<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article">
 <front>
  <journal-meta>
   <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">
    jfcmv
   </journal-id>
   <journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>
     Journal of Flow Control, Measurement &amp; Visualization
    </journal-title>
   </journal-title-group>
   <issn pub-type="epub">
    2329-3322
   </issn>
   <issn publication-format="print">
    2329-3330
   </issn>
   <publisher>
    <publisher-name>
     Scientific Research Publishing
    </publisher-name>
   </publisher>
  </journal-meta>
  <article-meta>
   <article-id pub-id-type="doi">
    10.4236/jfcmv.2025.121001
   </article-id>
   <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">
    jfcmv-143985
   </article-id>
   <article-categories>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
     <subject>
      Articles
     </subject>
    </subj-group>
    <subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2">
     <subject>
      Engineering
     </subject>
    </subj-group>
   </article-categories>
   <title-group>
    Characterizing Trends in Metering Techniques for Wet Gas Measurement: A Critical Review
   </title-group>
   <contrib-group>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Ishigita Lucas
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Shunashu
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"> 
      <sup>1</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Osmund
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Kaunde
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"> 
      <sup>2</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
    <contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
     <name name-style="western">
      <surname>
       Duncan
      </surname>
      <given-names>
       Mwakipesile
      </given-names>
     </name> 
     <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"> 
      <sup>3</sup>
     </xref>
    </contrib>
   </contrib-group> 
   <aff id="aff1">
    <addr-line>
     aDepartment of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering and Technology, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, Tanzania
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <aff id="aff2">
    <addr-line>
     aCollege of Engineering and Technology, Mbeya University of Science and Technology, Mbeya, Tanzania
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <aff id="aff3">
    <addr-line>
     aDepartment of Innovations, Techno-Preneurship Acceleration Facility (ITAF), St. Joseph University of Science in Tanzania (SJUST), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
    </addr-line> 
   </aff> 
   <pub-date pub-type="epub">
    <day>
     14
    </day> 
    <month>
     07
    </month>
    <year>
     2025
    </year>
   </pub-date> 
   <volume>
    12
   </volume> 
   <issue>
    01
   </issue>
   <fpage>
    1
   </fpage>
   <lpage>
    35
   </lpage>
   <history>
    <date date-type="received">
     <day>
      30,
     </day>
     <month>
      March
     </month>
     <year>
      2025
     </year>
    </date>
    <date date-type="published">
     <day>
      11,
     </day>
     <month>
      March
     </month>
     <year>
      2025
     </year> 
    </date> 
    <date date-type="accepted">
     <day>
      11,
     </day>
     <month>
      July
     </month>
     <year>
      2025
     </year> 
    </date>
   </history>
   <permissions>
    <copyright-statement>
     © Copyright 2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. 
    </copyright-statement>
    <copyright-year>
     2014
    </copyright-year>
    <license>
     <license-p>
      This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
     </license-p>
    </license>
   </permissions>
   <abstract>
    This review critically examines advancements, performance, and challenges in wet gas measurement technologies, emphasizing the need for innovation and adaptation in industrial applications. Key advancements include the integration of machine learning (ML) for real-time calibration, hybrid metering systems combining differential pressure, ultrasonic, gamma-ray, and optical sensors, and the development of high-sensitivity hardware for diverse operational scenarios. Performance evaluations demonstrate promising accuracy by ML algorithms and hybrid systems for gas flow rates (&lt;2%). Despite these successes, significant challenges persist, including dependency on flow regime-specific calibrations, noise interference, environmental sensitivity, and limitations in high gas and low liquid volume fractions. Besides, a lack of standardized testing and validation hampers the widespread adoption of these technologies. To address these gaps, this review recommends advancements in adaptive ML algorithms, robust and noise-resistant sensor designs, and extensive field validation across diverse conditions. The exploration of computational techniques, such as digital twins, alongside sustainability-focused designs, further highlights pathways for improvement. Through a detailed analysis of industry applications, this review assesses the suitability of existing methods while proposing a roadmap for future research to enhance measurement reliability, scalability, and adaptability in complex multiphase flow environments.
   </abstract>
   <kwd-group> 
    <kwd>
     Wet Gas Metering Technologies
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Wet Gas Flow Meters
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Metrology
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Machine Learning
    </kwd> 
    <kwd>
      Multiphase Flow
    </kwd>
   </kwd-group>
  </article-meta>
 </front>
 <body>
  <sec id="s1">
   <title>1. Introduction</title>
   <p>Wet gas measurement plays a vital role in the oil and gas, steam, and process industries, where accurate flow measurements are essential for effective production management, custody transfer, and regulatory compliance. The characterization of wet gas measurement depends on identifying the components to be measured, such as phase fraction, flow rate, liquid loading, and phase velocities, as well as the corresponding measurement methods. Wet gas flow, representing a two-phase mixture of gas and liquid, poses significant challenges to achieving precise flow measurements due to liquid loading <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-1">
     [1]
    </xref>. Traditional single-phaser measurement methods, including differential pressure (DP) meters such as Venturi meters and Orifice plate meters, often encounter issues in handling multiphase flow and ultimately lead to over-reading and inaccuracies in measurement <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-2">
     [2]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>The focus on wet gas measurement began to gain prominence in the 1980s within the steam generation industry and subsequently attracted significant attention in both the oil and gas sectors, as well as in process industries, particularly in natural gas production. Accurate metering of wet gas flow is essential for estimating the actual gas flow rate and assessing the liquid loading within the gas-liquid mixture. A variety of methods and technologies for wet gas flow measurement have been developed and implemented, including Multiphase Flow Meters (MPFM), separation technology, and single-phase flow meters. Conversational Multiphase Flow Meters (MPFMs) come with substantial costs associated with investment, operation, and maintenance. The use of separation technology, which requires the installation of a liquid separator downstream from the dry gas flow meter alongside a liquid flow meter, is also expensive and involves cumbersome operations. In contrast, utilizing single-phase flow meters for wet gas metering offers an alternative approach.</p>
   <p>This review paper investigates the capabilities of current wet gas metering technologies while highlighting the challenges and advancements that could support future developments. The specific objectives of this study include: i) identifying trends and advancements in wet gas metering techniques, ii) assessing the performance of various metering technologies for wet gas measurement, iii) analyzing the challenges and limitations of existing wet gas metering technologies, and proposing recommendations for addressing these issues, and iv) exploring the industry applications of available wet gas metering technologies and assessing the suitability of different methods for specific requirements.</p>
   <p>The methodology employed in this work involves an extensive literature review, along with gap and performance analysis based on the reviewed data. This study is important for revealing the challenges and gaps in current wet gas metering methods and technologies while recommending areas for future research, attention, innovation, and exploration.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s2">
   <title>2. Wet Gas and Characteristics</title>
   <sec id="s2_1">
    <title>2.1. Meaning of Wet Gas</title>
    <p>There are different definitions of wet gas depending on the type of industry and its application. In the steam industry, separated steam is termed to be wet steam only when the steam quality 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mi>
        x 
      </mi> 
     </math> is greater than 0.5 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-3">
      [3]
     </xref>. In the oil and gas industry, wet gas was first referred to as the hydrocarbon mixture with a gas volume fraction (GVF) greater than 90% <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-4">
      [4]
     </xref>. However, in the process industry and ongoing research, wet gas is reported as the gas-liquid two-phase flow having Lockhart-Martinelli (L-M) 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          X 
        </mi> 
        <mrow> 
         <mi>
           L 
         </mi> 
         <mi>
           M 
         </mi> 
        </mrow> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> parameter of 0.35 or 0.3. This includes the early research by Shell that concluded that a wet gas is defined by 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          X 
        </mi> 
        <mrow> 
         <mi>
           L 
         </mi> 
         <mi>
           M 
         </mi> 
        </mrow> 
       </msub> 
       <mo>
         ≤ 
       </mo> 
       <mn>
         0.35 
       </mn> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> as from the experimental data, which also reported that slugging in the pipe can become significant at 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          X 
        </mi> 
        <mrow> 
         <mi>
           L 
         </mi> 
         <mi>
           M 
         </mi> 
        </mrow> 
       </msub> 
       <mo>
         &gt; 
       </mo> 
       <mn>
         0.35 
       </mn> 
      </mrow> 
     </math>. In a recent study by Hall et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-3">
      [3]
     </xref>, wet gas is defined using the Lockhart-Martinelli parameter as a gas-liquid two-phase flow having 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          X 
        </mi> 
        <mrow> 
         <mi>
           L 
         </mi> 
         <mi>
           M 
         </mi> 
        </mrow> 
       </msub> 
       <mo>
         &lt; 
       </mo> 
       <mn>
         0.3 
       </mn> 
      </mrow> 
     </math>. This definition is recognized by ISO/TR 12748 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-5">
      [5]
     </xref> and supported by industry groups, including the Norwegian Society for the Oil and Gas Measurement (NSOGM) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-6">
      [6]
     </xref>, the American Petroleum Institute (API) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-3">
      [3]
     </xref>, and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-7">
      [7]
     </xref>. According to Hall et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-3">
      [3]
     </xref>, the lack of standardized terminology and measurement techniques has led to inconsistencies in the field.</p>
    <p>In the natural gas production industry, wet gas is formed when liquid is present in the flowing gas, which occurs due to the condensation of water vapour in the gas as a result of drops in pressure and temperature. However, the presence of liquid in natural gas can also be attributed to changes in well conditions (such as retrograded and injected condensates), the inherently wet nature of certain gas fields (particularly in offshore natural gas production), and various other factors that may lead to liquid formation in natural gas. As a result, natural gas condensate is typically found in the form of wet gas throughout the exploration, production, and transmission stages.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s2_2">
    <title>2.2. Characteristics of Wet Gas</title>
    <p>Wet gas flow is characterized by a gas phase with small amounts of liquid, typically quantified using the Lockhart-Martinelli parameter. Several interrelated parameters derived from the Lockhart-Martinelli parameter ( 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          X 
        </mi> 
        <mrow> 
         <mi>
           L 
         </mi> 
         <mi>
           M 
         </mi> 
        </mrow> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math>) include the gas volume fraction (GVF), liquid volume fraction (LVF), and flow quality (expressed as liquid-to-gas volume ratio and liquid-to-gas mass flow rate ratio). The density ratio (DR) serves as the independent variable for all five parameters, as the expression cannot be equated without incorporating a function of DR. These five parameters that characterize wet gas are illustrated in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">
      Figure 1
     </xref> and correspond to Equation (1).</p>
    <p>
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          X 
        </mi> 
        <mrow> 
         <mi>
           L 
         </mi> 
         <mi>
           M 
         </mi> 
        </mrow> 
       </msub> 
       <mo>
         = 
       </mo> 
       <mfrac> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mover accent="true"> 
           <mi>
             m 
           </mi> 
           <mo>
             ˙ 
           </mo> 
          </mover> 
          <mi>
            l 
          </mi> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mover accent="true"> 
           <mi>
             m 
           </mi> 
           <mo>
             ˙ 
           </mo> 
          </mover> 
          <mi>
            g 
          </mi> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
       </mfrac> 
       <msqrt> 
        <mrow> 
         <mfrac> 
          <mrow> 
           <msub> 
            <mi>
              ρ 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              g 
            </mi> 
           </msub> 
          </mrow> 
          <mrow> 
           <msub> 
            <mi>
              ρ 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              l 
            </mi> 
           </msub> 
          </mrow> 
         </mfrac> 
        </mrow> 
       </msqrt> 
       <mo>
         = 
       </mo> 
       <mfrac> 
        <mrow> 
         <mn>
           1 
         </mn> 
         <mo>
           − 
         </mo> 
         <mtext>
           GVF 
         </mtext> 
        </mrow> 
        <mrow> 
         <mtext>
           GVF 
         </mtext> 
        </mrow> 
       </mfrac> 
       <msqrt> 
        <mrow> 
         <mfrac> 
          <mrow> 
           <msub> 
            <mi>
              ρ 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              l 
            </mi> 
           </msub> 
          </mrow> 
          <mrow> 
           <msub> 
            <mi>
              ρ 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              g 
            </mi> 
           </msub> 
          </mrow> 
         </mfrac> 
        </mrow> 
       </msqrt> 
       <mo>
         = 
       </mo> 
       <mfrac> 
        <mrow> 
         <mn>
           1 
         </mn> 
         <mo>
           − 
         </mo> 
         <mi>
           x 
         </mi> 
        </mrow> 
        <mi>
          x 
        </mi> 
       </mfrac> 
       <msqrt> 
        <mrow> 
         <mfrac> 
          <mrow> 
           <msub> 
            <mi>
              ρ 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              l 
            </mi> 
           </msub> 
          </mrow> 
          <mrow> 
           <msub> 
            <mi>
              ρ 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              g 
            </mi> 
           </msub> 
          </mrow> 
         </mfrac> 
        </mrow> 
       </msqrt> 
       <mo>
         = 
       </mo> 
       <mfrac> 
        <mrow> 
         <mtext>
           LVF 
         </mtext> 
        </mrow> 
        <mrow> 
         <mn>
           1 
         </mn> 
         <mo>
           − 
         </mo> 
         <mtext>
           LVF 
         </mtext> 
        </mrow> 
       </mfrac> 
       <msqrt> 
        <mrow> 
         <mfrac> 
          <mrow> 
           <msub> 
            <mi>
              ρ 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              l 
            </mi> 
           </msub> 
          </mrow> 
          <mrow> 
           <msub> 
            <mi>
              ρ 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              g 
            </mi> 
           </msub> 
          </mrow> 
         </mfrac> 
        </mrow> 
       </msqrt> 
       <mo>
         = 
       </mo> 
       <mfrac> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            Q 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            l 
          </mi> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            Q 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            g 
          </mi> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
       </mfrac> 
       <mo>
         ⋅ 
       </mo> 
       <mfrac> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            ρ 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            l 
          </mi> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            ρ 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            g 
          </mi> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
       </mfrac> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> (1)</p>
    <p>where 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          X 
        </mi> 
        <mrow> 
         <mi>
           L 
         </mi> 
         <mi>
           M 
         </mi> 
        </mrow> 
       </msub> 
       <mo> 
       </mo> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> denotes Lockhart Martinelli parameter, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mover accent="true"> 
         <mi>
           m 
         </mi> 
         <mo>
           ˙ 
         </mo> 
        </mover> 
        <mi>
          l 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> and 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mover accent="true"> 
         <mi>
           m 
         </mi> 
         <mo>
           ˙ 
         </mo> 
        </mover> 
        <mi>
          g 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> are liquid and gas mass flow rate, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          ρ 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          g 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> and 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          ρ 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          l 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> are liquid and gas density, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          Q 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          g 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> and 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          Q 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          l 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> gas and liquid flow rate, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mi>
        x 
      </mi> 
     </math> represent gas quality.</p>
    <fig id="fig1" position="float">
     <label>Figure 1</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Figure 1. Five parameters, relationships, and comparison expressing wet gas <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-3">
        [3]
       </xref>.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2760213-rId44.jpeg?20250714040137" />
    </fig>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s3">
   <title>3. Wet Gas Measurement</title>
   <sec id="s3_1">
    <title>3.1. Wet Gas Flow Measurement Overview</title>
    <p>The multiple parameters in the wet gas are determined using a specialized multiphase flow meter or a step-by-step separation process for the liquid and gas before ascertaining each phase’s measurement components. Since wet gas measurement can be influenced by process conditions, flow rates, and all fluid physical properties (pressure, temperature, composition, phase envelope, energy content, etc.), appropriate techniques should be applied to ensure optimised production and fair transactions in the transmission or custody transfer. The four existing wet gas measurement techniques include: (i) installation of a single-phase flow meter upstream of the gas-liquid separators <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-8">
      [8]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-9">
      [9]
     </xref> as presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">
      Figure 2
     </xref> (ii) the use of a multiphase flow meter (MPFM) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-9">
      [9]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-10">
      [10]
     </xref> as illustrated in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig3">
      Figure 3
     </xref> below (ii) the use of a single-phase flowmeter (with derived correlation to rectify the over-reading error caused by liquid loading in the flowing gas) <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-11">
      [11]
     </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-13">
      [13]
     </xref> which is depicted in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig4">
      Figure 4
     </xref> below, as well as (iv) the phase fraction detection or tomography method as investigated by various researchers like <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-14">
      [14]
     </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-16">
      [16]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>Wet gas measurement using conventional two-phase liquid-gas separators or three-phase separators upstream of the flow meters is inherently bulk, involving high installation costs and considerable maintenance. Moreover, multiphase flowmeters (MPFM) are subject to very high investment and maintenance costs, are flow regime dependent (homogeneous, stratified, or annular), and require tedious calibration. Due to their complexity and multisystem nature, MPFM may encounter pressure drops due to flow interference, and some have internal moving parts that reduce reliability, thereby increasing maintenance costs and complicating operations in piggable pipelines, as stipulated by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-17">
      [17]
     </xref>.</p>
    <fig id="fig2" position="float">
     <label>Figure 2</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Figure 2. Separator system in wet gas measurement.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2760213-rId45.jpeg?20250714040139" />
    </fig>
    <fig id="fig3" position="float">
     <label>Figure 3</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Figure 3. Multiphase flowmeter in wet gas measurement.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2760213-rId46.jpeg?20250714040139" />
    </fig>
    <fig id="fig4" position="float">
     <label>Figure 4</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Figure 4. Single-phase flowmeter in wet-gas measurement.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2760213-rId47.jpeg?20250714040139" />
    </fig>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s3_2">
    <title>3.2. Challenges of Environmental Variation to Existing Traditional Technologies</title>
    <p>Generally, the existing wet gas metering technologies, such as Multiphase Flow Meters (MPFMs) and Differential Pressure (DP) meters, employ various strategies to handle environmental variations like temperature, pressure, and salinity. MPFMs typically use phase fraction sensors and flow models to compensate for changes in fluid properties, while DP meters rely on correlation-based corrections to adjust for wetness-induced over-reading as discussed in section 4.1 of this paper. However, these technologies face challenges in extreme conditions. For instance, DP meters often exhibit positive bias in wet gas flows due to liquid presence, leading to inaccurate gas flow rate readings. Additionally, MPFMs may struggle with salinity variations, which alter dielectric properties and affect phase fraction measurements. Another gap is the limited adaptability of these meters to dynamic flow regimes, requiring frequent recalibration.</p>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s4">
   <title>4. Classification of Single-Phase Wet Gas Metering Technologies</title>
   <p>Measurement of wet gas using a single-phase flow meter remains a persistent challenge in field operations. Many existing methods are invasive and intrusive, which restricts their application under extreme pressure and temperature conditions. Consequently, there is a pressing need to improve the accuracy of wet gas flow measurement, particularly by enhancing over-reading (OR) correlation models. These challenges in wet gas measurement for the oil and gas industry and the petrochemical industry have led to innovations where various metering techniques have been studied and applied massively to improve the accuracy of wet gas flow rate measurement. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig5">
