2017 5th International Conference on Instrumentation, Control, and Automation (ICA)
Yogyakarta, Indonesia, August 9-11, 2017
Asymmetric Flow Velocity Profile Measurement
using Multipath Ultrasonic Meter with Neural
Network Technique
1,2
K. Amri, 1Suprijanto, 1E. Juliastuti, 1D. Kurniadi
1
Instrumentation and Control Research Group, InstitutTeknologi Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, PoliteknikNegeri Padang, Padang, Indonesia
mr.khairul.amri@gmail.com
Abstract—Average flow velocity in a multipath transit time
Ultrasonic Meter (USM)is calculated by integrating the mean
flow velocitiesalong all ofthe acoustic paths. Every pathhas a
weight that represents its contribution to the average velocity. In
the conventionalweighting methods, the flow for the entire USMis
assumed to be fully developedand symmetrical, so that each path
has a fixed weight ofUSM’s measuring range. However, if the
flow is not in the ideal conditions or distorted, implementing such
conventional techniques will produce measurement results
withpoor accuracy. To handle thatproblem, an
advancedweighting method is thus needed, so that a set of
weightsof all pathsis able to adapt to several circumstances. In
this paper, the performance of a conventionalweighting
methodrepresented by the Covered Area (CA) is compared toan
advancedweightingmethod represented by the Artificial Neural
Network (ANN) using Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
analysis. In order to find the best architecture,several ANN
parameters includinglearning rate, number of hidden layer, and
neuron, are varied. The position and number of acoustic path are
also varied based on the different number of USM Tomographic
transducers from 10 to 16. The numerical simulation results show
that the smallest RMSE for ANN with the Cascade algorithm is
0.0065 for USM Tomo 16 trans 6 paths, while in the case of CA is
2.2 10-3for USM Tomo 12 trans 4 path. Furthermore, the
sensitivity level of ANN-Cascade to the changes in number and
path position is much lower than that of CA, whereas the range
of ANN and CA RMSE are (6.5 10-3~1.5 10-2) and (2.2 10-3 ~7.6
10-2), respectively. By using tolerance within± 1% (AGA-9), the
average RMSE for the testing sets is 9.1 10-3, while the ANN-
Cascade and CAare 1 10-2and 1.8 10-2.
Keywords—ultrasonic meter; weighting method; covered area;
neural network; asymetric flow velocity profile
I. INTRODUCTION
The publication of AGA Report No. 9 [1]by the American
Gas Association has transformed multipath transit time
Ultrasonic Flowmeter (USM) into the fastest growing fiscal
measurement of gas in the world [2]. Besidesbeing highly
accurate, it has anumber of distinct advantages, such as the
ability to minimize energy loss, low maintenance cost,and no
pressure drop[3].
The working principle of multipath USM is by integrating
the velocities along all of the acoustic paths. Each path has a
weight that represents its contribution to the average flow
velocity. In conventional weightingmethods, the flow for the
entire USM is assumed to be fully developed and symmetrical,
978-1-5386-0349-9/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
146
so that the each path has a fixed weight of USM’s measuring
range. However, when the flow is not in the ideal conditions
or distorted,implementing such conventional technique will
give measurement results with poor accuracy[4].
There are many factors that cause the fluid flow to be
distorted, e.g.,internal roughness of a pipe, irregular pump
performance, transducer mounting methods, and limited
upstream and downstream straight length. To handle the
aforementioned problem,an advancedweightingapproach is
thus needed,so that the weights of all paths are able to adapt to
several circumstances.
In this paper, the application of an Artificial Neural
Network (ANN) is presented to obtain the optimal weight of
every path of multipath USM. Some ANN parameters, such as
learning rate, number of hidden layer, and neuron, have to be
varied in order to find the best architecture.However, the
above procedure was not performed yet in reference [5],
which means it is possible that their proposed architecture
might not be the most optimal solution. In this study, the
various architectural parameters of ANN are varied.
Afterwards, its performance is compared with the Covered
Area (CA) using Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) analysis.
CA is one type of conventional weighting methods to calculate
average velocity of USM. In addition, the position and number
of acoustic path are also varied to obtain the optimal path
number corresponding to the characteristic of the
weightingmethod beingused.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the
basis operatingprinciple of USM. Section 3 presents
asymmetric flow profiles that are applied as training and
testing sets to measure the performance for both conventional
and advancedweighting methods. Meanwhile, principle,
parameter architecture and the simulation results for both
methods are described in section 4 to 6 in detail. Finally, the
conclusions are presented in section 7.
II. ULTRASONIC FLOWMETER TRANSIT TIME
The basis operating principle of USM is based on the
slightly different traveling time of ultrasonic wave to fly into
and against the flow direction[3]. The time difference
represents the mean flow velocities along an acoustic path. For
a single path USM, the path is made from a pair of ultrasonic
transducersthathave function as a transmitter and a receiver

