Air speed and Differential pressure

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around finding a simplified theoretical relationship between air speed and differential pressure in a tube with a restrictor, as opposed to using Darcy's law, which involves too many unknown parameters. The user has a tube with a diameter of 100 mm and varying air speeds, and is seeking to measure air speed using differential pressure instead of a mechanical anemometer, which may not provide consistent results. The restrictor consists of a honeycomb structure made from plastic straws, and the user is trying to understand how to calculate air speed based on pressure differences across this constriction. Participants in the discussion suggest that the geometry of the honeycomb is crucial for determining the permeability and flow characteristics, and experimentation may be necessary to calibrate the system accurately. The overall goal is to establish a reliable method for measuring air speed in the setup.
  • #31
Chet,

I stop my calculation few minutes ago and post this reply, I'm afraid to make you angry with my difficulties to understand, but, I have a doubt again, If K= k/2 (K = two honeycomb in series, and k = one honeycomb) why taking L for one honeycomb? in the formula :
Q = (K.A.∆P) / (μ.L)
If I need to add the reciprocal of the k's to have K, why K= k/2 ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
MARECHAL said:
Chet,

I stop my calculation few minutes ago and post this reply, I'm afraid to make you angry with my difficulties to understand, but, I have a doubt again, If K= k/2 (K = two honeycomb in series, and k = one honeycomb) why taking L for one honeycomb? in the formula :
Q = (K.A.∆P) / (μ.L)
If I need to add the reciprocal of the k's to have K, why K= k/2 ?
You're an electrical engineer, right. In fluid flow, the permeability is a conductivity, and thus it is the reciprocal of resistance. For two identical resistors in series, the overall resistance is twice the resistance of each individual resistor. This means that the overall conductivity is half the individual conductivity.

Chet
 
  • Like
Likes MARECHAL
  • #33
Chet,

Oops! Ok... the conductivity of the fluid... By analogy to electrical resistors, it is a good "picture" for me to understand the permeability.
I'm going to take my calculator and calculate now.
Next week, I will try to measure ∆P with an instrument and compare it to the anemometer, with only the two honeycomb, (without the large fiber filter) with the formula... I'm a little bit worrier and impatient.
"See" you later.
 
  • Like
Likes Chestermiller
  • #34
Good Afternoon,

I'm a little bit disappointed by my calculation, sure I made a mistake, but where?
By experimentation k is not constant ; from 0,16 @ 0,52 m/s to 0,07 @ 6,88 m/s and with calculation k is 1,3e5... something is wrong.
Please see my (bad) calculation in this upload file :
 
  • #35
Here :
 

Attachments

  • k.pdf
    k.pdf
    167.8 KB · Views: 251
  • #36
MARECHAL said:
Good Afternoon,

I'm a little bit disappointed by my calculation, sure I made a mistake, but where?
By experimentation k is not constant ; from 0,16 @ 0,52 m/s to 0,07 @ 6,88 m/s and with calculation k is 1,3e5... something is wrong.
Please see my (bad) calculation in this upload file :
Please show some data on Δp vs v. Please give the units of Δp. Also please make a graph of Δp vs v. What does it look like?

(Giving values of the parameters without their units is useless.)

Chet
 
  • #37
Chet,

Thank's for your reply, sincerely.
Yes sorry, Δp is in Pa, I found a mistake in my data since I wrote my reply, the value of L is 13 mm ; I must reviewing all calculation, it is not the only one error : the results I gave are not k but 1/k :oldfrown:.
Since I am on PF, I do any mistake, I'm not very proud of that in comparison to all posts of all engineer there are here...
in "up load" an excel file of the experiment results hoping it could help you and me :
 

Attachments

  • #38
MARECHAL said:
Chet,

Thank's for your reply, sincerely.
Yes sorry, Δp is in Pa, I found a mistake in my data since I wrote my reply, the value of L is 13 mm ; I must reviewing all calculation, it is not the only one error : the results I gave are not k but 1/k :oldfrown:.
Since I am on PF, I do any mistake, I'm not very proud of that in comparison to all posts of all engineer there are here...
in "up load" an excel file of the experiment results hoping it could help you and me :
Your graph seems to have a sharp break at the 6th point. When I plot the data, it doesn't show that sharp break.

Later, I'm going to try to calculate the permeability from your data to see how it matches up with the theoretical result. After I do some calculations, I'll get back to you about the curvature of the plot.

Chet
 
  • #39
I calculated the permeability of the combined two honeycombs from your data, and it came out to 0.004 - 0.0097 cm^2. The theoretical value I calculated from the equation I presented in post #24 was 0.0045 cm^2. So the data are in the same ballpark as the theoretical value. However, it isn't clear why the permeability seems to be decreasing with increasing flow rate. I checked, and I don't think that the flow in the honeycomb is turbulent.

Chet
 
  • #40
Chestermiller said:
However, it isn't clear why the permeability seems to be decreasing with increasing flow rate. I checked, and I don't think that the flow in the honeycomb is turbulent.
Probably due to the placement of the two points of measurement of pressure, I put them inside the tube but at the periphery of the internal section, so I take measure of pressure at the points where the speed is low instead of at the center of the tube where the speed is more important.
With the anemometer I measure air velocity at each point of the internal section of the tube, a kind of integral of air speed.
Even if the honeycomb played their part in the laminar function of the speed, I'm not sure it is the same for pressure upstream or downstream of the honeycomb, and I have not enough knowledge base in this kind of physique. It is only presumption of what I observe with instrument.

Chestermiller said:
I calculated the permeability of the combined two honeycombs from your data, and it came out to 0.004 - 0.0097 cm^2. The theoretical value I calculated from the equation I presented in post #24 was 0.0045 cm^2. So the data are in the same ballpark as the theoretical value

I really don't understand how you calculate to obtain these results, but it is not the matter, what is important is the results, and your analysis and what I found by experimentation is coherent with you found.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
21K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K