     Figure 5
    </xref> illustrates the classification of various metering technologies for wet gas measurement that currently exist in industry.</p>
   <fig id="fig5" position="float">
    <label>Figure 5</label>
    <caption>
     <title>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Figure 5. Classification of single-phase wet gas metering techniques.</title>
    </caption>
    <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2760213-rId48.jpeg?20250714040141" />
   </fig>
   <sec id="s4_1">
    <title>4.1. Differential Pressure (DP) Flow Meters</title>
    <p>Differential Pressure (DP) flow meters, such as the orifice plate, venturi tube, and v-cone, are among the most widely used single-phase metering systems for wet gas measurement. These devices have been extensively studied and have remained a focal point of research since the 1960s. To accurately measure the actual mass flow rate using DP flow meters, specialized correlation models have been developed to address “metering over-reading,” which arises due to the presence of the liquid phase <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-12">
      [12]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-18">
      [18]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>The fundamental operating principle of DP flow meters is based on the obstruction principle. As the fluid flows through the metering section, an obstruction (such as an orifice plate or venturi nozzle) creates a pressure drop. This pressure drop is directly proportional to the flow rate within the pipe <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-19">
      [19]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-20">
      [20]
     </xref>. According to ISO5167 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-19">
      [19]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-20">
      [20]
     </xref>, DP meters are classified based on the structure of their primary elements, including orifice plates, pitot tubes, cone meters, nozzles, and venturi meters. Each of these designs offers unique advantages, making DP meters versatile tools in wet gas measurement. The fundamental equation of the DP flow meter is expressed in Equation (2) below.</p>
    <p>
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          Q 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          v 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
       <mo>
         = 
       </mo> 
       <mfrac> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            C 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            d 
          </mi> 
         </msub> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            A 
          </mi> 
          <mn>
            2 
          </mn> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
        <mrow> 
         <msqrt> 
          <mrow> 
           <mn>
             1 
           </mn> 
           <mo>
             − 
           </mo> 
           <msup> 
            <mi>
              β 
            </mi> 
            <mn>
              4 
            </mn> 
           </msup> 
          </mrow> 
         </msqrt> 
        </mrow> 
       </mfrac> 
       <mo>
         ⋅ 
       </mo> 
       <msqrt> 
        <mrow> 
         <mfrac> 
          <mrow> 
           <mn>
             2 
           </mn> 
           <mi>
             g 
           </mi> 
           <mrow> 
            <mo>
              ( 
            </mo> 
            <mrow> 
             <mi>
               Δ 
             </mi> 
             <mi>
               P 
             </mi> 
            </mrow> 
            <mo>
              ) 
            </mo> 
           </mrow> 
          </mrow> 
          <mi>
            ρ 
          </mi> 
         </mfrac> 
        </mrow> 
       </msqrt> 
      </mrow> 
     </math>(2)</p>
    <p>where 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          Q 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          v 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> is the volumetric flow rate, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          C 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          d 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> is the discharge coefficient of the DP element, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          A 
        </mi> 
        <mn>
          2 
        </mn> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> is the cross-sectional area of the DP element, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <mi>
         Δ 
       </mi> 
       <mi>
         P 
       </mi> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> is the differential pressure, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mi>
        ρ 
      </mi> 
     </math> is the density of wet gas, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mi>
        β 
      </mi> 
     </math> is the diameter ratio d/D or A<sub>1</sub>/A<sub>2</sub>, and 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mi>
        g 
      </mi> 
     </math> is the gravitational constant.</p>
    <p>Differential pressure (DP) flowmeters are versatile devices utilized for both liquid and gas metering in various industrial applications. Orifice meters, a type of DP flowmeter, play a critical role in numerous process industries where they are used to measure gas, liquid, or even gas-liquid two-phase flows. In the energy sector, orifice meters serve as reference instruments for natural gas custody transfer due to their reliability. According to Upp &amp; LaNasa <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-21">
      [21]
     </xref>, the accuracy of DP meters in measuring actual gas flow ranges from ±0.5% to ±2%. However, when measuring wet gas flows, the presence of liquids requires the application of an over-reading (OR) correlation, which acts as a correction factor when combined with analytical equations. The precision of wet gas flow measurements heavily relies on the accuracy of the selected over-reading correlation model.</p>
    <p>Over-reading correction (OR), also referred to as wet gas correction (WGC) models, is indispensable for single-phase flow meters in accurately estimating the actual flow rate of wet gas. This involves correcting the overestimation caused by the presence of liquid in the flow. These models integrate fundamental flow principles with empirical or experimental data derived from wet gas test loops. The concept of over-reading in wet gas flow is defined as the ratio between the measured gas mass flow rate and the actual gas mass flow rate. This critical relationship serves as the foundation for applying OR models effectively to achieve precise and reliable wet gas measurements. Equation (3) expresses the empirical formula for over-reading correction (OR), where 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          Q 
        </mi> 
        <mrow> 
         <mi>
           t 
         </mi> 
         <mi>
           p 
         </mi> 
        </mrow> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> represents wet gas flow rate and 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          Q 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          g 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> denotes the actual gas flow rate.</p>
    <p>
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <mi>
         O 
       </mi> 
       <mi>
         R 
       </mi> 
       <mo>
         = 
       </mo> 
       <mfrac> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            Q 
          </mi> 
          <mrow> 
           <mi>
             t 
           </mi> 
           <mi>
             p 
           </mi> 
          </mrow> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            Q 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            g 
          </mi> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
       </mfrac> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> (3)</p>
    <p>Extensive research has been conducted on wet gas measurement using single-phase flow meters combined with correlation models, particularly in differential pressure (DP) techniques. Notable work includes Murdock’s hypothesis <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-22">
      [22]
     </xref> on separated liquid-gas two-phase flow patterns, which led to a semi-empirical correlation based on experimental data using orifice plate differential flow meters. Similarly, Chisholm <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-23">
      [23]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-24">
      [24]
     </xref> developed a wet gas correlation model for orifice plates, rooted in the momentum conservation equation for gas-liquid two-phase systems.</p>
    <p>Further contributions include the Lin correlation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-25">
      [25]
     </xref>, the De Leeuw correlation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-26">
      [26]
     </xref>, and the Smith &amp; Leang model <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-27">
      [27]
     </xref>, which introduced the concept of a “blockage factor” for orifice plates and Venturi meters. Comparative analyses of these DP sensor correlation models have been carried out using experimental data, revealing that the Venturi meter demonstrates superior performance in wet gas measurement applications <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-25">
      [25]
     </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-27">
      [27]
     </xref>. Research by Lide et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-18">
      [18]
     </xref> established the Venturi sensor as a particularly effective option for such measurements. Detailed equations for differential pressure over-reading models, along with their performance metrics and limitations, are summarized in the accompanying <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">
      Table 1
     </xref> below.</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Table 1. Over-reading correlation models for DF flow meters.</p>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="3.62%"><p style="text-align:left">s/n</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="11.71%"><p style="text-align:left">Model</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="25.89%"><p style="text-align:left">Concept</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="16.20%"><p style="text-align:left">Parameters</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="12.57%"><p style="text-align:left">Performance</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="30.02%" colspan="2"><p style="text-align:left">Model equation</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="3.62%"><p style="text-align:left">1</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="11.71%"><p style="text-align:left">Homogeneous Model <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-31">
         [31]
        </xref></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="25.89%"><p style="text-align:left">Based on the Orifice &amp; venturi tube on a pseudo-single-phase.</p><p style="text-align:left">Homogeneous density 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             ρ 
           </mi> 
           <mrow> 
            <mi>
              H 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              o 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              m 
            </mi> 
           </mrow> 
          </msub> 
         </mrow> 
        </math> determined based on 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             ρ 
           </mi> 
           <mi>
             l 
           </mi> 
          </msub> 
         </mrow> 
        </math> and 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             ρ 
           </mi> 
           <mi>
             g 
           </mi> 
          </msub> 
         </mrow> 
        </math>.</p><p style="text-align:left"> 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             ρ 
           </mi> 
           <mrow> 
            <mi>
              H 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              o 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              m 
            </mi> 
           </mrow> 
          </msub> 
          <mo>
            = 
          </mo> 
          <mfrac> 
           <mrow> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               ρ 
             </mi> 
             <mi>
               l 
             </mi> 
            </msub> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               ρ 
             </mi> 
             <mi>
               g 
             </mi> 
            </msub> 
           </mrow> 
           <mrow> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               ρ 
             </mi> 
             <mi>
               l 
             </mi> 
            </msub> 
            <mi>
              x 
            </mi> 
            <mo>
              + 
            </mo> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               ρ 
             </mi> 
             <mi>
               g 
             </mi> 
            </msub> 
            <mrow> 
             <mo>
               ( 
             </mo> 
             <mrow> 
              <mn>
                1 
              </mn> 
              <mo>
                − 
              </mo> 
              <mi>
                x 
              </mi> 
             </mrow> 
             <mo>
               ) 
             </mo> 
            </mrow> 
           </mrow> 
          </mfrac> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="16.20%"><p style="text-align:left">Lockhart-Martinelli parameter 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             X 
           </mi> 
           <mrow> 
            <mi>
              L 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              M 
            </mi> 
           </mrow> 
          </msub> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="12.57%"><p style="text-align:left">±3% uncertainty</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="29.86%"><p style="text-align:left"> 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mi>
            O 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            R 
          </mi> 
          <mo>
            = 
          </mo> 
          <msqrt> 
           <mrow> 
            <mn>
              1 
            </mn> 
            <mo>
              + 
            </mo> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               C 
             </mi> 
             <mrow> 
              <mi>
                H 
              </mi> 
              <mi>
                o 
              </mi> 
              <mi>
                m 
              </mi> 
             </mrow> 
            </msub> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               X 
             </mi> 
             <mrow> 
              <mi>
                L 
              </mi> 
              <mi>
                M 
              </mi> 
             </mrow> 
            </msub> 
           </mrow> 
          </msqrt> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="3.62%"><p style="text-align:left">2</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="11.71%"><p style="text-align:left">Murdock Model (1962)</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="25.89%"><p style="text-align:left">Used both Orifice and Venturi.</p><p style="text-align:left">Based on data from the two-phase flow using steam-water, air-water, and natural gas-water.</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="16.20%"><p style="text-align:left">Density Ratio 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mfrac> 
           <mrow> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               ρ 
             </mi> 
             <mi>
               l 
             </mi> 
            </msub> 
           </mrow> 
           <mrow> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               ρ 
             </mi> 
             <mi>
               g 
             </mi> 
            </msub> 
           </mrow> 
          </mfrac> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p><p style="text-align:left">Lockhart-Martinelli parameter 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             X 
           </mi> 
           <mrow> 
            <mi>
              L 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              M 
            </mi> 
           </mrow> 
          </msub> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="12.57%"><p style="text-align:left">±1.5% uncertainty at 95 confidence level &amp; k = 2</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="30.02%" colspan="2"><p style="text-align:left"> 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mi>
            O 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            R 
          </mi> 
          <mo>
            = 
          </mo> 
          <mn>
            1 
          </mn> 
          <mo>
            + 
          </mo> 
          <mn>
            1.26 
          </mn> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             X 
           </mi> 
           <mrow> 
            <mi>
              L 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              M 
            </mi> 
           </mrow> 
          </msub> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="3.62%"><p style="text-align:left">3</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="11.71%"><p style="text-align:left">Lin Model</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="25.89%"><p style="text-align:left">Based on the Orifice flowmeter.</p><p style="text-align:left">Investigated the interaction at the interphase level</p><p style="text-align:left">Defined variable coefficient Q<sub>v</sub>.</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="16.20%"><p style="text-align:left">Volumetric flow rate 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             Q 
           </mi> 
           <mi>
             v 
           </mi> 
          </msub> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p><p style="text-align:left">Lockhart Martinelli parameter 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             X 
           </mi> 
           <mrow> 
            <mi>
              L 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              M 
            </mi> 
           </mrow> 
          </msub> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="12.57%"><p style="text-align:left">±0.5% uncertainty at a beta ratio between 0.5 and 0.7.</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="30.02%" colspan="2"><p style="text-align:left"> 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mi>
            O 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            R 
          </mi> 
          <mo>
            = 
          </mo> 
          <mn>
            1 
          </mn> 
          <mo>
            + 
          </mo> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             Q 
           </mi> 
           <mi>
             v 
           </mi> 
          </msub> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             X 
           </mi> 
           <mrow> 
            <mi>
              L 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              M 
            </mi> 
           </mrow> 
          </msub> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="3.62%"><p style="text-align:left">4</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="11.71%"><p style="text-align:left">Chisholm Model</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="25.89%"><p style="text-align:left">Based on the Orifice Plate. Investigate the effect of the differential pressure value independent of X<sub>ML</sub>.</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="16.20%"><p style="text-align:left">Density Ratio 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mfrac> 
           <mrow> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               ρ 
             </mi> 
             <mi>
               l 
             </mi> 
            </msub> 
           </mrow> 
           <mrow> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               ρ 
             </mi> 
             <mi>
               g 
             </mi> 
            </msub> 
           </mrow> 
          </mfrac> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p><p style="text-align:left">Lockhart-Martinelli parameter 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             X 
           </mi> 
           <mrow> 
            <mi>
              L 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              M 
            </mi> 
           </mrow> 
          </msub> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="12.57%"><p style="text-align:left">±2% uncertainty in natural gas</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="30.02%" colspan="2"><p style="text-align:left"> 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mi>
            O 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            R 
          </mi> 
          <mo>
            = 
          </mo> 
          <msqrt> 
           <mrow> 
            <mn>
              1 
            </mn> 
            <mo>
              + 
            </mo> 
            <mrow> 
             <mo>
               [ 
             </mo> 
             <mrow> 
              <msup> 
               <mrow> 
                <mrow> 
                 <mo>
                   ( 
                 </mo> 
                 <mrow> 
                  <mfrac> 
                   <mrow> 
                    <msub> 
                     <mi>
                       ρ 
                     </mi> 
                     <mi>
                       l 
                     </mi> 
                    </msub> 
                   </mrow> 
                   <mrow> 
                    <msub> 
                     <mi>
                       ρ 
                     </mi> 
                     <mi>
                       g 
                     </mi> 
                    </msub> 
                   </mrow> 
                  </mfrac> 
                 </mrow> 
                 <mo>
                   ) 
                 </mo> 
                </mrow> 
               </mrow> 
               <mrow> 
                <mfrac> 
                 <mn>
                   1 
                 </mn> 
                 <mn>
                   4 
                 </mn> 
                </mfrac> 
               </mrow> 
              </msup> 
              <mo>
                + 
              </mo> 
              <msup> 
               <mrow> 
                <mrow> 
                 <mo>
                   ( 
                 </mo> 
                 <mrow> 
                  <mfrac> 
                   <mrow> 
                    <msub> 
                     <mi>
                       ρ 
                     </mi> 
                     <mi>
                       g 
                     </mi> 
                    </msub> 
                   </mrow> 
                   <mrow> 
                    <msub> 
                     <mi>
                       ρ 
                     </mi> 
                     <mi>
                       l 
                     </mi> 
                    </msub> 
                   </mrow> 
                  </mfrac> 
                 </mrow> 
                 <mo>
                   ) 
                 </mo> 
                </mrow> 
               </mrow> 
               <mrow> 
                <mfrac> 
                 <mn>
                   1 
                 </mn> 
                 <mn>
                   4 
                 </mn> 
                </mfrac> 
               </mrow> 
              </msup> 
             </mrow> 
             <mo>
               ] 
             </mo> 
            </mrow> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               X 
             </mi> 
             <mrow> 
              <mi>
                L 
              </mi> 
              <mi>
                M 
              </mi> 
             </mrow> 
            </msub> 
            <mo>
              + 
            </mo> 
            <msubsup> 
             <mi>
               X 
             </mi> 
             <mrow> 
              <mi>
                L 
              </mi> 
              <mi>
                M 
              </mi> 
             </mrow> 
             <mn>
               2 
             </mn> 
            </msubsup> 
           </mrow> 
          </msqrt> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p><p style="text-align:left"> 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mi>
            O 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            R 
          </mi> 
          <mo>
            = 
          </mo> 
          <msqrt> 
           <mrow> 
            <mn>
              1 
            </mn> 
            <mo>
              + 
            </mo> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               C 
             </mi> 
             <mrow> 
              <mi>
                C 
              </mi> 
              <mi>
                h 
              </mi> 
              <mi>
                i 
              </mi> 
             </mrow> 
            </msub> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               X 
             </mi> 
             <mrow> 
              <mi>
                L 
              </mi> 
              <mi>
                M 
              </mi> 
             </mrow> 
            </msub> 
            <mo>
              + 
            </mo> 
            <msubsup> 
             <mi>
               X 
             </mi> 
             <mrow> 
              <mi>
                L 
              </mi> 
              <mi>