Fig 1. Single path ultrasonic meter.
alternately as seen in the Fig. 1. By using law of vector
addition, the measured velocity along the path (v) is calculated
based on the formula as shown in (1), where tdwn and tup are the
two transit times that propagate upstream and
downstream,respectively, L is defined as inner diameter of the
pipe and θ is the angle between the path and pipe’s axis.
III. THEORETICAL ASYMETRIC PROFILE
A profile is definedas the distribution of velocities in cross
section of a pipes. For numerical simulation, single peak of
Salami’s theoreticalasymmetricprofile is employedto
measurethe performance of the weightingmethods, because
some of its shapes have identical pattern with experimental
outcomes[6]and it is also used by many researchers as their
references[7][8][9]. In addition, it has the following
advantages over the theoretical profile:a shortcomputation
time,the velocity ofevery point incross-section pipe is known
without interpolation, and the average flow velocity can be
calculatedprecisely as well. The mathematical functions of
Salami’s profile aredisplayed in Eq. (2a) and (2b), and the
contoursare displayed in Fig. 2, where v is the velocity at one
point of the cross-section of the pipe at a distance of r from the
center, f (θ)issome defined function of θ, and n, m, as well as
kare constants whose values depend on the type of
theprofile[10].
1 1
P1 P6P8P9
P11 P12 P13 P14
P15 P17 P19
Fig. 2. Single peak of Salami’s theoretical asymmetric profiles[10]
sin 1 1 (2b)
For the numerical simulation, the measured velocity along
the acoustic path (v), as well as the average velocity of the
theoretical profile (v̅ ) are obtained by using an average
method. The average method means thatthe cross-section pipe
and also the pathare considered to beformed fromthe number
of velocity points. Therefore, the average velocityis obtained
by calculating the mean of all velocity points located in that
area.
IV. WEIGHTING METHODS
The weighting method is used to calculate the weight of
(1) every USM path. Both a set of weightsand the velocities along
all of the acoustic paths are applied to calculate the average
flow velocity in a circular pipe. For the conventional
weightingmethod, if USM hasnpaths, and vi is the velocity
along the i-th path, then the measured average velocity (v̅ meas)
can be calculated using linear algebra as in Eq.(3) and
illustrated in Fig. 3.Where wi denotes the numerically-
obtained weight of the i-th path.
v ∑ (3)
Meanwhile, the procedure of advancedweighting
methodsbeginsby mapping thenon linearvelocity patterns (fnon-
linr) through the training data (Fig. 4a). After that, the obtained
function of fnon-linris thenapplied to calculate the measured
average velocity (v̅ meas) based on the new input data as shown
in Fig. 4b. The CA represents the conventional method,
whilethe ANN represents the intelligent method.
A. CA Method
In the CA method, the weight of apath is determined by
comparing the covered area ofan acoustic path relative to the
other path. For example, when USM consists of only 2 or 3
(2a) acoustic pathsas shown in Fig.5, each path has the covered
