Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Experimental Study of Viscosity and the Wall-Effect Correction

Experimental Study of Viscosity and the Wall-Effect Correction

Ratings: (0)|Views: 587|Likes:
Published by jamesyu

More info:

Published by: jamesyu on Jul 14, 2007
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/08/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Experimental Study of Viscosity and the Wall-Effect Correction
James YuCornell UniversityIthaca, New York 14853April 6, 2003
Abstract
The Dinsdale & Moore wall-effect correction[1] for the falling sphere viscosity experimentshas been generally accepted for many years. However, Schottenheimer’s model[2] predicts anew expression for fluids with viscosity between 1 and 20 poise. In this experimental study,spheres of various radii and densities are dropped into a glycerine filled viscometer, andapparent viscosity measurements are recorded. When the two models are compared, Schot-tenheimer’s expression fits the data more accurately than Dinsdale & Moore’s expression.A simple way to measure viscosity is with the falling sphere technique[3]. The apparent viscosity of the fluidis related to the achieved terminal velocity of a ball falling freely in a fluid, and this can be measured using aviscometer. However, this measured viscometer is only an apparent viscosity, since the wall of the containerwill affect the movement of the sphere. In this experiment, the two wall-effect correcting expressions fromDinsdale & Moore and Schottenheimer are compared for accuracy with glycerine.A viscometer is a fluid filled cylinder with pairs of optical sensors mounted on the sides of the cylinder. Thegoal is to measure the terminal velocity
t
of a ball dropped into the fluid. An optical sensor detects whenthe ball blocks the light beam, and the time ∆
that the ball takes to traverse between optical sensors canbe measured. The velocity of the ball is then determined between each pair of optical sensors.In this experiment there are four sensors, and it is assumed that the ball reaches terminal velocity by thetime it drops between the second and third sensor. Balls of varying radii and densities are dropped into theviscometer, and the resulting velocities are recorded for further analysis.From the measurement of 
t
the apparent viscosity
µ
(
rR
) =
m
b
g
43
πr
3
ρg
6
πV 
t
r
(1)where
m
b
is the mass of the ball,
ρ
is the density of the fluid,
r
is the radius of the ball , and
g
is theacceleration due to gravity. To obtain
m
b
, calipers were used to measure the diameter of the ball. Then itis known that
m
b
=
43
πr
3
ρ
b
, where
ρ
b
is the density of the ball.The apparent viscosity varies with the radius of the ball
r
and the radius of the cylinder
R
. In order to findthe true viscosity
µ
0
, an expression must be formulated to relate
µ
(
rR
) with
µ
0
. Dinsdale & Moore gives theexpression[1]
µ
(
rR
) =
µ
0
1
2
.
104(
rR
) + 2
.
09(
rR
)
3
0
.
95(
rR
)
5
(2)1
 
while Schottenheimer claims[2]
µ
(
rR
) =
µ
0
e
k
rR
(3)for fluids with viscosity 1 to 20 poise, where
k
is 3.8.In order to compare the accuracy of these two expressions, the viscosity data points are plotted along withthe expressions. However, a best fit for the Schottenheimer parameter
k
must first be found in order to gaugehow close the data fit his calculated value of 3.8. In order to find this, an estimate of the value for
µ
0
isobtained by averaging the two calculated
µ
0
from (2) and (3) for the smallest ball at
r
= 0
.
125 inches (usingthe value of 
k
= 3
.
8). This is reasonable since the wall effect should be almost negligible for the smallestball; this is also seen through the fact that the two formulas converge for small values of 
rR
. Through this,an estimate of 
µ
0
= 6
.
24 poise.Taking the natural log of (3)ln
µ
(
rR
) = ln(
µ
0
) +
krR
(4)and a best fit of the measurements
y
i
= ln(
µ
(
rR
)
i
) is obtained by minimizing the sum of squares residuals
SS 
=
n
i
=1
y
i
A
Bx
i
(5)where
A
= ln(
µ
0
),
B
=
k
,
x
i
=
r
i
R
, and
n
is the number of measurements. Taking the partial derivative withrespect to B and setting it equal to zero minimizes the squared residuals
∂S∂B
= 0 =
n
i
=1
2
x
i
(
A
+
Bx
i
y
i
) (6)
AS 
x
+
BS 
xx
=
xy
(7)
B
=
k
=(
xy
AS 
x
)
xx
(8)where
xx
=
ni
=1
x
2
i
,
x
=
ni
=1
x
i
,
y
=
ni
=1
y
i
,
xy
=
ni
=1
x
i
y
i
. Error propagation obtains thesquared uncertainties(∆
B
)
2
=
n
i
=1
(
∂B∂y
i
)
2
(
δy
i
)
2
n
(9)And since
∂B∂y
i
=
x
i
S
xx
(∆
B
)
2
= (∆ln
µ
)
2
n
i
=1
x
2
i
2
xx
=(∆ln
µ
)
2
xx
(10)
B
= ∆
k
=ln
µ
xx
(11)where ∆ln
µ
=
 
ni
=0(
δy
i
)
2
n
is the rms deviation for the residuals.Using equation (8) and (11) along with the viscosity data, the parameter
k
was determined to be
k
= 3
.
61
±
0
.
0683 (12)Figure 1 displays a plot of 
µ
(
rR
)
0
versus
r/R
for the data, Dinsdale & Moore, and Schottenheimer ex-pressions, using both the prescribed value
k
= 3
.
8 and the fitted value for
k
. It is seen that the twoSchottenheimer curves are fairly close to each other, and both fit the data better than the Dinsdale & Moorecurve. The fitted value for
k
agrees with Schottenheimer’s calculated value to within %4
.
91.2

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
good.lil.kid liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->