle 60

Both tetrahedral hybrid and Hexahedral 1041709 2784587 721016

3. Vertex angle 80

Both tetrahedral hybrid and Hexahedral 571079 1381959 258878

4. Vertex angle 100

Both tetrahedral hybrid and Hexahedral 898037 2600530 832240

5. Without Swirl Both tetrahedral hybrid and Hexahedral 571079 1381959 258878
6. Swirl angle 10

Both tetrahedral hybrid and Hexahedral 571079 1381959 258878

7. Swirl angle 20

Both tetrahedral hybrid and Hexahedral 771391 1926737 403147

8. Swirl angle 30

Both tetrahedral hybrid and Hexahedral 771391 1926737 403147

Fig. 5. Vector plot for axial velocity at the mid horizontal plane of the pipe.
One run with around 1 million cells requires almost a week for full
convergence on a Intel Xeon processor with 2 GB RAM.
7. Results and discussion
Having validated the CFD code, flow predictions have been
carried out to analyze the effect of cone vertex angle and upstream
swirl on the performance of the cone flowmeter.
Flow field through the cone flowmeter: Flow characteristics have
been analyzed at different Reynolds numbers for a cone flowmeter
having cone vertex angle of 80

. Fig. 5 presents the velocity

vector plot in the longitudinal plane at Re = 7.97 10
4
.
For any longitudinal plane, a pair of contra-rotating vortices in
recirculation zone is observed just downstream of the cone. These
vortices extend up to 3D distance downstream and wake effect
produced is seen to exist upto 5D distances downstream. This
implies that a controlled wake region is formed downstreamof the
cone flowmeter and similar observation has also been reported by
other researchers [5,7]. Joshi [19] has suggested a minimum of 5D
distance downstreamfor all type of pipe fittings on the basis of this
observation. The velocity magnitudes are highest in the annular
passage between cone and pipe due to acceleration of flow along
the upstream cone surface. The flow features were found to be
similar across the Reynolds number range tested.
To understand the flow development downstream of the cone,
Velocity profiles at 1Dupstreamand at different downstreamaxial
locations are presented for Re = 7.97 10
4
(Fig. 6). This is
in consonance with the observation of Singh et al. [17] for high
Reynolds number flows. Velocity profile at a 1D distance upstream
is observed to be flat in the centre of the flowmeter. The presence
of the cone in the pipe results in a converging passage and imposes
Fig. 6. Velocity profiles at different axial locations in the pipe.
a back pressure on the upstream velocity field forcing the flow
in the centre to retard and divert it away from the centre. This
phenomenon forces the flow to flatten upstream of the cone. For
2-dimensional contraction cones, Shapiro [20] has also shown that
acceleration of flow results in flattening of the velocity profile by
supporting the growth of the boundary layer on the converging
wall. This may be one of the reasons for the relative insensivity
of the cone flow meter to the upstream disturbances. Strong wake
region exists just downstreamof the cone as seen fromthe velocity
profiles just downstream and 1D downstream location and this
extends up to 3D distance downstream. The velocity profile at 5D
downstream is almost flat and free from wake effect. The velocity
profile at 10D downstream location shows almost fully developed
velocity profile.
Effect of cone vertex angle: Flow simulations have also been
carried out for understanding of the effect of the vertex angle of
the cone of the cone flowmeter. Three cones with vertex angles
of 60

, 80

and 100

have been investigated keeping constant

( = 0.64). The geometrical details of each cone flowmeter are
given in the Table 1. The computed values of discharge coefficient
for the cone flowmeter at different Reynolds numbers for the three
cone angles are presented in the Fig. 7. It is seen that cone angle has
only a marginal effect on the value of C
d
. The value of C
d
decreases
74 R.K. Singh et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 20 (2009) 6974
Fig. 7. Variation of discharge coefficient with Reynolds number for different vertex
angles for = 0.64.
marginally withincreasing cone angle. Cone meter having 60

cone
vertex angle has a value of discharge coefficient of 0.78 whereas
for 100

vertex angle the value is 0.72. The maximum value of

standard deviation (0.09%) is observed for 100

angle whereas
60

cone angle has 0.06% standard deviation. The mean value and
standard variation of C
d
for 80

cone angle are 0.74 and 0.04%

respectively. The reduction in the value of discharge coefficient
with increase in vertex angle could be attributed to the increase
in the wake size which results in slightly higher losses in spite of
reduction in the friction losses along the cone surface (reduction in
cone surface area).
Effect of upstream swirl: Effect of upstream swirl on the
performance of cone flowmeter is very complex as swirl sets up
radial pressure gradient influencing the pressure distribution in
the region of pressure taps. Fig. 8 shows the effect of swirl on
the discharge coefficient of cone flowmeter (80

vertex angle and

= 0.64). The swirl was introduced at anupstreamdistance of 5D.
The variation of C
d
with Reynolds number shows that swirl alters
the discharge coefficient and it increases withincrease inswirl. The
average value of discharge coefficient for swirl angles of 10