area ofA1, A2 or A1, A2, A3. The weight of each path is
calculated by the equation also shown in Fig.5.
Fig 3. Conventional weighted methoddiagram
(a) training process(b) measured process
Fig 4. Optimal weighted methoddiagram
147
 TABLE1. ANN
N ARCHITECTURE
path path
Types of ANN architecture
Name ffw[80] ffw
w[150] ffw[70 10] Cascade
algorithms Backpro- Backppro- Backpro- Cascade -
pagation pagatiion pagation Correlation
hidden layer 1Î [80] 1Î [1150] 2Î [70 10] 3Î [30 10
and neuron 10]
activation Tansig Pureliin 1. Tansig 1. Purelin
function 2. Purelin 2. Logsig
A1 A2 A3 3. Tansig
A1 A2
Learning rate 0.1,… ,1.10-5 …,1.10-5 0.1, … ,1.10-5
0.1,… 0.1,… ,1.10-5
̅ . . ̅ . . .
(a) (bb)
sets,includingP1, P6, P8, P11,and P12. Meanwhile, the
Fig. 5. Visualization of the CA for USM with (a) 2 andd (b) 3 path. remaining dataP14, P15, P17, and P19are used as testing sets
(Fig.2).
B. ANN Method
B. Acoustic path
In this study, feedforward neuraal network with
backpropagation and cascade-correlation algorithms are The configuration utilized in this paper is arranged in the
parallel path which is made baased on the different number of
applied for mapping the non-linear functionn of the velocities
transducers USM Tomography y from 10 to 16 (Table 2 because
measured by all of the acoustic paths and a set of weights.
the profile reconstruction based
b on the aforementioned
Forbackpropagation, a set of velocity measuured on each path condition is proved to resemb ble the shape of the reference
(set vpath) is connected directly to input layeer as illustrated in profile ([8][11]).
Fig.6a.Meanwhile for cascade-correlation, a set of velocity is
connected not only to input layer but also too all hidden layers Fig. 7 is an example of thhe acoustic paths obtained from
and the output layer (Fig. 6b). The amountt of input layer is USM Tomo 12 transducers. The variation of position and
adjusted to the number of acoustic paths andd the output data is number of acoustic path aree achieved by only activating
the average of flow velocity. particular transducers for the specific
s path as shown in Table
2.
Many factors influence ANN accuracyy in predicting the
average velocity,such as number of hidden llayers and neuron,
activation function, and learning ratee.The individual
characteristic of the proposed ANN architeccture are displayed
in Table 1 and the value of learning rate vaaries from 0.1 to 1
10-5 with the number of multiples of 10.
(a) mounting transducersof USM Tomo (b) Acoustic path
V. NUMERICAL TEST Fig. 7. USM Tomo with 12 transducers
A. Training and testing sets
TABLE2. THE VARIATION OF POSITIO
ON AND NUMBER OF ACOUSTIC PATH
We have 11 of asymmetricflow proffiles displayed in
Fig.2.Those profilesaredivided into trainingg and testing sets. Number of trans- position and number of acoustic path
The maximum and minimum veloccitiesof Salami’s ducers USM Tomo
asymmetric theoretical profiles are 0.78fo for P13 and 1for
P9.Therefore, both of profiles are includeed in the training 10
sets.The other profilesare also randomly addded as the training
5 3 3_a

