This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Fluid Flow Technical Report
TECHNICAL REPORT On Fluid Flow By Muhammad Hassaan Warsi
Student ID: 200553008 Module Leader: Dr. Clive Hudson Module: Technical Skills And Application (PEME1000)
A circuit was set up (as shown in Figure 1) using pipes such that a holding tank. The pump setting was selected to '3' and all three valves were left open so that the water would pass through the .one through which the water would pass through the filter. In the engineering domain. The pump was connected to an electrical output. The equipment needed to be dealt carefully. glass fibre amongst many other materials (Dickenson 1997). Experiment Figure 1 Diagrammatic representation of the experimental model Although the experiment was a fairly low-risk one. scientists and researchers alike have strived to create more efficient and cost-effective techniques of filtration. a filter and a pump were all in series. the pump was switched on. which include the use of silica hydragels. and second. As industrial techniques have changed over the years. A few minutes were allotted initially and then the experimental work began.PEME1000 Technical Skills And Application Fluid Flow Technical Report Background Information In engineering terms a filter is any device that is meant to remove any contaminants or impurities from a source. In clinical engineering. filters play a vital role and their uses are applied across various industries from water and sewage to beverage and food industries. To ensure that the fluid (water) passed through the filters. and recently designed carbon-filters that remove low-weight. Over the years. there are various types of filters. sand filters for removing turbidity. The pipes were connected with three valves such that two alternate pathways could be created. so have the demands of the filters and it has been one of the challenges faced by the new breed of engineers to meet up with this demand and strive to develop a new range of products which meets these criteria. organic molecules as well as reduce halogens present in water (Dyro 2004). without. Once the set up was complete. there were certain safety precautions that were in place as water and current were an integral feature of the set-up. In process industries especially. pharmaceutical to the oil industry (Dickenson 1997). filtration plays a crucial role. all three valves were kept open. flow-meter.
1).2a Pump setting '1'. The same experiment was repeated under similar settings but the pump setting was changed to '2'.2b Pump setting '2'. '2'. All these results were recorded and tabulated as well (as shown in Table 1.1c Pump setting '3'. without filter Reading on meter In m³/min Difference in m³/min Difference in m/s A (0 s) 26037 17 1393 B (60 s) 26054 16 1343 C (120 s) 26070 Table 1.PEME1000 Technical Skills And Application Fluid Flow Technical Report filter. valve v1 and valve v2 were closed so the water did not flow through the filter anymore. The experiment was repeated third time but this time the pump setting was selected as '1'. All the results were recorded (as shown in Table 1. with filter Reading on meter In m³/min Difference in m³/min Difference in m/s A (0 s) 25851 15 1244 B (60 s) 25866 15 1244 C (120 s) 25881 Table 1.2) Table 1.1b Pump setting '2'. After 60 seconds. the final flow-meter reading was taken (recorded as C). the flow-meter reading was again taken (recorded as B) and after another 60 seconds. The pressure was noted at the beginning and so was the initial flow-meter reading (recorded as A in Table 1. without filter Reading on meter In m³/min Difference in m³/min Difference in m/s A (0 s) 25977 22 1840 B (60 s) 25999 22 1840 C (120 s) 26021 . with filter Reading on meter In m³/min Difference in m³/min Difference in m/s A (0 s) 25715 23 1890 B (60 s) 25738 23 1890 C (120 s) 25761 Table 1. and '1') and similar readings were obtained at 0 seconds.1a Pump setting '1'.1) Next. with filter Reading on meter In m³/min Difference in m³/min Difference in m/s A (0 s) 25794 20 1641 B (60 s) 25814 20 1641 C (120 s) 25834 Table 1. 60 seconds and subsequently 120 seconds from the start of the experiment. Now the experiment was repeated on different pump settings ('3'.
without filter Reading on meter In m³/min Difference in m³/min Difference in m/s A (0 s) 25912 26 2139 B (60 s) 25938 Fluid Flow Technical Report C (120 s) 25963 25 2089 Results To simplify the results it was essential to convert the rate of fluid flow from m³/min to m/s. The cross-section area of the pipe was easy to calculate as the diameter of the pipe (16 mm) was provided hence: linear velocity (m/s) = velocity in (m³/s ) / cross-section area of the pipe This equation is how the answers were simplified to m/s in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. Table 2a: Readings obtained. without filter Pressure (Pa) Rate of Fluid Flow (m/s) I 6000 16000 26000 1393 1840 2139 II 1343 1840 2089 Average 1368 1840 2114 .2c Pump setting '3'.PEME1000 Technical Skills And Application Table 1. with filter. This was done by the simple conversion of m³/min to m³/s and the following data was then divided by the crosssection area of the pipe to quantify m/s. Pressure (Pa) Rate of Fluid Flow (m/s) I 1 2 3 5000 16000 26000 1244 1641 1890 II 1244 1641 1890 Average 1244 1641 1890 Pump Setting Pump Setting 1 2 3 Table 2b: Readings obtained.