                M 
              </mi> 
             </mrow> 
             <mn>
               2 
             </mn> 
            </msubsup> 
           </mrow> 
          </msqrt> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="3.62%"><p style="text-align:left">5</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="11.71%"><p style="text-align:left">De Leeuw Model</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="25.89%"><p style="text-align:left">Based on the Venturi tube in wet gas in horizontal flow.</p><p style="text-align:left">Correlation of the dependence of the Froude number was also observed.</p><p style="text-align:left">Investigated the model using nitrogen gas and diesel to develop a two-phase flow.</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="16.20%"><p style="text-align:left">Lockhart-Martinelli</p><p style="text-align:left">Froude Number 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mi>
            F 
          </mi> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             r 
           </mi> 
           <mi>
             g 
           </mi> 
          </msub> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p><p style="text-align:left">Density Ratio 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mfrac> 
           <mrow> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               ρ 
             </mi> 
             <mi>
               l 
             </mi> 
            </msub> 
           </mrow> 
           <mrow> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               ρ 
             </mi> 
             <mi>
               g 
             </mi> 
            </msub> 
           </mrow> 
          </mfrac> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="12.57%"><p style="text-align:left">±2% uncertainty</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="30.02%" colspan="2"><p style="text-align:left"> 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mi>
            O 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            R 
          </mi> 
          <mo>
            = 
          </mo> 
          <msqrt> 
           <mrow> 
            <mn>
              1 
            </mn> 
            <mo>
              + 
            </mo> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               C 
             </mi> 
             <mrow> 
              <mi>
                d 
              </mi> 
              <mi>
                L 
              </mi> 
             </mrow> 
            </msub> 
            <msub> 
             <mi>
               X 
             </mi> 
             <mrow> 
              <mi>
                L 
              </mi> 
              <mi>
                M 
              </mi> 
             </mrow> 
            </msub> 
            <mo>
              + 
            </mo> 
            <msubsup> 
             <mi>
               X 
             </mi> 
             <mrow> 
              <mi>
                L 
              </mi> 
              <mi>
                M 
              </mi> 
             </mrow> 
             <mn>
               2 
             </mn> 
            </msubsup> 
           </mrow> 
          </msqrt> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p><p style="text-align:left"> 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mi>
            F 
          </mi> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             r 
           </mi> 
           <mi>
             g 
           </mi> 
          </msub> 
          <mo>
            ≥ 
          </mo> 
          <mn>
            1.5 
          </mn> 
          <mo>
            : 
          </mo> 
          <mi>
            n 
          </mi> 
          <mo>
            = 
          </mo> 
          <mn>
            0.606 
          </mn> 
          <mrow> 
           <mo>
             ( 
           </mo> 
           <mrow> 
            <mn>
              1 
            </mn> 
            <mo>
              − 
            </mo> 
            <msup> 
             <mtext>
               e 
             </mtext> 
             <mrow> 
              <mo>
                − 
              </mo> 
              <mn>
                0.746 
              </mn> 
              <mi>
                F 
              </mi> 
              <msub> 
               <mi>
                 r 
               </mi> 
               <mi>
                 g 
               </mi> 
              </msub> 
             </mrow> 
            </msup> 
           </mrow> 
           <mo>
             ) 
           </mo> 
          </mrow> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p><p style="text-align:left"> 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mn>
            0.5 
          </mn> 
          <mo>
            &lt; 
          </mo> 
          <mi>
            F 
          </mi> 
          <msub> 
           <mi>
             r 
           </mi> 
           <mi>
             g 
           </mi> 
          </msub> 
          <mo>
            &lt; 
          </mo> 
          <mn>
            1.5 
          </mn> 
          <mo>
            : 
          </mo> 
          <mi>
            n 
          </mi> 
          <mo>
            = 
          </mo> 
          <mn>
            0.41 
          </mn> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="3.62%"><p style="text-align:left">6</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="11.71%"><p style="text-align:left">Smith and Leang Model</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="25.89%"><p style="text-align:left">Used both Orifice and Venturi to account for mass fraction 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mrow> 
           <mo>
             ( 
           </mo> 
           <mrow> 
            <mn>
              1 
            </mn> 
            <mo>
              − 
            </mo> 
            <mi>
              x 
            </mi> 
           </mrow> 
           <mo>
             ) 
           </mo> 
          </mrow> 
         </mrow> 
        </math>.</p><p style="text-align:left">Investigated the decrease in cross-sectional area due to blockage of the orifice section caused by the presence of liquid.</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="16.20%"><p style="text-align:left">Gas Mass Fraction (GMF) 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mi>
           x 
         </mi> 
        </math></p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="12.57%"><p style="text-align:left">±2% uncertainty at 95 confidence level &amp; k = 2</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="30.02%" colspan="2"><p style="text-align:left"> 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mi>
            O 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            R 
          </mi> 
          <mo>
            = 
          </mo> 
          <mfrac> 
           <mn>
             1 
           </mn> 
           <mrow> 
            <mi>
              B 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              F 
            </mi> 
           </mrow> 
          </mfrac> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p><p style="text-align:left"> 
        <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
          <mi>
            B 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            F 
          </mi> 
          <mo>
            = 
          </mo> 
          <mn>
            0.637 
          </mn> 
          <mo>
            + 
          </mo> 
          <mn>
            0.421 
          </mn> 
          <mrow> 
           <mo>
             ( 
           </mo> 
           <mrow> 
            <mn>
              1 
            </mn> 
            <mo>
              − 
            </mo> 
            <mi>
              x 
            </mi> 
           </mrow> 
           <mo>
             ) 
           </mo> 
          </mrow> 
          <mo>
            − 
          </mo> 
          <mfrac> 
           <mrow> 
            <mi>
              o 
            </mi> 
            <mo>
              . 
            </mo> 
            <mi>
              o 
            </mi> 
            <mi>
              o 
            </mi> 
            <mn>
              183 
            </mn> 
           </mrow> 
           <mrow> 
            <msup> 
             <mrow> 
              <mrow> 
               <mo>
                 ( 
               </mo> 
               <mrow> 
                <mn>
                  1 
                </mn> 
                <mo>
                  − 
                </mo> 
                <mi>
                  x 
                </mi> 
               </mrow> 
               <mo>
                 ) 
               </mo> 
              </mrow> 
             </mrow> 
             <mn>
               2 
             </mn> 
            </msup> 
           </mrow> 
          </mfrac> 
         </mrow> 
        </math></p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
    <p>Despite being widely used for wet gas flow measurement due to their high reliability, availability of correlation models, and low cost <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-28">
      [28]
     </xref>, DP-type flow sensors exhibit several limitations. These include flow pressure drop and swirl/eddy formation caused by their intrusive nature, which disturbs flow fields and increases measurement uncertainty, making them unsuitable for placement upstream of other components <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-17">
      [17]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-29">
      [29]
     </xref>. Their integration with radioactive gamma-rays for density and composition measurement raises health and safety concerns <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-17">
      [17]
     </xref>. Additionally, DP sensors struggle to accurately capture phase distribution, including void fraction and film thickness <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
      [30]
     </xref>, and over-reading correction models often lack experimental validation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
      [30]
     </xref>. Moreover, obtaining the initial liquid flow rate required for gas phase flow rate calculation is practically impossible in industrial applications <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-13">
      [13]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>Recent advancements in wet gas measurement based on DP single-phase flowmeters have established the foundation for integrated dual-DP metering systems and hybrid metering systems to improve accuracy and reliability. Key developments include the application of double differential pressure (DP) sensor technologies, such as double Venturi sensors, Venturi and V-cone combinations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-32">
      [32]
     </xref>, standard and slotted orifices <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-33">
      [33]
     </xref>, V-cone paired with shuttle-cone <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-34">
      [34]
     </xref>, and double V-cone flowmeters <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-35">
      [35]
     </xref>. Furthermore, dual sensor configurations have emerged, integrating DP flow sensors with additional technologies, such as Venturi combined with vortex meters <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-34">
      [34]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>Hybrid metering systems have also advanced significantly, merging flow sensors with phase fraction sensing technologies. Examples include Venturi, orifice plates, V-cones, or turbines paired with resistive void fraction sensors <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-32">
      [32]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-36">
      [36]
     </xref>. Venturi meters integrated with Electrical Capacitance Tomography (ECT) or Electrical Resistance Tomography (ERT) sensors and V-cone or Venturi meters combined with microwave probes <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-37">
      [37]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-38">
      [38]
     </xref>. These innovations are designed to address the challenges of wet gas metering while enhancing measurement accuracy in diverse operational settings. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">
      Table 2
     </xref> below presents the gap analysis on differential pressure (DP) metering technology in wet gas measurement.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s4_2">
    <title>4.2. Ultrasonic Flow Meter (USM)</title>
    <p>An ultrasonic flow meter (USM) is a non-invasive and non-intrusive device specifically designed to measure single-phase fluid flow. When using a USM for wet gas flow measurement, it is essential to determine the over-reading correction factor (OR) to achieve accurate flow rate readings. Numerous studies have explored the application of ultrasonic flow meters in wet gas flow measurement, along with the development of an over-reading correction factor for flow rate accuracy.</p>
    <p>Numerous studies, such as those by Xing et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-28">
      [28]
     </xref>, explored non-intrusive single-phase ultrasonic metering (USM) approaches, particularly in stratified and annular gas-liquid flow scenarios, using void fraction models for validation. These methods have been tested in controlled environments with different flow patterns and conditions, such as horizontal pipelines under varying pressures and velocities.</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Table 2. Gap analysis of DP flow meters for wet gas measurement.</p>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="21.50%"><p style="text-align:left">Aimed Knowledge</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Gap Identification</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="37.75%"><p style="text-align:left">Desired Outcome</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">Reference</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="21.50%"><p style="text-align:left">Accurate modeling of wet gas flows</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Correlation models rely heavily on empirical data and lack adaptability to complex flow conditions</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="37.75%"><p style="text-align:left">Development of advanced, adaptive models that account for real-time changes in flow patterns</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-22">
         [22]
        </xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-24">
         [24]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.50%"><p style="text-align:left">Improved accuracy in high liquid volume fractions</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">DP sensors exhibit over-reading and high uncertainty in wet gas flows with high liquid content</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="37.75%"><p style="text-align:left">Refined correction models and improved calibration techniques to mitigate over-reading errors</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-18">
         [18]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
         [30]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.50%"><p style="text-align:left">Comprehensive phase distribution measurements</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Struggles with capturing phase distributions (e.g., void fraction and film thickness)</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="37.75%"><p style="text-align:left">Integration of advanced sensors or hybrid technologies for precise phase measurement</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
         [30]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.50%"><p style="text-align:left">Minimizing flow disturbances</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Intrusive DP sensors cause pressure drops and swirl/eddy formations, disrupting flow fields</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="37.75%"><p style="text-align:left">Development of non-intrusive DP sensors or designs that minimize flow disturbance</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-17">
         [17]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-29">
         [29]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.50%"><p style="text-align:left">Safe and efficient wet gas metering</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Radioactive gamma-ray integration raises health and safety concerns</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="37.75%"><p style="text-align:left">Exploration of alternative, non-radioactive sensor technologies</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-17">
         [17]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.50%"><p style="text-align:left">Reliable performance in industrial applications</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Inability to measure the initial liquid flow rate accurately in real-world industrial setups</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="37.75%"><p style="text-align:left">Innovative techniques or technologies capable of addressing practical limitations in obtaining critical flow rate parameters</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-17">
         [17]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.50%"><p style="text-align:left">Experimentally validated over-reading correction models</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Many correction models lack experimental validation, reducing reliability</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="37.75%"><p style="text-align:left">Conduct rigorous experimental studies to validate and refine over-reading correction models</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
         [30]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
    <p>Similarly, van Putten et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-2">
      [2]
     </xref> advanced the understanding of ultrasonic methods by developing an over-reading correction model for stratified and dispersed flows, leveraging dimensionless parameters like Lockhart-Martinelli numbers and Froude numbers. Further investigations by Xu et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
      [30]
     </xref> emphasized void fraction and liquid film thickness as primary contributors to over-reading in ultrasonic meters, proposing a model based on liquid film estimation. Additionally, hybrid approaches, like the work of Gysling et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-39">
      [39]
     </xref>, integrated DP meters with sonar-based flowmeters to achieve improved accuracy, while Funck &amp; Baldwin <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-40">
      [40]
     </xref> validated ultrasonic methods using clamp-on and traditional configurations in wet gas conditions.</p>
    <p>The equation of flow by TT-USM is expressed in Equation (4) below. Where; denotes wet gas volumetric flow rate, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mi>
        θ 
      </mi> 
     </math> represents propagation angle, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mi>
        L 
      </mi> 
     </math> indicates the distance between transducers, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          t 
        </mi> 
        <mn>
          2 
        </mn> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> and 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          t 
        </mi> 
        <mn>
          1 
        </mn> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> represents the time of flight of ultrasonic pulse from upstream to downstream transducers, respectively.</p>
    <p>
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <mi>
         Q 
       </mi> 
       <mo>
         = 
       </mo> 
       <mi>
         A 
       </mi> 
       <mo>
         ⋅ 
       </mo> 
       <mfrac> 
        <mi>
          L 
        </mi> 
        <mrow> 
         <mn>
           2 
         </mn> 
         <mi>
           cos 
         </mi> 
         <mi>
           θ 
         </mi> 
        </mrow> 
       </mfrac> 
       <mrow> 
        <mo>
          ( 
        </mo> 
        <mrow> 
         <mfrac> 
          <mrow> 
           <msub> 
            <mi>
              t 
            </mi> 
            <mn>
              2 
            </mn> 
           </msub> 
           <mo>
             − 
           </mo> 
           <msub> 
            <mi>
              t 
            </mi> 
            <mn>
              1 
            </mn> 
           </msub> 
          </mrow> 
          <mrow> 
           <msub> 
            <mi>
              t 
            </mi> 
            <mn>
              2 
            </mn> 
           </msub> 
           <msub> 
            <mi>
              t 
            </mi> 
            <mn>
              1 
            </mn> 
           </msub> 
          </mrow> 
         </mfrac> 
        </mrow> 
        <mo>
          ) 
        </mo> 
       </mrow> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> (4)</p>
    <p>The performance of the USM metering technique for wet gas flow is highly influenced by flow conditions and the specific measurement techniques employed. Xing et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-28">
      [28]
     </xref> identified errors in gas flow rate predictions ranging from 3.7% to 19.0%, with the Lockhart-Martinelli model demonstrating superior accuracy under stratified flow conditions. Similarly, Van Putten et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-2">
      [2]
     </xref> reported an uncertainty level below 4% using a dimensionless correction algorithm tailored for wet gas flows. In another research by Xu et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
      [30]
     </xref>, USM achieved prediction errors within ±15%, with 88% of the data points falling within a ±5% margin, emphasizing the effectiveness of ultrasonic meters when calibrated for variables such as void fraction and liquid film thickness <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
      [30]
     </xref>. Gysling et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-39">
      [39]
     </xref> demonstrated an accuracy of ±2% for gas flow rates and ±10% for liquid flow rates through the integration of differential pressure and sonar-based meters. Furthermore, FLEXIM clamp-on ultrasonic meters tested in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-40">
      [40]
     </xref> achieved errors under 8% across varying pressure conditions, while <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-41">
      [41]
     </xref> highlighted the reliability of ultrasonic meters in stratified flows but noted significant performance degradation under mist flow conditions.</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Despite the promising results, ultrasonic flow meters face several limitations and challenges. For example, Xing et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-28">
      [28]
     </xref> identified the reduction of gas flow paths due to liquid presence as a key source of error, while Xu et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
      [30]
     </xref> highlighted the reliance on assumptions like pre-known liquid flow rates, which may not be practical in field applications. Funck &amp; Baldwin <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-40">
      [40]
     </xref> noted issues with liquid accumulation in pipes, leading to signal loss in high turbulence or near valves <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-42">
      [42]
     </xref>. In addition, signal attenuation, pressure dependency, and ultrasonic energy loss at high gas volume fractions (GVFs) pose significant obstacles, as observed by Meribout et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-43">
      [43]
     </xref>. To address these challenges, researchers like Chang &amp; Morala <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-44">
      [44]
     </xref> suggested extending correlation models to include high viscosity effects, while recent advancements such as Contra-Propagated Transmission Ultrasonic Techniques <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-45">
      [45]
     </xref> attempt to refine two-phase flow characterization. They suggested more innovations, such as enhancing signal processing techniques and also integrating hybrid systems, which could combine the strengths of various metering technologies to mitigate limitations. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">
      Table 3
     </xref> below summarizes the gap analysis based on the existing studies for the USM metering method in wet gas flow measurement.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s4_3">
    <title>4.3. Coriolis Flow Meters</title>
    <p>Coriolis flow meters are widely used for mass flow measurement due to their ability to directly measure mass flow rates and density. In multiphase flow, including wet gas, the methods often involve modifications to standard Coriolis technology to account for the presence of multiple phases. The fundamental equation of the Coriolis flow meter is expressed in Equation (5) below.</p>
    <p>Where 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          q 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          m 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> is the mass flow rate, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          F 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          c 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> is the Coriolis force, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mi>
        ω 
      </mi> 
     </math> is the angular velocity of the tube, 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mi>
        d 
      </mi> 
     </math> is the length of the tube, and the 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mi>
        c 
      </mi> 
     </math> constant induced as a correction of tube bending.</p>
    <p>