12

6 4 2

(a)Backpropagation 14

7 5 3 3_a

16

8 6 4 4_a
- - - - - - = the unused path
(b)Cascade-Correlation ------- =the used acoustic path
Fig.6. ANN network architecturre

148
 C. Statistical Analysis
The performance of the integration techniques is calculated
using Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) in Eq. (5). v̅ meas and
v̅ target are the measured velocity of weighting technique and
mean velocity of the theoretical profile, respectively. N
denotes the size of the testing data. The value of achieved
RMSE is directly proportional with the margin value of the
measured velocity and the theoretical velocity.
∑ ̅
VI. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. CA Performance
The CA performance for the variation of position and
number of acoustic pathis displayed in Fig.8. The figure shows
that the performance of CA when the maximum number of
path used is better than whenthe minimum (e.g.: 7 pathvs. 3
and 3_a path on USM with 14 transducers and 8 path vs. 4 and
4_a path for USM with 16 transducers) is used. Unfortunately,
the most stableperformance for CA algorithmis not obtained
when the maximum number of parallel path used.For
instance,on USM 10 transducers, the measurement result using
3_a paths is much better than 5 paths; for USM Tomo 12
transducers, the bestperformance is when using 4 paths, and 5
and 6 paths for USM with 14 and 16 transducers, respectively.
Furthermore, when the parallel path is set in equal number
but in different positionsacross the pipe, the results obtained
are extremely different. It can be seen from theRMSE of 3 and
3_a paths on USM 10 transducers; 2.4 10-2 and 8.0 10-2,
respectively. The same phenomenon is also seen for 3 and 4
paths on USM 14 and 16 transducers.
It can be concluded that the increasing number of path
corresponds to the increase ofaccuracy.However,if the number
of path continues to increase, the accuracy obtained will
decrease slightly. The path position has dominant effectto
improve USM accuracy compared with the increasing number
of acoustic path. In addition, the RMSE of the CAfor variation
inposition and number of acoustic path rangesfrom 2.2 10-3 to
̅ (5) 7.6 10-2 and the overall average is 1.8-2.
,
B. ANN Performance
The simulation results showing the performance
comparison of the four proposed ANN architectures (Table 1)
based on the RMSE for the different profile orientation
aredisplayed in Fig.9. From the figure it can be seen
thattherank of ANN architectureperformance from worst to
bestin sequence manner is ffw[80],ffw[70 10], ffw[150], and
Cascade.The further investigation is only focused on ANN-
Cascade because it offers absolutely the best performance,
especially compared to the other 3 proposed architectures.
When different learning rate (LR) forANN-Cascadeis
used, there is no significant effect to the ANN-Cascade
performance and also there is no indication that one LR value
is superior to the others (Fig.10).If the data is viewedin details
by ranking the average RMSE from the entire 14 parallel
acoustic path (Table 4), there are 10 of 14 data (71.4%) that
has the smallest RMSE when LR = 1.10-5, and 14,2% data
when LR=1.10-4, 7.1%data when LR= 1.10-3 and 1.10-2, and
none when LR=0.1. Based on fact, the most optimalLR for
ANN-Cascade algorithm is1.10-5.

The CA-10 Transdr The CA-14 Transdr The CA-16 Transdr

0.1 0.03 0.02

0.015
5 path 0.02
RMSE
RMSE
RMSE

0.05 7 path 0.01

3 Path
0.01 5 path
3_a path 0.005 8 path
3 path
6 path
0 0 3_a path 0 4 path
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 4_a
150path
Orientation (0) Orientation ( ) 0 Orientation (0)

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 8. The RSME of the CA method for the variation of position and number of path by using USM Tomo with (a) 10, (b) 14 and (c) 16 transducers

ANN-3_a path-10 Transdr ffw [150] ANN-6 path-12Transdr ffw [150] ANN-3 path-14Transdr ffw [80]
0.06 0.8
0.08 ffw [70 10] ffw [70 10] ffw [150]
0.06 Cascade Cascade 0.6 ffw [70 10]
0.04
RMSE
RMSE
RMSE

0.4 Cascade
0.04
0.02
0.02 0.2

0 0 0
0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
Orientation (0) Orientation (0) Orientation (0)

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 9. The Performanceof 4 different ANN architectures for the same parallel path configuration of USM Tomo with (a) 10 (b) 12 dan (c) 14 transducers