, 20

and 30

(corresponding swirl numbers are 0.12, 0.24 and 0.39) are

0.749, 0.759 and 0.762 respectively. It is seen that with increase
of swirl angle, C
d
changes only marginally. Percentage change in C
d
value withswirl angle of 10

is 1.22%whereas for 20

and30

swirl,
the change is 2.56% and 2.90% respectively. This phenomenon can
be possibly attributed to the fact that the presence of swirl affects
both the pressure field and the structure of wake behind the cone.
Swirl also sets up a radial pressure gradient which increases the
upstreampressure thereby reducing the pressure difference across
the cone. This results in a slight increase in the value of discharge
coefficient.
8. Conclusions
Flow predictions and parametric investigations have been car-
ried out using CFDcode FLUENT to investigate the characteristics
of cone flowmeter. The major conclusions drawn from computa-
tional study are summarized as follows.
1. Comparison of CFD predictions with experimental results
shows that RNG k model is capable of predicting the
performance of cone flowmeter fairly accurately.
2. Velocity profiles downstream of the cone are free from wake
effect beyond a distance of 5D.
3. Discharge coefficient of cone flowmeter reduces marginally
with increase of cone vertex angle. Thus the cone flowmeter
having 60

cone vertex angle the lowest angle investigated has

the value of discharge coefficient with minimum scatter.
Fig. 8. Variation of the discharge coefficient with Reynolds number for different
upstream Swirl imposed at 5D upstream of the cone.
4. Upstream swirl has only marginal effect on the value of
discharge coefficient, the maximum deviation being around 3%
for a 30

swirl.
References
[1] Anon. Flowmeasurement solvedwithVenturi-cone meter. InTech1989;36(2):
302.
[2] Anon. Saudi plants install cone meters. Oil and Gas Journal 2000;98(30):73.
[3] Liptak BG. Flowmeasurement. Pennsylvania, America: ChiltonBook Company;
1993.
[4] Genisi, Donald, Chowdhury, Jayadev. Choosing the best flowmeter. Chemical
Engineering 1991;98(3):88100.
[5] Ifft, SA. Installation effects on the cone flowmeter in gas american society
of mechanical engineers. Fluids Engineering Division (Publication) FED. 211;
1997. p. 638.
[6] Peters B, Steven R, George D, Nored M. Tests on the V-cone flow meter
at southwest research institute and the utah state university in accordance
with the new API chapter 5.7 test protocol. In: North sea flow measurement
workshop. 2004.
[7] Prabhu SV, Mascomani R, Balakrishanan K, Konnur MS. Effect of upstreampipe
fittings on performance of orifice and conical Flowmeters. FlowMeasurement
Instrumentation 1996;7(1):4954.
[8] Buckle U, Drust F, Howe B, Milling A. Investigation of floating element
flowmeter. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 1992;3(4):21525.
[9] Erdal A, Anderson HI. Numerical aspect of flow computation through Orifices.
Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 1997;8(1):2737.
[10] Puri J S, Singh S N, Seshadri V, Sanghi S. Performance of an adjustable orifice
meter with conical body. In: Proceeding of 12th ISME conference. 2001.
p. 4906.
[11] Singh SN, Gandhi BK, Seshadri V, Chauhan VS. Design of a bluff body
for development of variable area orifice meter. Flow Measurement and
Instrumentation 2004;15:97103.
[12] Seshadri V, Gandhi BK, Singh SN, Pandey RK. Analysis of the effect of bluff body
shape on annubar factor using CFD. Measurements 2004;35:2532.
[13] Gandhi BK, Singh SN, Seshadri V, Singh J. Effect of bluff body shape on Vortex
flowmeter performance. Indian Journal for Engineering and Material Sciences
2004;11:37884.
[14] Hinze JO. Turbulence. 6th edition. NewYork: McGraw-Hill Publications; 1975.
[15] Yakhot V, Orszag SS. Renormalization group analysis of turbulence: I Basic
theory. Journal of Scientific Computing 1996;1(1):151.
[16] Fluent 6.2 User Guide, Vol. 14, Fluent Inc., Lebanon, NH 03766. 2002.
[17] Issa RI. Solution of implicitly discretized fluid flow equations by operator
splitting. Journal of Computational Physics 1986;62:4065.
[18] Singh SN, Seshadri V, Singh RK, Gawhade RK. Effect of upstream flow
disturbances on the performance characteristics of cone flowmeter. Flow
Measurement and Instrumentation 2006;17:2917.
[19] Joshi SM. Eurekone flowmeter international conference on hydrocarbon flow
measurement. 2003. p. 427.
[20] Shapiro AH. Pressure field and Fluid accelerations. In: Illustrated experiments
in fluid mechanics. National Committee for Fluid Mechanics Films. Cambridge
(MA): MIT Press.