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          q 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          m 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
       <mo>
         = 
       </mo> 
       <mfrac> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            F 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            c 
          </mi> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
        <mrow> 
         <mn>
           2 
         </mn> 
         <mo>
           ⋅ 
         </mo> 
         <mi>
           c 
         </mi> 
         <mo>
           ⋅ 
         </mo> 
         <mi>
           ω 
         </mi> 
         <mo>
           ⋅ 
         </mo> 
         <mi>
           d 
         </mi> 
        </mrow> 
       </mfrac> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> (5)</p>
    <p>The use of Coriolis flow meters in wet gas measurement has been investigated in various research. Weinstein et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-46">
      [46]
     </xref> highlighted that Coriolis meters operate by measuring the oscillation of flow tubes, which can be disrupted by gas-liquid interactions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-46">
      [46]
     </xref>. Advanced signal processing techniques have been developed</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Table 3. Gap analysis of ultrasonic flow meters for wet gas measurement.</p>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="21.54%"><p style="text-align:left">Aimed Knowledge</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="33.41%"><p style="text-align:left">Gap Identification</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="35.53%"><p style="text-align:left">Desired Outcome</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">Reference</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="21.54%"><p style="text-align:left">Accurate measurement in stratified and annular flows</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="33.41%"><p style="text-align:left">High errors (3.7% - 19%) in gas flow rate predictions due to liquid film impact and complex flow conditions</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="35.53%"><p style="text-align:left">Development of advanced correction models calibrated for stratified and annular flow regimes</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-28">
         [28]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
         [30]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.54%"><p style="text-align:left">Accurate over-reading correction models</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="33.41%"><p style="text-align:left">Over-reading due to void fraction and liquid film thickness; inadequate real-time adjustments in dispersed flows</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="35.53%"><p style="text-align:left">Real-time adaptive algorithms for liquid film estimation and void fraction measurements</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-2">
         [2]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
         [30]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.54%"><p style="text-align:left">Reliable signal transmission in turbulent flows</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="33.41%"><p style="text-align:left">Liquid accumulation and high turbulence near valves cause signal loss</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="35.53%"><p style="text-align:left">Improved ultrasonic sensor designs or hybrid meters with better turbulence resistance</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-40">
         [40]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-43">
         [43]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.54%"><p style="text-align:left">Minimized energy losses at high gas volume fractions</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="33.41%"><p style="text-align:left">Ultrasonic energy attenuation and pressure dependency at high gas volume fractions</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="35.53%"><p style="text-align:left">Use of novel techniques like Contra-Propagated Transmission Ultrasonic Methods to enhance energy efficiency</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-43">
         [43]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-45">
         [45]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.54%"><p style="text-align:left">Applicability in industrial settings</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="33.41%"><p style="text-align:left">Assumes pre-known liquid flow rates, impractical in real-world applications</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="35.53%"><p style="text-align:left">Development of field-ready adaptive models capable of estimating liquid flow rates under varying conditions</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
         [30]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.54%"><p style="text-align:left">Versatility under varying viscosity conditions</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="33.41%"><p style="text-align:left">Existing models fail to include viscosity effects</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="35.53%"><p style="text-align:left">Expansion of ultrasonic models to incorporate high-viscosity flow scenarios</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-44">
         [44]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.54%"><p style="text-align:left">Integration with other metering technologies</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="33.41%"><p style="text-align:left">Limitations of single-phase measurement techniques</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="35.53%"><p style="text-align:left">Development of hybrid systems combining ultrasonic, DP, and sonar-based technologies for enhanced multiphase measurement</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.52%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-39">
         [39]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
    <p>to mitigate these disruptions and improve accuracy. Li &amp; Henry <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-47">
      [47]
     </xref> introduced an algorithm to remediate errors caused by two-phase conditions, focusing on drive gain adjustments to maintain tube vibration. Likewise, Xu et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
      [30]
     </xref> explored the use of Coriolis meters in stratified and annular flows, emphasizing the importance of calibrating for void fraction and liquid film thickness <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
      [30]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>The performance of Coriolis meters in wet gas conditions varies depending on the flow regime and calibration. Weinstein et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-46">
      [46]
     </xref> reported that errors in multiphase conditions are primarily due to decoupling effects, where gas bubbles or liquid droplets move independently of the oscillating flow tubes. Li &amp; Henry <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-47">
      [47]
     </xref> demonstrated that with advanced algorithms, Coriolis meters could achieve an uncertainty of ±1.5% - 2% for gas flow rates in wet gas conditions. However, it was noted that the accuracy of Coriolis meters decreases with increasing gas volume fractions (GVF), with errors reaching up to ±15% in extreme cases <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
      [30]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>Coriolis flow meters are extensively used in the oil and gas industry for applications such as wellhead monitoring, custody transfer, and process optimization. Weinstein et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-46">
      [46]
     </xref> highlighted their use in upstream allocation and net oil measurement, where accurate mass flow rates are critical. Li &amp; Henry <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-47">
      [47]
     </xref> also demonstrated their application in wet gas pipelines, where the meters were able to detect liquid fractions as low as 0.013% by volume <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-47">
      [47]
     </xref>. Besides, the suitability of Coriolis flow meters for stratified and annular flow patterns was verified, making them valuable for multiphase flow measurement in pipelines <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
      [30]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>Despite their advantages, Coriolis meters face several limitations in wet gas measurement. Weinstein et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-46">
      [46]
     </xref> identified decoupling effects as a major source of error, particularly in high GVF conditions. Li &amp; Henry <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-47">
      [47]
     </xref> noted that signal attenuation and noise due to turbulence and liquid slugs can significantly affect measurement accuracy. Likewise, Xu et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
      [30]
     </xref> pointed out that the assumption of known liquid flow rates in calibration models is often impractical in real-world applications. Moreover, the high cost of Coriolis meters and their sensitivity to installation conditions pose challenges for widespread adoption <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
      [30]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>To address these challenges, researchers have proposed several improvements. Weinstein et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-46">
      [46]
     </xref> recommended optimizing installation practices and using advanced signal processing to reduce errors. Li &amp; Henry <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-47">
      [47]
     </xref> suggested the development of more robust algorithms to handle two-phase conditions and improve accuracy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-48">
      [48]
     </xref>. Furthermore, the need for better calibration models that account for varying flow regimes and liquid fractions was emphasized <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
      [30]
     </xref>. Future research could focus on integrating Coriolis meters with hybrid systems to leverage the strengths of multiple measurement technologies <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
      [30]
     </xref>. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">
      Table 4
     </xref> below summarizes the gap analysis based on the existing Coriolis metering technology in wet gas flow measurement.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s4_4">
    <title>4.4. Dual Flow Meters</title>
    <p>Dual differential pressure (DP) flow meters use two pressure sensors in series to measure wet gas flow rates. This involves tracking pressure drops across flow</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Table 4. Gap analysis of Coriolis (mass) flow meters for wet gas measurement.</p>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="22.76%"><p style="text-align:left">Aimed Knowledge</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="33.37%"><p style="text-align:left">Gap Identification</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="35.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Desired Outcome</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="8.80%"><p style="text-align:left">Reference</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="22.76%"><p style="text-align:left">Accurate oscillation measurements in multiphase flows</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="33.37%"><p style="text-align:left">Disruptions due to decoupling effects caused by independent gas bubbles or liquid droplets</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="35.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Development of advanced signal processing techniques to minimize oscillation disruptions</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="8.80%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-46">
         [46]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="22.76%"><p style="text-align:left">Improved calibration for complex flow regimes</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="33.37%"><p style="text-align:left">Calibration models assume pre-known liquid flow rates, which is impractical in industrial applications</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="35.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Adaptive real-time calibration methods for varying flow regimes and liquid fractions</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="8.80%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
         [30]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="22.76%"><p style="text-align:left">Enhanced accuracy in high GVF conditions</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="33.37%"><p style="text-align:left">Accuracy decreases with increasing gas volume fractions; errors reach up to ±15% in extreme cases</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="35.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Refined algorithms to handle high GVF conditions and improve overall accuracy</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="8.80%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
         [30]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-47">
         [47]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="22.76%"><p style="text-align:left">Reliable signal transmission in turbulent flows</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="33.37%"><p style="text-align:left">Noise and signal attenuation due to turbulence and liquid slugs affect accuracy</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="35.07%"><p style="text-align:left">More robust algorithms and sensor designs to mitigate noise and turbulence</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="8.80%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-46">
         [46]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-47">
         [47]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="22.76%"><p style="text-align:left">Versatility in wet gas applications</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="33.37%"><p style="text-align:left">Limitations in detecting and quantifying low liquid fractions in stratified and annular flows</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="35.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Hybrid systems or improved sensors capable of detecting and quantifying low liquid fractions</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="8.80%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
         [30]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-47">
         [47]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="22.76%"><p style="text-align:left">Cost-effective and scalable solutions</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="33.37%"><p style="text-align:left">High cost and sensitivity to installation conditions reduce widespread adoption</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="35.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Exploration of cost-effective designs and improved installation practices</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="8.80%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-46">
         [46]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="22.76%"><p style="text-align:left">Integration with hybrid systems</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="33.37%"><p style="text-align:left">Single-method limitations reduce overall reliability and adaptability</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="35.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Integration of Coriolis meters with DP and ultrasonic technologies to leverage the strengths of multiple systems</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="8.80%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
         [30]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
    <p>like Venturi meters or orifice plates. Methods vary: Xu et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-32">
      [32]
     </xref> combined a Venturi and a V-Cone meter, correlating pressure drops with flow rates using empirical models, while Agar and Farchy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-49">
      [49]
     </xref> paired Venturi meters with sonar sensors for improved precision in wet gas conditions. Other dual DP methods involved standard orifices and slotted orifices <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-33">
      [33]
     </xref>, V-cone plus shuttle-cone <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-34">
      [34]
     </xref>. However, Xu et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-32">
      [32]
     </xref> reported uncertainties of ±2% for gas and ±10% for liquid flow rates under controlled conditions. Agar and Farchy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-49">
      [49]
     </xref> reduced gas flow rate uncertainty to below ±5% by integrating sonar sensors. Despite these innovations, limitations persist. High LVF conditions impair accuracy, liquid slugs disrupt measurements, and calibration demands extensive data. Dual DP systems also increase costs and require maintenance, with empirical models limiting adaptability to diverse flow scenarios. Researchers suggest solutions such as adaptive calibration, advanced sensors like gamma-ray and microwave for better phase measurements, and machine learning to reduce reliance on empirical models <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-32">
      [32]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-34">
      [34]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>Dual flow meters other than DP have also been investigated in various research. Xing et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-29">
      [29]
     </xref> studied a novel method for measuring gas-liquid two-phase flows with low liquid loading, combining ultrasonic flowmeters (USF) and Coriolis mass flowmeters (CMF). A coupling model is developed by integrating these measurements, allowing for the estimation of gas and liquid mass flow rates. Experimental validation in stratified and annular flow regimes demonstrated root-mean-square errors (RMSE) of 3.09% for gas mass flow rate and 12.78% for liquid mass flow rate under specific pressure and flow conditions. Despite its promise, the method faces limitations, including measurement errors caused by complex flow regimes, noise interference, and liquid film effects. The CMF’s accuracy decreases with increasing compressibility and asymmetry in two-phase flows, while the USF struggles with variable velocity profiles and interfaces. Suggested improvements include advanced signal processing, adaptive algorithms for void fraction and flow regime detection, and further experimental validation <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-29">
      [29]
     </xref>. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">
      Table 5
     </xref> below summarizes the gap analysis for the existing studies for the dual DP metering method in wet gas flow measurement.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s4_5">
    <title>4.5. Cross Correlation Method</title>
    <p>Cross-correlation is another metering method that has been used in wet gas flow measurement. Cross-correlation techniques involve placing two flow meters in series along a pipeline to measure the tagged signals between the two sensors. This method is widely used for velocity and flow rate estimation in multiphase flows. Munir and Khalil <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-51">
      [51]
     </xref> underscored the use of ultrasonic, capacitive, and electrostatic sensors in cross-correlation systems to track flow dynamics in gas-liquid mixtures. The technique relies on signal processing to correlate the time delay between the upstream and downstream sensors, enabling the calculation of flow velocity. Muhamedsalih and Lucas <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-52">
      [52]
     </xref> implemented impedance-based cross-correlation flow meters, using electrode arrays to measure local solids volume fractions and velocities in multiphase flows. Tomaszewska-Wach et al., <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-50">
      [50]
     </xref> also examined the application</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Table 5. Gap analysis of dual flow meters for wet gas measurement.</p>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="21.78%"><p style="text-align:left">Aimed Knowledge</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="36.85%"><p style="text-align:left">Gap Identification</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="32.14%"><p style="text-align:left">Desired Outcome</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="9.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Reference</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="21.78%"><p style="text-align:left">Accurate measurements of wet gas flow rates</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="36.85%"><p style="text-align:left">High LVF conditions impair accuracy, and liquid slugs disrupt pressure measurements</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="32.14%"><p style="text-align:left">Development of adaptive calibration techniques and real-time liquid slug mitigation strategies</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="9.23%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-32">
         [32]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-49">
         [49]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.78%"><p style="text-align:left">Integration of dual DP meters with advanced sensors</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="36.85%"><p style="text-align:left">Empirical models limit adaptability to diverse flow scenarios</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="32.14%"><p style="text-align:left">Incorporation of advanced sensors like gamma-ray and microwave technologies for better phase measurements</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.23%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-32">
         [32]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-34">
         [34]
        </xref> </p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.78%"><p style="text-align:left">Cost-efficient and scalable dual DP systems</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="36.85%"><p style="text-align:left">Increased system costs and maintenance requirements due to complex calibration and additional sensors</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="32.14%"><p style="text-align:left">Research into cost-effective designs and maintenance-free calibration systems</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.23%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-49">
         [49]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-50">
         [50]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.78%"><p style="text-align:left">Accurate coupling of multiple flow meter technologies</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="36.85%"><p style="text-align:left">Measurement errors caused by noise interference, liquid film effects, and flow asymmetry in dual USF-CMF configurations</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="32.14%"><p style="text-align:left">Advanced signal processing and hybrid flow coupling models to address noise and liquid film challenges</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.23%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-29">
         [29]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="21.78%"><p style="text-align:left">Reliable performance in stratified and annular flows</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="36.85%"><p style="text-align:left">Variable velocity profiles and interfaces in ultrasonic flowmeters reduce accuracy under stratified and annular flow regimes</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="32.14%"><p style="text-align:left">Enhanced algorithms and further experimental validation for stratified and annular flow performance</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.23%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-29">
         [29]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
    <p>of standard and slotted orifice plates for wet gas flow metering and explored the effects of orifice geometry on measurement accuracy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-50">
      [50]
     </xref>. Results showed that slotted orifices generate lower differential pressures compared to the standard orifice, which improves pressure recovery but reduces metering sensitivity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-50">
      [50]
     </xref>. Likewise, Monnet et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-53">
      [53]
     </xref> demonstrated the use of cross-correlation in multiphase meters for well testing, combining differential pressure and velocity measurements to improve accuracy in wet gas conditions.</p>
    <p>The performance of cross-correlation methods depends on sensor configuration, flow conditions, and signal processing algorithms. Munir and Khalil <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-51">
      [51]
     </xref> reported that cross-correlation systems achieve velocity measurement uncertainties of ±2% - 5% in controlled laboratory conditions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-51">
      [51]
     </xref>. Muhamedsalih and Lucas <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-52">
      [52]