149
 ANN Cascade-3 path-10 Transdr KP=1e-5 ANN Cascade-6 path-12 Transdr KP=1e-5 0.04
ANN Cascade-3_a path-14 Transdr
0.06 0.04
KP=1e-4 KP=1e-4
KP=1e-3 KP=1e-5
KP=1e-3

RMSE
KP=1e-2 KP=1e-4
0.04 KP=1e-2
KP=0,1 KP=1e-3
RMSE

0.02 KP=0,1 0.02

KP=1e-2
0.02 KP=0,1

RMSE
0.00 0.00 0
0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
Orientation (0) Orientation (0) Orientation (0)

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 10. The performance of ANN-Cascade with different learning rate

ANN Cascade-10 Transdr ANN Cascade-14 Transdr 0.04 ANN Cascade-16 Transdr
0.04 0.04
5-path 7 path 8 path

RMSE
3-path 5 path 6 path
3 path 4 path
RMSE

0.02 2-path 0.02 3_a path 0.02

4_a path
RMSE

0.00 0.00 0.00

0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
Orientation (0) Orientation (0) Orientation (0)

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 11. ANN-Cascade performance for the variation of position and number of path by using USM Tomo with (a) 10, (b) 14 and (c) 16 transducers, and the
learning rate used is 1.10-5

When LR1.10-5is used, the performance of the ANN- TABLE 3. THE COMPARISON ABOUT THE CA AND THE ANN-CASCADE
Cascade for the variation of position and number of acoustic
path is shown in Fig.11. Figures11 (a) and(b) showthat when Parameter CA ANN-Cascade
RMSE min 2.2 10-3 6.5 10-3
the number of acoustic pathare increased, the RMSEonly RMSE max 7.6 10-2 1.5 10-2
decreases slightly. However, especially for Fig. 11 (c), RMSE RMSE min-max 7.4 10-2 9.4 10-3
for 6 paths is slightly better than 8 paths. Furthermore, when RMSE average* 1.8 10-2* 1.0 10-2*
the parallel path is set in equal number but in different The smallest of RMSE 1. 2.210-3 : 16 trans-5 path 1. 6.510-3: 16 trans 6 path
positions across the pipe, the RMSE obtained is almost the for different number of 2. 2.510-3 : 14 trans-5 path 2. 6.910-3: 14 trans 7 path
USM Tomo transducers 3. 3.910-3 : 12 trans-4 path 3. 7.310-3: 12 trans 6 path
same. This can be seen in Figs.11 (b) and (c), when using 3
and 3_a paths as well as 4 and 4_a path. This phenomenon is path in equal number significant changes in slightly changes in
but in different performance performance
extremely contrast to CA method, which proves that the ANN- positions
Cascadeis able to adapt to the variation of path Different number of significant changes in changes in performance
positioncompared to the CA method. In addition, the overall path performance
range of RMSE for ANN-Cascade for variation in position and The best architecture - Cascade Correlation with 3
from the proposed hidden layer and learning
number of acoustic path is between 6.5 10-3 and 1.5 10-2, and methods rate 1.10-5
the overall average is 1.0 10-2. *
Average RMSE by using AGA-9 standard= 9.1 10-3
C. Performance Comparison of CA and ANN-Cascade
Dealing with a different number of acoustic path, and ANN-Cascade are (2.2 10-3~7.6 10-2) and (6.5 10-3~1.5 10-
theperformance of CA and ANN-Cascade show the same 2
), respectively.In order to provide clear information, the
trend, where the increasing number of path directly increases comparison table about the CA and the ANN-Cascade is
the USM accuracy because it provides detailed information of displayed in Table 3.
velocity in cross-section pipe.
By using tolerance within ± 1%(AGA-9), the RMSE
Furthermore, when the parallel path is set in equal number obtained for the training set is 9.1 10-3. Meanwhile, the
but in different positions across the pipe, the performance of average RMSE of the CA and the ANN-Cascade in sequential
ANN-Cascade and CA are extremely different from each manner are1.8 10-2 and 1 10-2. From that it can be assumed
other. The accuracy of USM can be maintained by using thatANN-Cascade algorithmhas ability to maintain the USM
ANN-Cascade, but not for CA. Thus, it is safe to conclude that accuracy to measure strong asymmetric flow. Finally, ANN-
theANN-Cascade is able to adapt to a changing path positions Cascade will be experimentally validated for future work.
compared to the CA method.
VII. CONCLUSION
The smallest RMSEsof CA and ANN-Cascade are 2.2 10-3
and 6.5 10-3, respectively. Furthermore, the range of RMSE The best RMSE obtained from the CA method is extremely
for variation in position and number of acoustic path of CA lower than the ANN-Cascade, wherethe RMSE of CA is 2.2
10-3 for USM Tomo 14 trans-5 path and the ANN-Cascade is

150
6.5 10-3 for 16 trans- 6 paths. Unfortunately, in terms of
keeping the stability of performance for variation in position
and number of acoustic path,the CA is far worse than the
ANN-Cascade. This can be explained from the RMSE range,
where the CA and ANN-Cascade are (2.2 10-3 ~7.6 10-2) and
(6.5 10-3~1.5 10-2).In addition, according to AGA-9, the
RMSE for testing sets is 9.1 10-3, while forCA andANN-
Cascade are 1.8 10-2 and 1.0 10-2, respectively.
VIII. FUTURE WORK
For further research, ANN-Cascade methods will be
experimentally validated.The training data will be obtained
from the reconstructedprofile of USM Tomography.
REFERENCES
[1] AGA Report No. 9, Measurment of Gas by Multipath Ultrasonic
Meters., no. Second Editon. American Gas Association, 400 North
Capitol Street NW, Washiton, 2007.
[2] “Custody Transfer Applications Drive Growth in Ultrasonic Gas
Flowmeter Market, Finds New Flow Research Study,” Wakefield,
Massachusetts (PRWEB). [Online]. Available: http://www.prweb.com.
[Accessed: 29-Apr-2017].
[3] R. C. Baker, Flow measurement handbook, Industrial Design, Operating
Principles, Performance, and Application. Cambridge university Press
2000, 2005.
151
[4] P. Gruber and T. Staubli, “Comparison Of Integration Methods For
Multipath Acoustic Discharge Measurements Multipath Acoustic
Discharge Measurement,” pp. 1–16, 2006.
[5] H. Zhao, T. Takahashi, T. Hayashi, and K. Shimizu, “ANN based data
integration for multi-path ultrasonic flowmeter,” no. c, pp. 1–9, 2013.
[6] S. Frank, C. Heilmann, and H. E. Siekmann, “Point-velocity methods for
flow-rate measurements in asymmetric pipe flow,” Flow Meas Instrum,
vol. 7, 1996.
[7] P. I. Moore, G. J. Brown, and B. P. Stimpson, “Ultrasonic transit-time
flowmeters modelled with theoretical velocity profiles : methodology,”
Meas. Sci. Technol., pp. 1802–1811, 2000.
[8] D. Kurniadi and A. Trisnobudi, “A Multi-Path Ultrasonic Transit Time
Flow Meter Using a Tomography Method for Gas Flow Velocity Profile
Measurement,” Part. Part. Syst. Charact., vol. 23, no. 3–4, pp. 330–338,
2006.
[9] D. Zheng, D. Zhao, and J. Mei, “Improved numerical integration method
for fl owrate of ultrasonic fl owmeter based on Gauss quadrature for
non-ideal fl ow fi elds,” vol. 41, pp. 28–35, 2015.
[10] L. A. Salami and B. Mech, “Transactions of the Institute of
Measurement and Control asymmetric flow measurement in circular
pipes,” 1984.
[11] J. Liu, B. Wang, Y. Cui, and H. Wang, “Ultrasonic tomographic
velocimeter for visualization of axial flow fields in pipes,” Flow Meas.
Instrum., vol. 41, pp. 57–66, 2015.