     </xref> demonstrated that impedance-based systems could achieve flow rate uncertainties below ±4% for solids-water mixtures, with similar potential for wet gas applications. Monnet et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-53">
      [53]
     </xref> noted that combining cross-correlation with other metering techniques, such as differential pressure, reduced overall uncertainty to ±2% for gas flow rates and ±10% for liquid flow rates in wet gas scenarios. These techniques were widely applied in industries such as oil and gas, chemical processing, power generation, and pipelines transporting gas-liquid mixtures, where accurate velocity and flow rate measurements are critical for process optimization. Methods also enable real-time monitoring of multiphase flows without the need for bulky equipment, reducing the need for test separators and minimising production losses <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-51">
      [51]
     </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-52">
      [52]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>Despite their advantages, cross-correlation methods face several limitations. Munir and Khalil (2015) identified signal attenuation and noise as major challenges, particularly in high-pressure or high-turbulence conditions. Besides, Muhamedsalih and Lucas <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-52">
      [52]
     </xref> noted that electrode-based systems are sensitive to flow regime changes, requiring frequent recalibration. Monnet et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-53">
      [53]
     </xref> highlighted the complexity of integrating cross-correlation with other metering techniques, which increases system cost and maintenance requirements. Moreover, the accuracy of cross-correlation methods decreases in mist or churn flow regimes, where flow disturbances are less distinct <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-53">
      [53]
     </xref>. To address these challenges, researchers have proposed several improvements, such as the use of advanced signal processing algorithms, such as machine learning, to enhance noise filtering and correlation accuracy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-51">
      [51]
     </xref>. Further suggestions are to optimise electrode configurations and incorporate adaptive calibration techniques to account for flow regime changes <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-52">
      [52]
     </xref>. Another suggestion emphasized the need for hybrid systems that combine cross-correlation with other metering technologies, such as ultrasonic or gamma-ray sensors, to improve accuracy in complex flow conditions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-53">
      [53]
     </xref>. Future research could focus on developing compact, cost-effective cross-correlation systems for field applications, leveraging advancements in sensor technology and data analytics.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s4_6">
    <title>4.6. Microwave Sensors</title>
    <p>Microwave sensing techniques have been extensively explored for multiphase flow metering, focusing on the measurement of oil, gas, and water phases. Manoj et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-54">
      [54]
     </xref> utilized microstrip patch sensors and near-field coaxial probes, employing reflection and transmission measurements to determine gas velocity and liquid flow rates. Similarly, Tayyab et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-55">
      [55]
     </xref> developed a low-cost, 28-port RF sensor designed to estimate dielectric constants through transmission coefficients. Sabzevari et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-56">
      [56]
     </xref> introduced a microwave sensing and imaging (MSI) system using ultrawideband synthetic aperture radar (UWB SAR) to create high-resolution 2D images of multiphase flows. Oon et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-14">
      [14]
     </xref> focused on cylindrical cavity sensors for detecting gas-liquid flow regimes, while van Maanen <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-57">
      [57]
     </xref> investigated microwave resonance systems for detecting liquid water flow in wet gas meters. These microwave techniques were aimed at delivering high-resolution, real-time data for flow regime analysis, void fraction measurement, and water content estimation.</p>
    <p>The principal equation for liquid fraction 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          ϕ 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          l 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math>, is expressed using the Bruggeman model in Equation (6), where; 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          ε 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          l 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
       <mo>
         , 
       </mo> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          ε 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          g 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> are the permittivity of the liquid and gas phases, respectively, and 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          ε 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          m 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> is the effective permittivity of the wet gas flow mixture, and 
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          A 
        </mi> 
        <mn>
          0 
        </mn> 
       </msub> 
      </mrow> 
     </math> is the droplet shape factor.</p>
    <p>
     <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mrow> 
       <msub> 
        <mi>
          ϕ 
        </mi> 
        <mi>
          l 
        </mi> 
       </msub> 
       <mo>
         = 
       </mo> 
       <mtext>
         1 
       </mtext> 
       <mo>
         − 
       </mo> 
       <mfrac> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            ε 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            p 
          </mi> 
         </msub> 
         <mo>
           − 
         </mo> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            ε 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            m 
          </mi> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            ε 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            p 
          </mi> 
         </msub> 
         <mo>
           + 
         </mo> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            ε 
          </mi> 
          <mi>
            d 
          </mi> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
       </mfrac> 
       <msup> 
        <mrow> 
         <mrow> 
          <mo>
            ( 
          </mo> 
          <mrow> 
           <mfrac> 
            <mrow> 
             <msub> 
              <mi>
                ε 
              </mi> 
              <mi>
                d 
              </mi> 
             </msub> 
            </mrow> 
            <mrow> 
             <msub> 
              <mi>
                ε 
              </mi> 
              <mi>
                m 
              </mi> 
             </msub> 
            </mrow> 
           </mfrac> 
          </mrow> 
          <mo>
            ) 
          </mo> 
         </mrow> 
        </mrow> 
        <mrow> 
         <msub> 
          <mi>
            A 
          </mi> 
          <mn>
            0 
          </mn> 
         </msub> 
        </mrow> 
       </msup> 
      </mrow> 
     </math>(6)</p>
    <p>However, in terms of performance, the review established that these methods demonstrate promising results under varying operating conditions. Manoj et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-54">
      [54]
     </xref> achieved errors of less than ±10% for gas volume fractions (GVF) and water-liquid ratios (WLR), while Tayyab et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-55">
      [55]
     </xref> reported a similar ±10% error for dielectric constant estimation in oil-water-gas combinations <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-55">
      [55]
     </xref>. The research by Sabzevari et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-56">
      [56]
     </xref> achieved a maximum error of 3.8% for crude oil flow rates, highlighting the accuracy of the MSI system. While Oon et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-14">
      [14]
     </xref> validated the accuracy of cylindrical cavity sensors across multiple gas-liquid flow regimes, van Maanen <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-57">
      [57]
     </xref> demonstrated the sensitivity of microwave resonance systems in high-pressure conditions but noted challenges in quantifying water content against dominant gas and condensate contributions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-14">
      [14]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Notwithstanding the potential of microwave techniques in wet gas flow, these methods face limitations and challenges, including sensitivity to noise and environmental factors like salinity and turbulence. Manoj et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-54">
      [54]
     </xref> identified calibration challenges and signal interference, while Tayyab et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-55">
      [55]
     </xref> suggested limitations in measuring materials with low permittivity contrast <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-55">
      [55]
     </xref>. Sabzevari et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-56">
      [56]
     </xref> and Oon et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-14">
      [14]
     </xref> emphasized the need for careful calibration and reported difficulties in detecting low-contrast flow regimes. van Maanen <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-57">
      [57]
     </xref> noted that gas and condensate contributions often mask the liquid water signal, reducing accuracy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-57">
      [57]
     </xref>. These challenges underscore the importance of robust signal processing and calibration techniques.</p>
    <p>To address these challenges, researchers have proposed several improvements. Integration of machine learning algorithms for adaptive calibration and real-time analysis can enhance accuracy and reduce signal noise <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-54">
      [54]
     </xref>. Advanced imaging techniques, such as time-domain global back-projection <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-56">
      [56]
     </xref>, and robust hardware designs can mitigate sensitivity to noise and low permittivity contrast. Moreover, hybrid metering systems that combine microwave sensors with other techniques, such as differential pressure <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-38">
      [38]
     </xref>, offer the potential for improved measurement accuracy in challenging multiphase environments. These advancements highlight the potential for continuous innovation in microwave-based multiphase metering technologies <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-38">
      [38]
     </xref>. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">
      Table 6
     </xref> below summarizes the gap analysis based on the existing studies for microwave sensing technology in wet gas flow measurement.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s4_7">
    <title>4.7. Phase Fraction Sensing Technologies and Tomography</title>
    <p>Phase fraction sensing technologies, such as gamma-ray detection, electric capacitance tomography (ECT), conductive impedance, and optical methods, are crucial for determining the composition of multiphase flows. Gamma-ray sensors, as investigated by Vestøl et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-58">
      [58]
     </xref> and Pan et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-59">
      [59]
     </xref>, use radiation attenuation to estimate phase fractions, with designs ranging from dual-detector systems to densitometers. Electric capacitance tomography (ECT), investigated by Li et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-60">
      [60]
     </xref> and Da Silva et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-61">
      [61]
     </xref>, maps phase fractions by leveraging the permittivity distribution. Conductive impedance systems, such as those by Wiedemann et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-62">
      [62]
     </xref>, utilize electrode arrays to measure electrical properties in gas-liquid flows. Optical methods, as studied by Meng et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-63">
      [63]
     </xref>, particularly focusing on production logging in challenging shale gas wells using coiled tubing fiber optic Flow Scanning Imaging (FSI). The method integrated optical fibres for real-time measurement of fluid velocity profiles, gas and water holdup, and detection of complex flow patterns.</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Table 6. Gap analysis of microwave sensing technology for wet gas measurement.</p>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="20.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Aimed Knowledge</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Gap Identification</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="40.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Desired Outcome</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="8.51%"><p style="text-align:left">Reference</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="20.04%"><p style="text-align:left">High accuracy in phase distribution measurements</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Sensitivity to noise and environmental factors like salinity and turbulence affects measurement precision</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="40.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Development of robust signal processing techniques and noise-resistant calibration methods</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="8.51%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-54">
         [54]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-55">
         [55]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="20.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Effective measurement in low-contrast flow regimes</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Challenges in detecting materials with low permittivity contrast and low-contrast flow regimes</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="40.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Advanced imaging techniques, such as time-domain global back-projection, for better detection in low-contrast scenarios</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="8.51%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-55">
         [55]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-56">
         [56]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="20.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Reliable performance under high-pressure conditions</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Gas and condensate contributions mask liquid water signals, reducing accuracy</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="40.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Improved hardware designs and integration with complementary sensors for enhanced signal discrimination</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="8.51%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-14">
         [14]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-57">
         [57]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="20.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Improved calibration for real-world applications</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Calibration challenges in complex multiphase environments</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="40.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Adaptive machine learning algorithms for real-time calibration and accurate flow regime detection</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="8.51%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-14">
         [14]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-54">
         [54]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="20.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Versatility across multiphase flow conditions</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Limitations in accuracy for diverse flow regimes, including mixed gas-liquid flows</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="40.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Hybrid systems combining microwave sensing with differential pressure meters or other techniques for comprehensive measurements</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="8.51%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-38">
         [38]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-56">
         [56]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="20.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Real-time high-resolution imaging of flow regimes</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Existing systems lack sufficient resolution for detailed flow regime analysis</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="40.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Implementation of microwave sensing and imaging systems with ultrawideband synthetic aperture radar (UWB SAR) for precise visualization</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="8.51%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-56">
         [56]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="20.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Accurate estimation of dielectric constants</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="31.23%"><p style="text-align:left">Limited precision in dielectric constant measurements in oil-water-gas combinations</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="40.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Development of multi-port RF sensor designs for improved permittivity contrast and precision</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="8.51%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-55">
         [55]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
    <p>The performance of these technologies varies depending on flow conditions and calibration. Gamma-ray sensors demonstrated RMS errors below 6%, with Sharifzadeh et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-64">
      [64]
     </xref> emphasizing their reliability in controlled environments. ECT systems achieved uncertainties of ±5% - 10%, with improvements in electrode sensitivity noted by Iliyasu et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-65">
      [65]
     </xref>. Conductive impedance methods reported uncertainties of ±5% - 8% in multiphase flow measurements <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-65">
      [65]
     </xref>, while the optical techniques show high precision about ±2% - 5% and reliability, offering improved insights into gas production profiles and enabling effective evaluation of fracturing impacts <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-63">
      [63]
     </xref>. The application of these phase fraction technologies spans industries such as oil and gas, chemical processing, and power generation. Gamma-ray sensors are widely used in nuclear power plants and pipelines for real-time phase fraction and flow rate monitoring. ECT is applied in chemical reactors and reservoir management, while impedance systems are valuable for monitoring pipeline flow conditions. Optical sensors, known for their non-intrusive nature, are particularly effective for water fraction measurements and production optimization in oil and gas wells <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-66">
      [66]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>However, each phase fraction method faces unique challenges that hinder its performance in wet gas metering. Gamma-ray systems are costly and present radiation safety concerns, limiting their broad adoption <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-59">
      [59]
     </xref>. ECT systems require extensive calibration and exhibit resolution limitations in complex flow conditions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-60">
      [60]
     </xref>. Conductive impedance systems are sensitive to temperature fluctuations and polarization effects <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-62">
      [62]
     </xref>, while optical sensors are prone to contamination and require clean optical paths for accurate measurement. Generally, in phase fraction metering, the dependence on flow regime-specific calibration adds another layer of complexity for all these techniques.</p>
    <p>To overcome these challenges, researchers have proposed a range of improvements. Gamma-ray systems could benefit from the development of non-radioactive alternatives and enhanced detector sensitivity <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-64">
      [64]
     </xref>. Advancements in ECT may focus on improving resolution and combining the technology with hybrid sensing systems <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-60">
      [60]
     </xref>. Conductive impedance methods could be enhanced through adaptive calibration techniques to mitigate temperature and polarization challenges <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-62">
      [62]
     </xref>. Optical methods can benefit from self-cleaning systems to ensure robust performance in contaminated settings, optimise signal processing algorithms, and enhance tool robustness to handle varying well conditions effectively <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-63">
      [63]
     </xref>. Exploring hybrid approaches that integrate these phase fraction sensing technologies with differential pressure or ultrasonic meters could further enhance their adaptability and accuracy in diverse operational scenarios. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">
      Table 7
     </xref> below summarizes the gap analysis based on the existing studies in phase fraction metering methods in wet gas flow measurement.</p>
    <p>
     <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Table 7. Gap analysis of phase fraction sensors other than microwave for wet gas measurement.</p>
    <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="19.75%"><p style="text-align:left">Aimed Knowledge</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="36.02%"><p style="text-align:left">Gap Identification</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="34.85%"><p style="text-align:left">Desired Outcome</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="9.38%"><p style="text-align:left">Reference</p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="19.75%"><p style="text-align:left">Accurate phase fraction estimation</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="36.02%"><p style="text-align:left">Gamma-ray systems face high costs and radiation safety concerns, limiting their widespread application</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="34.85%"><p style="text-align:left">Development of cost-effective, non-radioactive alternatives with improved detector sensitivity</p></td> 
      <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="9.38%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-58">
         [58]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-59">
         [59]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-64">
         [64]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="19.75%"><p style="text-align:left">High-resolution imaging in complex flow conditions</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="36.02%"><p style="text-align:left">ECT systems require extensive calibration and have resolution limitations under complex flow regimes</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="34.85%"><p style="text-align:left">Enhancement of ECT resolution and integration with hybrid sensing systems</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.38%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-60">
         [60]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-61">
         [61]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="19.75%"><p style="text-align:left">Reliable measurements across temperature ranges</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="36.02%"><p style="text-align:left">Conductive impedance methods are sensitive to temperature fluctuations and polarization effects</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="34.85%"><p style="text-align:left">Development of adaptive calibration techniques to mitigate temperature sensitivity</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.38%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-62">
         [62]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-65">
         [65]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="19.75%"><p style="text-align:left">Non-intrusive and contamination-resistant sensors</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="36.02%"><p style="text-align:left">Optical sensors are prone to contamination and require clean optical paths for accurate performance</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="34.85%"><p style="text-align:left">Self-cleaning systems and optimization of optical signal processing algorithms</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.38%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-37">
         [37]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-61">
         [61]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="19.75%"><p style="text-align:left">Reduced reliance on flow regime-specific calibrations</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="36.02%"><p style="text-align:left">All techniques heavily depend on flow regime-specific calibrations, limiting adaptability in dynamic flows</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="34.85%"><p style="text-align:left">Introduction of real-time adaptive algorithms and hybrid approaches</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.38%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-37">
         [37]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-60">
         [60]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
     <tr> 
      <td class="aleft" width="19.75%"><p style="text-align:left">Enhanced adaptability in diverse applications</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="36.02%"><p style="text-align:left">Each method struggles with specific operational challenges, reducing its broad applicability</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="34.85%"><p style="text-align:left">Hybrid metering systems combining gamma-ray, ECT, impedance, and optical technologies for improved versatility</p></td> 
      <td class="aleft" width="9.38%"><p style="text-align:left">
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-37">
         [37]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-38">
         [38]
        </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-59">
         [59]
        </xref></p></td> 
     </tr> 
    </table>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s5">
   <title>5. Trends in Wet Gas Measurement</title>
   <p>The review in this paper presents the efforts in measurement technology to improve wet gas metering in applicable industries, such as oil &amp; gas, petrochemical, steam, and environmental monitoring. Based on the drawbacks of existing methods, the innovation trends are directed at areas of knowledge like applying robust signal processing techniques, developing sophisticated sensors, and real-world experiments, as discussed in this chapter.</p>
   <sec id="s5_1">
    <title>5.1. Machine Learning in Wet Gas Measurement</title>
    <p>The critical review suggests that data-driven Machine learning (ML) techniques have emerged as a transformative tool in wet gas measurement, offering advanced data-driven solutions to address the complexities of multiphase flow. Hosseini et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-67">
      [67]
     </xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-68">
      [68]
     </xref> explored the application of ML algorithms to predict gas and liquid flow rates directly, bypassing traditional correlation-based methods. Their study demonstrated that models like Random Forest Regression (RFR) and Multilinear Regression (MLR) achieved uncertainties as low as 0.35%, significantly improving measurement accuracy. Similarly, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-48">
      [48]
     </xref> developed ML-based over-reading correction models for ultrasonic flow meters, incorporating variables such as Liquid Volume Fraction (LVF) and Lockhart-Martinelli parameters. These models reduced uncertainties to 0.49%, enhancing the reliability of ultrasonic meters in wet gas conditions. Research by Wang et al., (2020) investigates the application of the machine learning (ML) method using Deep Neural Network (DNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) for estimating multiphase flow rates using time-series sensing data. Using Venturi tube data, the method demonstrated superior performance in predicting liquid and gas flow rates <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-69">
      [69]
     </xref>. However, Wang et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-69">
      [69]
     </xref> suggested that future research should focus on refining data pre-processing techniques, incorporating hybrid ML models, and optimizing real-time calibration methods. Besides, Grayzlov et al. (2021) achieved an error of around 1.25% for multiphase flow prediction rate with Artificial Neural Network (ANN), Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) prediction model, and 5% with Extreme Gradient Boosting ANN machine learning model <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-70">
      [70]
     </xref>. These ML models leverage adaptive algorithms that dynamically adjust their parameters based on incoming sensor data, ensuring robust performance even in fluctuating environments. Online prediction systems allow models to refine their estimations by incorporating new data streams, reducing errors caused by sudden shifts in gas-liquid ratios. Moreover, continuous adaptation frameworks employ retraining cycles to mitigate data drift, ensuring that predictions remain accurate despite evolving conditions.</p>
    <p>Machine learning models like Random Forest Regression (RFR) and Multiple Linear Regression (MLR) are widely used in wet gas metering applications, but they face several limitations in dynamic flow conditions. RFR, despite its robustness, can be sensitive to noisy sensor data, leading to inconsistencies in predictions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-71">
      [71]
     </xref>. Its computational complexity makes real-time deployment challenging, especially when dealing with large datasets <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-72">
      [72]
     </xref>. Additionally, RFR performs best within trained data ranges but struggles with extreme, unseen conditions. The model’s accuracy is also dependent on well-engineered features, requiring careful selection and pre-processing to maintain reliability <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-68">
      [68]
     </xref>. On the other hand, MLR assumes a linear relationship between variables, which often does not hold in complex wet gas flows <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-67">
      [67]
     </xref>. It struggles with nonlinear interactions, making it less effective for capturing intricate dependencies between gas-liquid parameters <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-73">
      [73]
     </xref>. Multicollinearity among features can distort MLR predictions, reducing their reliability <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-74">
      [74]
     </xref>. Furthermore, the model lacks adaptability in adjusting to varying flow regimes, limiting its effectiveness in real-time applications <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-72">
      [72]
     </xref>.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s5_2">
    <title>5.2. Hybrid Metering Technologies</title>
    <p>Hybrid metering systems, which combine multiple measurement techniques, are gaining traction for their ability to address the limitations of individual methods. Hybrid techniques involve the integration of a single-phase flow meter and a phase fraction sensor. The Dualstream FALCON by Solartron ISA exemplifies this trend, integrating differential pressure (DP) meters with advanced digital instrumentation to provide real-time three-phase flow rates <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-75">
      [75]
     </xref>. This system is particularly effective in high-temperature and sour gas environments, achieving high accuracy and operational safety. Lao et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-13">
      [13]
     </xref> reviewed hybrid systems that combine DP meters with phase fraction sensors, such as gamma-ray or microwave sensors, to improve accuracy in challenging conditions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-13">
      [13]
     </xref>. These systems demonstrated enhanced performance, with uncertainties reduced to ±2% - 3% for gas flow rates <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-29">
      [29]
     </xref>. Hybrid technologies are increasingly applied in offshore and unconventional gas fields, where complex flow dynamics demand robust solutions. Hybrid metering systems address the limitations of single-phase flow meters in wet gas measurement by integrating multiple measurement principles to enhance accuracy and adaptability.</p>
    <p>Hybrid metering systems address the limitations of single-phase flow meters in wet gas measurement by integrating multiple measurement principles to enhance accuracy and adaptability. Traditional single-phase meters, such as Differential Pressure (DP) meters and Venturi meters, often struggle with liquid presence, leading to overestimated gas flow rates <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-76">
      [76]
     </xref>. Hybrid systems, however, combine vortex flow meters, Coriolis meters, and phase fraction sensors, allowing for improved liquid fraction detection and compensation for environmental variations like pressure and temperature changes <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-77">
      [77]
     </xref>. Performance metrics that show improvements include measurement accuracy, where hybrid meters reduce errors caused by phase slip and varying gas-liquid ratios <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-68">
      [68]
     </xref>. Repeatability is enhanced by integrating multiple sensors, ensuring consistent readings across different flow regimes <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-67">
      [67]
     </xref>. Robustness improves as hybrid systems adapt to dynamic conditions, reducing recalibration needs <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-73">
      [73]
     </xref>. Additionally, uncertainty quantification is more reliable, as hybrid meters leverage machine learning models to refine predictions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-74">
      [74]
     </xref>.</p>
    <p>Integrating machine learning (ML) and hybrid metering systems in small-scale or emerging industries presents both opportunities and cost challenges. Although these technologies improve accuracy and efficiency in wet gas measurement, their deployment requires an initial investment in sensor integration, computational resources, and model training <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-78">
      [78]
     </xref>. Cloud-based ML solutions can lower upfront costs by providing scalable computing resources without the need for substantial hardware investments. However, ongoing expenses, such as data storage, model maintenance, and system calibration, can increase operational costs <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-78">
      [78]
     </xref>. To manage expenditures, businesses can implement cost-cutting strategies like optimising computational resources and streamlining data processing. Moreover, utilising open-source ML frameworks and pre-trained models can minimise development costs while preserving predictive accuracy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-78">
      [78]
     </xref>.</p>
   </sec>
   <sec id="s5_3">
    <title>5.3. Phase Fraction Sensing Technologies</title>
    <p>Phase fraction sensing technologies, such as gamma-ray and electric capacitance tomography (ECT), continue to play a critical role in wet gas measurement. Gamma-ray sensors, as reviewed by Pan et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-59">
      [59]
     </xref>, achieved RMS errors below 6%, making them reliable for real-time monitoring in pipelines <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-59">
      [59]
     </xref>. ECT systems, optimized by Iliyasu et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-65">
      [65]
     </xref>, delivered uncertainties of ±5% - 10%, with applications in chemical reactors and reservoir management. However, the application of microwaves has captivated the interest of many researchers since it has gained massive application in wet gas measurement for efficient liquid detection and phase <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-38">
      [38]
     </xref>. These technologies are increasingly integrated into hybrid systems to enhance their adaptability and accuracy. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig6">
      Figure 6
     </xref> below illustrates the trend of wet gas metering technologies based on complexity and cost of investment and operation. This innovation trend, based on accuracy, complexity, and cost, has been derived from the current review of this paper.</p>
    <fig id="fig6" position="float">
     <label>Figure 6</label>
     <caption>
      <title>
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Figure 6. Wet gas metering technology trend.</title>
     </caption>
     <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2760213-rId153.jpeg?20250714040150" />
    </fig>
   </sec>
  </sec><sec id="s6">
   <title>6. Performance Evaluation and Comparative Analysis</title>
   <p>The performance of various wet gas metering techniques is evaluated based on reviewed data in this study and presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">
     Figure 7
    </xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">
     Table 8
    </xref> below. As summarized in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">
     Table 8
    </xref> below, the non-intrusive ultrasonic and Coriolis flow meters offer superior measurement accuracy as stand-alone flow meters. The improvement seems to become realistic when the flow meter is integrated with a phase fraction sensor to create the hybrid metering system, which further enhances the accuracy to 1% as presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table8">
     Table 8
    </xref> below. Although the uncertainty presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig7">
     Figure 7
    </xref> shows great improvement with the Hybrid and ultrasonic flowmeter, the literature stresses the integration of the machine learning optimization model (ML) to further enhance the accuracy and reliability of the metering techniques, as proved in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-67">
     [67]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-69">
     [69]
    </xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-65">
     [65]
    </xref>. It was further observed by Iliyasu et al. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-65">
     [65]
    </xref> that</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Table 8. Performance analysis of various wet gas metering technologies.</p>
   <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="13.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Method</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="9.59%"><p style="text-align:left">Reference Author</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="11.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Performance</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="29.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Merits of Wet Gas</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="22.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Limitations</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="15.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Trend</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="13.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Differential Pressure (DP) Meters: Venturi, Orifice Plate, V-Cone</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="9.59%"><p style="text-align:left">
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-13">
        [13]
       </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-31">
        [31]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="11.04%"><p style="text-align:left">±2% - 5% for gas flow rate</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft pli" width="29.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Reliable and cost-effective</p><p style="text-align:left">Handles high-pressure conditions well</p><p style="text-align:left">Broad industry adoption and familiarity</p><p style="text-align:left">Wide operating range across flow conditions</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft pli" width="22.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Overestimates gas flow in wet conditions</p><p style="text-align:left">Requires correction factors for liquid presence</p><p style="text-align:left">Sensitive to flow regime changes</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="15.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Increasing use in hybrid systems combining DP meters with other sensors for improved accuracy</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="13.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Ultrasonic Flow Meters</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="9.59%"><p style="text-align:left">
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-1">
        [1]
       </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-11">
        [11]
       </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-79">
        [79]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="11.04%"><p style="text-align:left">±1% - 3% for gas flow rate</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="29.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Non-intrusive</p><p style="text-align:left">High accuracy for multiphase flows</p><p style="text-align:left">Minimal pressure drop</p><p style="text-align:left">Suitable for monitoring challenging flow regimes</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="22.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Expensive</p><p style="text-align:left">Requires clean gas for optimal performance</p><p style="text-align:left">Limited durability in harsh conditions</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="15.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Increasing integration with IoT for real-time monitoring</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="13.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Coriolis Flow Meters</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="9.59%"><p style="text-align:left">
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-46">
        [46]
       </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-47">
        [47]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="11.04%"><p style="text-align:left">±2% - 4% for mass flow rate</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="29.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Measures mass flow directly</p><p style="text-align:left">High rangeability</p><p style="text-align:left">Suitable for custody transfer</p><p style="text-align:left">Handles a wide range of fluids</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="22.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Affected by multiphase conditions</p><p style="text-align:left">Requires advanced corrections for wet gas</p><p style="text-align:left">High susceptibility to vibration interference</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="15.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Advancements in sensor design for better multiphase performance</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="13.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Microwave Sensors</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="9.59%"><p style="text-align:left">
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-31">
        [31]
       </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-55">
        [55]
       </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-56">
        [56]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="11.04%"><p style="text-align:left">±5% for liquid fraction</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="29.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Non-invasive</p><p style="text-align:left">Effective for detecting liquid fractions</p><p style="text-align:left">Capable of high-frequency data collection</p><p style="text-align:left">Reliable in high-salinity environments</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="22.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Limited to specific applications</p><p style="text-align:left">Affected by high gas-liquid ratios</p><p style="text-align:left">Susceptible to signal attenuation in certain conditions</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="15.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Emerging as a complementary technology for phase fraction measurement</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="13.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Gamma-Ray Sensors</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="9.59%"><p style="text-align:left">
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-31">
        [31]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="11.04%"><p style="text-align:left">±3% - 5% for phase fraction</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="29.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Effective for phase fraction measurement</p><p style="text-align:left">Works in extreme conditions</p><p style="text-align:left">High penetration capability</p><p style="text-align:left">Insensitive to flow regime variations</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="22.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Radiation safety concerns</p><p style="text-align:left">Expensive</p><p style="text-align:left">Heavy shielding is required for safe operation</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="15.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Limited use due to safety and cost concerns</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="13.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Electrical Capacitance Tomography (ECT)</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="9.59%"><p style="text-align:left">
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-60">
        [60]
       </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-61">
        [61]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="11.04%"><p style="text-align:left">±5% - 10% for phase fraction</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="29.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Visualizes flow patterns</p><p style="text-align:left">Non-invasive</p><p style="text-align:left">Real-time phase distribution mapping</p><p style="text-align:left">Compact and portable</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="22.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Limited resolution</p><p style="text-align:left">Requires calibration for specific conditions</p><p style="text-align:left">Affected by material permittivity variations</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="15.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Emerging as a diagnostic tool for multiphase flows</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="13.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Hybrid Systems</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="9.59%"><p style="text-align:left">
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-31">
        [31]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="11.04%"><p style="text-align:left">±1% - 2% for gas and liquid flow rates</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="29.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Combines the strengths of multiple methods</p><p style="text-align:left">High accuracy in challenging conditions</p><p style="text-align:left">Addresses flow regime changes</p><p style="text-align:left">Flexible for various industrial applications</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="22.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Complex and expensive</p><p style="text-align:left">Requires advanced calibration</p><p style="text-align:left">Longer maintenance and repair times</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="15.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Increasing adoption in subsea and offshore applications</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="13.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Dual Methods (e.g., Venturi + Gamma-Ray)</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="9.59%"><p style="text-align:left">
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-31">
        [31]
       </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-80">
        [80]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="11.04%"><p style="text-align:left">±2% - 3% for gas flow rate</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="29.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Enhances accuracy by combining complementary techniques</p><p style="text-align:left">Suitable for extreme conditions</p><p style="text-align:left">Reduces dependency on single-phase assumptions</p><p style="text-align:left">Minimizes over-reading in wet gas</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="22.22%"><p style="text-align:left">Expensive</p><p style="text-align:left">Requires integration of multiple systems</p><p style="text-align:left">Calibration complexity due to the combination of diverse technologies</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="15.04%"><p style="text-align:left">Growing use in high-accuracy applications like oil and gas pipelines</p></td> 
    </tr> 
   </table>
   <fig id="fig7" position="float">
    <label>Figure 7</label>
    <caption>
     <title>
      <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Figure 7. Performance of wet gas metering technologies based on their measurement uncertainty.</title>
    </caption>
    <graphic mimetype="image" position="float" xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2760213-rId154.jpeg?20250714040151" />
   </fig>
   <p>expanding the use of machine learning (ML) algorithms is vital for enhancing real-time calibration and adapting to varying flow regimes, thereby improving measurement accuracy in complex multiphase flows <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-65">
     [65]
    </xref>.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s7">
   <title>7. Real-World Applications of Wet Gas Metering</title>
   <p>In real-world applications, wet gas metering plays a crucial role in pipelines, subsea systems, and process industries, addressing unique operational challenges while optimizing efficiency and resource allocation. For instance, TOTAL has implemented wet gas metering systems in the Gulf of Mexico to measure gas flow rates and liquid contents in line directly. This approach eliminates the need for test separators and enhances production efficiency in high-pressure systems. In subsea applications, the Roxar Subsea Wetgas Meter by Emerson addresses extreme conditions by providing real-time measurements of water, gas, and condensate flow rates. It also detects salinity to prevent hydrate plugs. These systems operate effectively at ultra-high gas volume fractions (GVF of 99% - 100%), thereby improving production and flow assurance in deepwater natural gas fields <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-81">
     [81]
    </xref>. In the process industries, wet gas metering supports reservoir management, production optimization, and compliance with environmental regulations. Ultrasonic flow meters, commonly used in wet gas fields, offer high rangeability and minimal pressure drop <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-45">
     [45]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-57">
     [57]
    </xref>, ensuring accurate allocation in fiscal systems. Furthermore, advancements in machine learning have significantly enhanced the accuracy and real-time analytical capabilities of wet gas meters in process environments <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-67">
     [67]
    </xref>. Through these various applications, wet gas metering technologies demonstrate their indispensable role in modern industrial operations. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table9">
     Table 9
    </xref> below presents selected and commonly used metering systems that exist in the oil and gas industry for wet gas flow measurement.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Table 9. Examples of common metering systems currently available on the market for wet gas measurement.</p>
   <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="14.93%"><p style="text-align:left">Device</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="20.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Properties</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="24.10%"><p style="text-align:left">Performance</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="19.03%"><p style="text-align:left">Applications</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="21.87%"><p style="text-align:left">Limitations</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="14.93%"><p style="text-align:left">Roxar Subsea Wetgas Meter <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-82">
        [82]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="20.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Microwave resonance technology, integrated salinity measurement</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="24.10%"><p style="text-align:left">High sensitivity to water content, continuous real-time monitoring</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="19.03%"><p style="text-align:left">Wet gas well streams, subsea applications</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="21.87%"><p style="text-align:left">Sensitivity to liquid loading requires regular calibration</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="14.93%"><p style="text-align:left">Roxar 2600 Multiphase Flow Meter <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-83">
        [83]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="20.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Online measurements of oil, water, and gas rates</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="24.10%"><p style="text-align:left">Accurate measurements from 0 - 100% gas volume fraction and 0 - 100% water liquid ratio</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="19.03%"><p style="text-align:left">Well testing, production metering, and wellhead monitoring</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="21.87%"><p style="text-align:left">Accuracy is affected by high liquid content and complex installation</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="14.93%"><p style="text-align:left">Krohne OPTIMASS 6400 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-84">
        [84]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="20.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Coriolis mass flow meter with integrated microwave technology</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="24.10%"><p style="text-align:left">High precision and reliability in multiphase flows</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="19.03%"><p style="text-align:left">Wet gas applications, challenging conditions</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="21.87%"><p style="text-align:left">Performance varies with liquid fraction and needs sophisticated data processing</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="14.93%"><p style="text-align:left">Siemens SITRANS FM MAG 8000 <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-85">
        [85]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="20.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Electromagnetic flow meter with microwave technology</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="24.10%"><p style="text-align:left">Robust performance, minimal maintenance, suitable for remote locations</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="19.03%"><p style="text-align:left">Wet gas measurement, remote locations</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="21.87%"><p style="text-align:left">Sensitivity to electromagnetic interference requires regular maintenance</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="14.93%"><p style="text-align:left">Daniel Ultrasonic Meter <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-2">
        [2]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="20.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Inline, high turn-down ratio, no pressure drop</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="24.10%"><p style="text-align:left">Operational uncertainties 2% - 5%, over-reading correction needed</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="19.03%"><p style="text-align:left">Sales allocation, well reservoir management</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="21.87%"><p style="text-align:left">Accuracy is affected by high liquid content and complex installation</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="14.93%"><p style="text-align:left">Krohne Ultrasonic Meter <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-86">
        [86]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="20.07%"><p style="text-align:left">Inline, large rangeability, minimal pressure drop</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="24.10%"><p style="text-align:left">Requires a correction algorithm for liquid fractions</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="19.03%"><p style="text-align:left">Wet gas applications, field performance</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="21.87%"><p style="text-align:left">Performance varies with liquid fraction and needs sophisticated data processing</p></td> 
    </tr> 
   </table>
  </sec><sec id="s8">
   <title>8. Unsolved Issues in Wet Gas Measurement: Challenges and Gaps in Knowledge</title>
   <p>Wet gas measurement remains an integral part of multiphase flow metering in industries like oil and gas, yet several challenges continue to hinder precise and reliable measurement under varying operational conditions. One of the most critical issues is the reliance on calibration for specific flow regimes, which reduces the adaptability of systems such as differential pressure (DP) meters, ultrasonic flow meters, and phase fraction sensors. These technologies depend on empirical models, which are unable to accommodate dynamic gas-liquid compositions. Real-time adaptable calibration techniques using machine learning (ML) algorithms, as highlighted by Xu et al. (2017) and Lao et al. (2023), are essential for enhancing the reliability of wet gas meters in diverse conditions. Noise interference and signal attenuation also present significant challenges, with technologies like ultrasonic flow meters and gamma-ray sensors suffering from errors in turbulent environments or at high gas volume fractions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-48">
     [48]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-59">
     [59]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>Phase fraction sensing technologies, including gamma-ray sensors, electric capacitance tomography (ECT), and optical methods, face hurdles in achieving high resolution, sensitivity, and accuracy. Radiation safety concerns limit the widespread use of gamma-ray systems, while ECT struggles with low resolution in dynamic flow patterns <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-59">
     [59]
    </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-65">
     [65]
    </xref>. Optical methods, despite being non-invasive, are prone to contamination, which impairs measurement accuracy <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-62">
     [62]
    </xref>. Furthermore, meters operating under high gas volume fraction (GVF) or low liquid volume fraction (LVF) conditions encounter unique obstacles, such as masking effects from dominant gas phases, leading to under-reading or over-reading errors <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-31">
     [31]
    </xref>. Hybrid systems that integrate complementary technologies could be a promising avenue for addressing these limitations.</p>
   <p>Other barriers include environmental sensitivity, such as salinity and temperature variations, which negatively impact the accuracy of sensors like microwave and impedance-based systems <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-62">
     [62]
    </xref>. Moreover, the lack of standardized testing and validation protocols across industries limits the scalability and global adoption of these technologies. Most systems are tested under controlled laboratory conditions, which fail to replicate the complexities of real-world applications <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-38">
     [38]
    </xref>. Establishing universal testing standards, along with advancements in computational tools like CFD models and digital twins, will be crucial for improving the performance and reliability of wet gas measurement systems. <xref ref-type="table" rid="table10">
     Table 10
    </xref> below summarizes the generally unsolved challenges in metering technology related to wet gas measurement.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s9">
   <title>9. Recommendations and Future Direction</title>
   <p>The increasing demand for accurate and efficient wet gas measurement in industries like oil and gas underscores the need for continual advancements in technologies and methodologies to address the challenges of multiphase flow metering. This review recommends potential future directions for addressing current limitations while building on existing innovations.</p>
   <p>
    <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-"></xref>Table 10. Unsolved challenges with existing wet gas metering technologies.</p>
   <table class="MsoTableGrid custom-table" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="19.12%"><p style="text-align:left">Challenges/Unsolved Issues</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="35.93%"><p style="text-align:left">Improvements Required</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="9.29%"><p style="text-align:left">Reference</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-bottom-td aleft" width="35.67%"><p style="text-align:left">Future Directions</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="19.12%"><p style="text-align:left">Dependence on Calibration</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft pli" width="35.93%"><p style="text-align:left">Develop adaptive calibration techniques for real-time adjustments</p><p style="text-align:left">Incorporate machine learning for dynamic calibration across varying flow conditions</p></td> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft" width="9.29%"><p style="text-align:left">
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
        [30]
       </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-31">
        [31]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="custom-top-td aleft pli" width="35.67%"><p style="text-align:left">Utilize real-time learning algorithms</p><p style="text-align:left">Create calibration-free systems capable of self-adapting to changes in flow parameters</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="19.12%"><p style="text-align:left">Noise Interference and Signal Attenuation</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="35.93%"><p style="text-align:left">Design robust transducers with enhanced noise filtering</p><p style="text-align:left">Implement advanced signal processing algorithms</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="9.29%"><p style="text-align:left">
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-48">
        [48]
       </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-59">
        [59]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="35.67%"><p style="text-align:left">Test noise-resistant systems under turbulent flow conditions</p><p style="text-align:left">Combine multiple noise-mitigation strategies in hybrid systems</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="19.12%"><p style="text-align:left">Limitations in Phase Fraction Sensing</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="35.93%"><p style="text-align:left">Develop hybrid systems combining complementary sensing techniques</p><p style="text-align:left">Improve resolution and sensitivity of phase fraction sensors (e.g., ECT, gammaray)</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="9.29%"><p style="text-align:left">
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-59">
        [59]
       </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-65">
        [65]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="35.67%"><p style="text-align:left">Integrate phase fraction technologies with hybrid metering</p><p style="text-align:left">Explore non-invasive and safer alternatives for gamma-ray sensors</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="19.12%"><p style="text-align:left">Challenges in High GVF and LVF Conditions</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="35.93%"><p style="text-align:left">Enhance algorithms to compensate for dominant gas or liquid contributions</p><p style="text-align:left">Validate hybrid systems in extreme GVF/LVF environments</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="9.29%"><p style="text-align:left">
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-30">
        [30]
       </xref> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-31">
        [31]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="35.67%"><p style="text-align:left">Develop systems tailored for high-GVF wells. Leverage computational models for extreme flow condition simulation and analysis</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="19.12%"><p style="text-align:left">Sensitivity to Environmental Conditions</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="35.93%"><p style="text-align:left">Adapt sensors to withstand extreme salinity, temperature, and pressure variations</p><p style="text-align:left">Use materials designed for harsh environmental conditions</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="9.29%"><p style="text-align:left">
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-62">
        [62]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="35.67%"><p style="text-align:left">Create environmental simulations for sensor validation</p><p style="text-align:left">Incorporate digital twin models to predict performance under extreme conditions</p></td> 
    </tr> 
    <tr> 
     <td class="aleft" width="19.12%"><p style="text-align:left">Lack of Standardized Testing and Validation</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="35.93%"><p style="text-align:left">Establish universal testing protocols for field environments</p><p style="text-align:left">Collaborate with industry for validation across multiple sites and scenarios</p></td> 
     <td class="aleft" width="9.29%"><p style="text-align:left">
       <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-38">
        [38]
       </xref></p></td> 
     <td class="aleft pli" width="35.67%"><p style="text-align:left">Expand field-testing initiatives</p><p style="text-align:left">Foster industry-academic partnerships</p></td> 
    </tr> 
   </table>
   <p>Adopt Machine learning (ML) optimization models in wet gas metering systems. ML has shown immense potential in achieving real-time calibration and improving accuracy. For instance, techniques such as Random Forest and Multilinear Regression demonstrate uncertainties as low as ±0.35%, and further development of adaptive ML algorithms could reduce calibration dependency while enabling systems to learn from dynamic flow conditions <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-68">
     [68]
    </xref>. Also, expanding training datasets derived from field applications would enhance the reliability of these ML-driven solutions. Another future direction is the expansion of integration of hybrid metering systems, combining technologies like differential pressure meters, gamma-ray sensors, ultrasonic flowmeters, and optical systems, which offer another avenue for addressing the limitations of stand-alone techniques. Examples like the Dualstream FALCON meter show reduced uncertainties of ±2% - 3% for gas flow rates <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-75">
     [75]
    </xref>, and future designs should focus on compact, cost-effective systems to meet challenges in both onshore and offshore applications.</p>
   <p>Improved sensor and hardware design remains a crucial area for innovation. High-sensitivity sensors, such as microwave resonators, electric capacitance tomography arrays, and self-cleaning optical systems, can mitigate signal noise and environmental interference. In parallel, the exploration of next-generation materials capable of withstanding extreme pressures, temperatures, and chemical exposure is critical to enhancing durability and performance in hostile environments, including sour gas and unconventional fields. Extensive field testing under diverse conditions is essential to validate the reliability and scalability of these advancements, complemented by the establishment of standardized testing protocols to foster comparability and widespread adoption <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.143985-87">
     [87]
    </xref>.</p>
   <p>Incorporating advanced computational techniques like digital twins can transform wet gas measurement by enabling real-time simulation, predictive maintenance, and operational optimization. Pairing these models with real-time sensor data enhances measurement accuracy and insight into system performance. Lastly, sustainability and cost efficiency must be emphasized, with a focus on energy-efficient designs to minimize environmental impact. Simplified plug-and-play systems can reduce operational expenses, while modular, scalable designs enhance adaptability for remote locations and marginal fields. These recommendations collectively highlight pathways to overcoming current limitations, promoting innovation, and ensuring that wet gas metering technologies evolve to meet the dynamic demands of modern industrial applications.</p>
  </sec><sec id="s10">
   <title>10. Conclusion</title>
   <p>The discussion has comprehensively addressed the outlined specific objectives. It highlighted trends and advancements in wet gas metering techniques, focusing on innovative systems such as dual differential pressure (DP) meters, hybrid configurations, and machine learning integration for real-time calibration. These advancements demonstrate a shift toward adaptive and multi-technology approaches to improve accuracy and reliability. The performance evaluation of metering technologies identified key metrics, including uncertainties of ±2% - 3% for gas flow rates in hybrid systems and errors below ±0.35% using ML algorithms, showcasing their efficiency under diverse flow regimes. Challenges and limitations were critically analyzed, emphasizing issues like calibration dependency, noise interference, environmental sensitivity, and operational constraints in high gas volume fraction (GVF) and low liquid volume fraction (LVF) scenarios. Recommendations were proposed, including the use of machine learning for adaptive calibration, hybrid systems for comprehensive solutions, and advanced computational methods like digital twins for predictive capabilities. Industry applications were thoroughly explored, showcasing systems like TOTAL’s pipeline wet gas metering and Emerson’s Roxar Subsea Wetgas Meter, and assessing their suitability for specific requirements such as high-pressure pipelines and deepwater operations. This review not only provides actionable insights but also establishes pathways for future research and innovation in wet gas measurement technologies.</p>
  </sec>
 </body><back>
  <ref-list>
   <title>References</title>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref1">
    <label>1</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     van Putten, D.S. and Dsouza, B.T. (2019) Wet Gas Over-Reading Correction for Ultrasonic Flow Meters. Experiments in Fluids, 60, Article No. 45. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-019-2693-6
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref2">
    <label>2</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     van Putten, D., Riezebos, H., Bahlmann Jan Peters, R. and de Leeuw Joe Shen, R. (2018) Ultrasonic Meters in Wet Gas Applications.&gt;https://nfogm.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2015-02-Ultrasonic-Meters-in-Wet-Gas-Application-van-Putten-DNV-GL.pdf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref3">
    <label>3</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Hall, A. (2007) A Discussion on Wet Gas Flow Parameter Definitions. 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref4">
    <label>4</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Falcone, G. and Alimonti, C. (2006) Critical Review of Wet Gas Definitions.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref5">
    <label>5</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     ISO/TR12748 (2015) Technical Report ISO/TR Natural Gas: Wet Gas Flow Measurement in Natural Gas Operations.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref6">
    <label>6</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Schreier, P. (2011) Handbook of Chinese Medicinal Plants: Chemistry, Pharmacology, Toxicology W. Tang, G. Eisenbrand Vols. I + II Wiley‐VCH, Weinheim, 2011, PP. 1150 ISBN: 978‐3‐527‐32226‐8. Molecular Nutrition&amp;Food Research, 55, 811. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.201190015
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref7">
    <label>7</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     ASME (2008) Wet Gas Flow Measurement Guideline.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref8">
    <label>8</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Mitchell, A.L., Tkacik, D.S., Roscioli, J.R., Herndon, S.C., Yacovitch, T.I., Martinez, D.M., et al. (2015) Measurements of Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Gathering Facilities and Processing Plants: Measurement Results. Environmental Science&amp;Technology, 49, 3219-3227. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1021/es5052809 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref9">
    <label>9</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Yan, Y. and Jin, N. (2012) Measurement Techniques for Multiphase Flows. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 27, 1. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2012.08.001 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref10">
    <label>10</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Johansen, E.S., Hall, A.R.W., Ünalmis, Ö.H., Rodríguez, D.J., Vera, A. and Ramakrishnan, V. (2007) A Prototype Wet-Gas and Multiphase Flowmeter. Proceedings of the 25th International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, Oslo, 16-19 October 2007.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref11">
    <label>11</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Zhang, Q. and Liu, D. (2020) Study on Application of Wet Gas Metering Technology in Shale Gas Measurement. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 74, Article 101777. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2020.101777 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref12">
    <label>12</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Collins, A. and Clark, S. (2013) Evolution of Wet Gas Venturi Metering and Wet Gas Correction Algorithms. Measurement and Control, 46, 15-20. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1177/002029401304600102 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref13">
    <label>13</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Salehi, S.M., Lao, L., Xing, L., Simms, N. and Drahm, W. (2024) Devices and Methods for Wet Gas Flow Metering: A Comprehensive Review. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 96, Article 102518. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2023.102518 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref14">
    <label>14</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Oon, C.S., Ateeq, M., Shaw, A., Wylie, S., Al-Shamma’a, A. and Kazi, S.N. (2016) Detection of the Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow Regimes Using Non-Intrusive Microwave Cylindrical Cavity Sensor. Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications, 30, 2241-2255. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/09205071.2016.1244019 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref15">
    <label>15</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Pochet, S., Teyssedou, A. and Akyel, C. (2014) Development and Assessment of a Microwave Void-Fraction Measurement System. Review of Scientific Instruments, 85, Article 015103. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4859498 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref16">
    <label>16</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Xie, C. and Wu, Z. (2012) Microwave Doppler System for Multiphase Flow Measurement. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2012, 319-326. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3694721 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref17">
    <label>17</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Ismail, I., Gamio, J.C., Bukhari, S.F.A. and Yang, W.Q. (2005) Tomography for Multi-Phase Flow Measurement in the Oil Industry. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 16, 145-155. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2005.02.017 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref18">
    <label>18</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Lide, F., Tao, Z. and Ningde, J. (2007) A Comparison of Correlations Used for Venturi Wet Gas Metering in Oil and Gas Industry. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 57, 247-256. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2006.10.010 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref19">
    <label>19</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     ISO5167-1 (2003) Measure of Fluid by Means of Pressure Differential Devices Inserted in Circular Cross-Section Conduit. ISO 5167-12003.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref20">
    <label>20</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     ISO5167-4 (2003) Measurement of Fluid Flow by Means of Pressure Differential Devices Inserted in Circular Cross-Section Conduits Running. ISO.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref21">
    <label>21</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Baker, R.C. (1990) Fluid Flow Measurement. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 1, 241-243. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/0955-5986(90)90020-8 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref22">
    <label>22</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Murdock, J.W. (1962) Two-Phase Flow Measurement with Orifices. Journal of Basic Engineering, 84, 419-432. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3658657 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref23">
    <label>23</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Chisholm, D. (1981) Flow of Compressible Two-Phase Mixtures through Sharp-Edged Orifices. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 23, 45-48. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1243/jmes_jour_1981_023_008_02 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref24">
    <label>24</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Chisholm, D. (1977) Research Note: Two-Phase Flow through Sharp-Edged Orifices. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 19, 128-130. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1243/jmes_jour_1977_019_027_02 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref25">
    <label>25</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Lin, Z.H. (1982) Two-phase Flow Measurements with Sharp-Edged Orifices. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 8, 683-693. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-9322(82)90071-4 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref26">
    <label>26</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     De Leeuw, R. (1997) Liquid Correction of Venturi Meter Readings in Wet Gas Flow. 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref27">
    <label>27</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Smith, R.V. and Leang, J.T. (1975) Evaluations of Correlations for Two-Phase Flowmeters Three Current–One New. Journal of Engineering for Power, 97, 589-593. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3446072
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref28">
    <label>28</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Xing, L., Hua, C., Zhu, H. and Drahm, W. (2014) Flow Measurement Model of Ultrasonic Flowmeter for Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Stratified and Annular Flows. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 6, Article 194871. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/194871 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref29">
    <label>29</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Xing, L., Geng, Y., Hua, C., Zhu, H., Rieder, A., Drahm, W., et al. (2014) A Combination Method for Metering Gas–Liquid Two-Phase Flows of Low Liquid Loading Applying Ultrasonic and Coriolis Flowmeters. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 37, 135-143. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2014.01.005 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref30">
    <label>30</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Xu, Y., Yu, P., Zhu, Z., Yuan, C. and Zhang, T. (2017) Over-Reading Modeling of the Ultrasonic Flow Meter in Wet Gas Measurement. Measurement, 98, 17-24. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.11.007 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref31">
    <label>31</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Reader-Harris, M. and Graham, E. (2009) An Improved Model for Venturi-Tube Over-Reading in Wet Gas Definitions of Wet-Gas Flow. 27th International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, Tonsberg, 20-23 October 2009.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref32">
    <label>32</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Xu, Y., Yuan, C., Long, Z., Zhang, Q., Li, Z. and Zhang, T. (2013) Research the Wet Gas Flow Measurement Based on Dual-Throttle Device. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 34, 68-75. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2013.07.014
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref33">
    <label>33</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Tomaszewska-Wach, B. and Rzasa, M. (2021) A Correction Method for Wet Gas Flow Metering Using a Standard Orifice and Slotted Orifices. Sensors, 21, Article 2291. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/s21072291
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref34">
    <label>34</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     He, D.H., Lu, B., Li, X., Zhou, R.F. and Bai, B.F. (2013) A New Method to Meter Wet Gas Flow Based on Double Differential Pressure. Journal of Engineering Thermophysics, 34, 878-882.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref35">
    <label>35</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Li, S.S., Zheng, X.B., Zhao, F., He, D.H. and Bai, B.F. (2020) Comparison of Throttle Device to Measure Two-Phase Flowrates of Wet Gas with Extremely-Low Liquid Loading. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 76, Article 101840.&gt;https://scispace.com/papers/comparison-of-throttle-devices-to-measure-two-phase-462lb0rsz3 &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2020.101840
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref36">
    <label>36</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Tan, C., Wu, H. and Dong, F. (2013) Horizontal Oil-Water Two-Phase Flow Measurement with Information Fusion of Conductance Ring Sensor and Cone Meter. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 34, 83-90. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2013.08.006 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref37">
    <label>37</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Meng, Z., Huang, Z., Wang, B., Ji, H., Li, H. and Yan, Y. (2010) Air-Water Two-Phase Flow Measurement Using a Venturi Meter and an Electrical Resistance Tomography Sensor. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 21, 268-276. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2010.02.006 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref38">
    <label>38</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Lund Bø, Ø. and Nyfors, E. (2018) Paper 4.1 New Compact Wet Gas Meter Based on a Microwave Water Detection Technique and Differential Pressure Flow Measurement.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref39">
    <label>39</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Gysling, D., Loose, D., Volz, R. and America, B.P. (2006) Wet Gas Metering Using Combination of Differential Pressure and SONAR Flow Meters. 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref40">
    <label>40</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Funck, B. and Baldwin, P. (2012) Challenges for Ultrasonic Flow Meters in Wet Gas Applications. &gt;https://nfogm.no/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FLEXIM-GmbH-2012-NFOGM_01.pdf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref41">
    <label>41</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Zanker, K.J. and Brown, G.J. (2000) The Performance of a Multi-Path Ultrasonic Meter with Wet Gas. 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref42">
    <label>42</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Hamid, M.I. (2019) Subsea Wet Gas Flow Measurement—A Review.&gt;https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335692229_Subsea_Wet_Gas_Flow_Measurement_-A_Review
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref43">
    <label>43</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Meribout, M., Shehzad, F., Kharoua, N. and Khezzar, L. (2020) An Ultrasonic-Based Multiphase Flow Composition Meter. Measurement, 161, Article 107806. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2020.107806
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref44">
    <label>44</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Chang, J.S. and Morala, E.C. (1990) Determination of Two-Phase Interfacial Areas by an Ultrasonic Technique. Nuclear and Engineering Design, 122, 143-156.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref45">
    <label>45</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Faccini, J.L.H., Su, J., Harvel, G.D. and Chang, J.S. (2018) An Advanced Ultrasonic Technique for Flow and Void Fraction Measurements of Two-Phase Flow. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Arlington, 25-29 April 2004. &gt;https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/20967741
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref46">
    <label>46</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Weinstein, J. (2010) Multiphase Flow in Coriolis Mass Flow Meters—Error Sources and Best Practices. 28th International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, St Andrews, 26-29 October 2010, 355-373.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref47">
    <label>47</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Li, M. and Henry, M. (2018) Complex Signal Processing for Coriolis Mass Flow Metering in Two-Phase Flow. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 64, 104-115. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2018.10.014
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref48">
    <label>48</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Hollingsworth, J. and Morett, D. (2019) Wet Gas Performance of Coriolis Meters: Laboratory and the Field Evaluation of a New Method. 37th International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, Tønsberg, 22-25 October 2019, 1-8.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref49">
    <label>49</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Agar, J. and Farchy, D. (2002) Wet Gas Metering Using Dissimilar Flow Sensors: Theory and Field Trial Results. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, September 2002, SPE-77349-MS. &gt;https://doi.org/10.2118/77349-ms
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref50">
    <label>50</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     de Leeuw, R. and van Maanen, H. (2011) Venturi Meters and Wet Gas Flow.&gt;https://nfogm.no/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2011-01-Venturi-Meters-and-Wet-Gas-Flow-Leeuw-Shell.pdf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref51">
    <label>51</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Waqas Munir, M. and Khalil, B.A. (2015) Cross Correlation Velocity Measurement of Multiphase Flow. International Journal of Scientific Research, 414, 802-807. &gt;https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v4i2/SUB151217.pdf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref52">
    <label>52</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Meng, Y.Q. and Lucas, G. (2012) A Multiphase Flow Measurement System Comprising an Impedance Cross Correlation (ICC) Device and an Imaging Electromagnetic Flow Meter. 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref53">
    <label>53</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Monnet, J. (2005) Challenges in the Flow Measurement Engineering Studies Phases.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref54">
    <label>54</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Manoj, K., Baker, W., et al. (2018) Non­Intrusive Microwave System for Multiphase Flow Metering.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref55">
    <label>55</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Tayyab, M., Sharawi, M.S. and Al-Sarkhi, A. (2017) A Radio Frequency Sensor Array for Dielectric Constant Estimation of Multiphase Oil Flow in Pipelines. IEEE Sensors Journal, 17, 5900-5907. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1109/jsen.2017.2732164
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref56">
    <label>56</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sabzevari, F.M., Winter, R.S.C., Oloumi, D. and Rambabu, K. (2020) A Microwave Sensing and Imaging Method for Multiphase Flow Metering of Crude Oil Pipes. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 13, 1286-1297. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1109/jstars.2020.2977303
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref57">
    <label>57</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     van Maanen, H.R.E. (2007) Measurement of the Liquid Water Flow Rate Using Microwave Sensors in Wet-Gas Meters: Not as Simple as You Might Think. 26th International North Sea Flow. Measurement Workshop, St. Andrews, 21-24 October 2007, 345-354.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref58">
    <label>58</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Vestøl, S., Kumara, W.A.S. and Melaaen, M.C. (2017) Gamma Densitometry Measurements of Gas/Liquid Flow with Low Liquid Fractions in Horizontal and Inclined Pipes. International Journal of Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements, 6, 120-131. &gt;https://doi.org/10.2495/cmem-v6-n1-120-131
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref59">
    <label>59</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Pan, Y., Ma, Y., Huang, S., Niu, P., Wang, D. and Xie, J. (2018) A New Model for Volume Fraction Measurements of Horizontal High-Pressure Wet Gas Flow Using Gamma-Based Techniques. Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 96, 311-320. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expthermflusci.2018.03.002 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref60">
    <label>60</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Li, Y., Yang, W., Xie, C., Huang, S., Wu, Z., Tsamakis, D., et al. (2013) Gas/Oil/Water Flow Measurement by Electrical Capacitance Tomography. Measurement Science and Technology, 24, Article 074001. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/24/7/074001 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref61">
    <label>61</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Shi, X., Tan, C., Dong, F., Santos, E.N.D. and Silva, M.J.D. (2021) Conductance Sensors for Multiphase Flow Measurement: A Review. IEEE Sensors Journal, 21, 12913-12925. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1109/jsen.2020.3042206 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref62">
    <label>62</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Wiedemann, P., Dias, F.D.A., Schleicher, E. and Hampel, U. (2020) Temperature Compensation for Conductivity-Based Phase Fraction Measurements with Wire-Mesh Sensors in Gas-Liquid Flows of Dilute Aqueous Solutions. Sensors, 20, Article 7114. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/s20247114 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref63">
    <label>63</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Meng, X., Wang, W., Shen, Z., Xiong, J. and Zhang, H. (2019) Production Logging via Coiled Tubing Fiber Optic Infrastructures (FSI) and Its Application in Shale Gas Wells. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 12, Article No. 782. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-019-4885-z 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref64">
    <label>64</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Sharifzadeh, M., Khalafi, H., Afarideh, H. and Noori, E. (2017) Two-Phase Flow Component Fraction Measurement Using Gamma-Ray Attenuation Technique. Nuclear Science and Techniques, 28, Article No. 88. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1007/s41365-017-0237-4 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref65">
    <label>65</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Iliyasu, A.M., Shahsavari, M.H., Benselama, A.S., Nazemi, E. and Salama, A.S. (2024) An Optimised and Novel Capacitance-Based Sensor Design for Measuring Void Fraction in Gas-Oil Two-Phase Flow Systems. Nondestructive Testing and Evaluation, 39, 2450-2466. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1080/10589759.2023.2301492 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref66">
    <label>66</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Shi, W., Yin, G., Wang, M., Tao, L., Wu, M., Yang, Z., et al. (2023) Progress of Electrical Resistance Tomography Application in Oil and Gas Reservoirs for Development Dynamic Monitoring. Processes, 11, Article 2950. &gt;https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11102950
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref67">
    <label>67</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Hosseini, S. (2024) Enhancing Wet Gas Metering Capabilities Using Machine Learning: Implications of Data-Driven Models and Integration with Physical Principles. 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref68">
    <label>68</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Hosseini, S., Chinello, G., Lindsay, G., Smith, S. and McGlinchey, D. (2025) Multiphase Flow Measurement of Wet Gas Flow Using Machine Learning Modelling Algorithms. Sensors, 38, Article 101556. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measen.2024.101556 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref69">
    <label>69</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Wang, H., Zhang, M. and Yang, Y. (2020) Machine Learning for Multiphase Flowrate Estimation with Time Series Sensing Data. Sensors, 10, Article 100025. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measen.2020.100025 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref70">
    <label>70</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Gryzlov, A., Mironova, L., Safonov, S. and Arsalan, M. (2021) Evaluation of Machine Learning Methods for Prediction of Multiphase Production Rates. SPE Symposium: Artificial Intelligence—Towards a Resilient and Efficient Energy Industry, Virtual, 18-19 October 2021, SPE-208648-MS. &gt;https://doi.org/10.2118/208648-ms 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref71">
    <label>71</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Zhang, J. and Li, J. (2023) A Novel Method for Wet Gas Flow Measurements Based on an Over-Reading Principle. Fluid Dynamics&amp;Materials Processing, 19, 303-313. &gt;https://doi.org/10.32604/fdmp.2022.020723 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref72">
    <label>72</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Zhu, L., Chen, X., Ouyang, B., Yan, W., Lei, H., Chen, Z., et al. (2022) Review of Machine Learning for Hydrodynamics, Transport, and Reactions in Multiphase Flows and Reactors. Industrial&amp;Engineering Chemistry Research, 61, 9901-9949. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.2c01036 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref73">
    <label>73</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Kumar, M., Elbeltagi, A., et al. (2021) Prediction of Daily Streamflow Using Various Kernel Function Based Regression: A Case Study in India. Research Square, 1-36.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref74">
    <label>74</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Shrestha, N. (2020) Detecting Multicollinearity in Regression Analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 8, 39-42. &gt;https://doi.org/10.12691/ajams-8-2-1
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref75">
    <label>75</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Collins, A., Hu, J.L., Tudge, M. and Wade, C. (2010) The Development of and Initial Data from a New Multiphase Wet Gas Meter. 28th International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, St. Andrews, 26-29 October 2010, 165-186.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref76">
    <label>76</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Zhang, Q. (2023) AI and Machine Learning for Microwaves—A Highlight of Past, Present and Future Trends. 2023 IEEE/MTT-S International Microwave Symposium, San Diego, 11-16 June 2023, 7. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1109/ims37964.2023.10187936 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref77">
    <label>77</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Tait, P., Chen, Y., Senjyu, W., Watanabe, T., Inamura, Y., Presotto, V., et al. (2022) Determination of Void Fraction in Wet-Gas Vertical Flows via Differential Pressure Measurement. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 83, Article 102080. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2021.102080 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref78">
    <label>78</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Google Cloud (2025) AI and ML Perspective: Cost Optimization. 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref79">
    <label>79</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Arellano, Y., Mollo, N.J., Løvseth, S.W., Stang, H.G.J. and Bottino, G. (2022) Characterization of an Ultrasonic Flowmeter for Liquid and Dense Phase Carbon Dioxide Under Static Conditions. IEEE Sensors Journal, 22, 14601-14609.&gt;https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2022.3180075
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref80">
    <label>80</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Graham, E.M., Reader-Harris, M., Forsyth, C. and Pinguet, B. (2018) Low-Cost Measurement Option for Wet-Gas Flows to Optimise Reservoir/Production Management. Offshore Technology Conference Asia, Kuala Lumpur, 20-23 March 2018.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref81">
    <label>81</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Emerson (2017) Roxar Subsea Wetgas Meter: A Specialized Meter for Gas and Gas Condensate Fields. &gt;https://www.emerson.com/documents/automation/download-full-specs-en-us-91080.pdf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref82">
    <label>82</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Bydoun, M. and Tyssen, I. (2009) Operational Experience Roxar Wetgas Meters, Offshore Egypt. 27th International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, Tonsberg, 20-23 October 2009, 180-186.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref83">
    <label>83</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Emerson (2021) Roxar
     <sup>TM</sup> 2600 MPFM Multiphase Flow Meter with Rapid Adaptive Measurement
     <sup>TM</sup> Roxar 2600 Multiphase Flow Meter Model Options and Specifications. &gt;https://www.emerson.com/documents/automation/product-data-sheet-roxar-2600-mpfm-multiphase-flow-meter-en-170812.pdf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref84">
    <label>84</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Krohne (2021) Optimass 6000—Handbuch. &gt;https://cdn.krohne.com/pick2/tagged_docs/MA_OPTIMASS_6000_pt_170322_4005221602_R05___1000412423_1__.pdf
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref85">
    <label>85</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Siemens (2024) SITRANS FM MAG 8000 SITRANS FM (Electromagnetic) Battery-Operated Water Meters SITRANS FM (Electromagnetic). 
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref86">
    <label>86</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Seniorsonic, R. (2024) 4-Path Gas Ultrasonic Flow Meter.
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
   <ref id="scirp.143985-ref87">
    <label>87</label>
    <mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">
     Chen, J., Wang, Y., Zhang, W., Qiu, L. and Zhang, X. (2017) Capacitance-Based Liquid Holdup Measurement of Cryogenic Two-Phase Flow in a Nearly-Horizontal Tube. Cryogenics, 84, 69-75. &gt;https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cryogenics.2017.04.006
    </mixed-citation>
   </ref>
  </ref-list>
 </back>
</article>