without filter Figure 2b: Pressure-flow relationship as pump setting changes. with filter .PEME1000 Technical Skills And Application Fluid Flow Technical Report Figure 2a: Pressure-flow relationship as pump setting changes.
all the relevant data was substituted into the formulae and hence the corresponding value of friction factor was determined. length of pipe. Equation 1 Using the formula provided above (Equation 1) the friction factor can be calculated for flow with and without the filter. The following data was incorporated into the equation. it was quite sufficient to just use on of the average velocity readings on one pump setting and use the corresponding value for the other set of readings as well. ƥ = 1000 kg/m³ pipe diameter. without the filter this time.723 x 10-8 The same calculation was then done for friction factor of flow. P = 6000 Pa the friction factor was calculated to be : 3. u − lin e a r v e lo c it y . P = 5000 Pa the friction factor was calculated to be : 1. Since each pump setting had a different linear velocity. The first step that was necessary was to re-arrange the formulae making friction factor f the subject of the formulae. ƥ = 1000 kg/m³ pipe diameter.6 m fluid density. length of pipe = 1. Discussion . u = 1368 m/s pressure. u = 1244 m/s pressure. d = 0. Secondly knowing that the length of the pipe (with the filter) was 3 m and 1. d = 0.6 m (without the filter).PEME1000 Technical Skills And Application Fluid Flow Technical Report Calculating the friction factor: ∆P = f l ρ u d 2 w h e r e f − f r ic t io n f a c t o r .206 x 10-8 Note: friction factor does not have a unit. d − p ip e d ia m e t e r . l= 3 m fluid density. l − le n g t h o f p ip e . Using (for with the filter). ρ − f lu id d e n s it y .016 m linear velocity.016 m linear velocity.
in this case the pipe. It was observed that as the pump settings increased (from '1' to '2' to '3') the linear velocity of flow also increased in both instances. This relationship can be demonstrated in all the tables that have been provided above (Table 1. Figure 2). This relationship too is demonstrated in the tables (Table 1. Since the conditions in both the experiments were almost the same except the length of the pipe.206 x 10-8) was almost twice as more as the friction factor of flow with the filter (1. the nature of the pipe including it's length. the pressure recorded on pressure-gauge also increased. Since the friction factor seen in both cases is of a fairly small magnitude (of the order negative 8) it can be assumed that the resistivity of the pipe was fairly low for most part. there was hardly any difference in the pressure reading in both the cases. Table 2). However. this relationship becomes more lucid. the linear velocity was always higher when the fluid flow was without filter as opposed to through a filter.PEME1000 Technical Skills And Application Fluid Flow Technical Report After the experiment was concluded. Reference List . The reasons for this difference in friction factor are discussed below. These data were obtained by simple calculation involving Equation 1 (see above).723 x 10-8). albeit at pump setting '1' a slight change from 6 kPa (without the filter) to 5 kPa (with the filter) The most striking difference however that was seen with the set of experiments was the difference in frictional factor between them both. Comparing the set of datas for fluid flow through the filter. roughness as well as the layout of the pipe (straight or bends) amongst many others. radii. Friction can be occur between the layers of fluid itself or between the fluid and its surrounding material. and without the filter. Conclusion Fluids are often subjected to different types of resistance. it would be reasonable to assume that the change in the friction factor was mostly due to the change in the length of pipe. Following the equation it would be safe to assume that had the diameter of the pipe provided been 1 m instead of being in mm. Friction factor depends on various factors. most of them stemming from friction. some of which are the speed of the fluid. an overall analysis was done of the results and certain features were drawn out. Also another distinct feature that was picked out was that as the pump setting increased. The friction factor of flow without the filter (3. Table 2) as well as the graphical representations of the data (Figure 1. This would be because the surface-area to volume (of fluid) flowing ratio would decrease and secondly an increase in diameter would mean that the pressure at which the water flows would be less and this would impact the friction factor greatly as well (Chou 2006). initially just some slight variants were seen. it was observed that for the same pump settings. By comparing the final average readings for each pump setting in Table 2. changes in temperature of the fluid. the friction factor would be much lower. Primarily.
T (1997). Oxford: Elsevier Advanced Technology.cheme.PEME1000 Technical Skills And Application − − Fluid Flow Technical Report Dyro.Pressure Drop Theory Pipe Flow. Available: http://rothfus.co. Clinical Engineering Handbook. California: Elsevier Academic Press.uk/public/control.pdf Last accessed 5th November.pipeflow.php?_path=/497/503/510 Last accessed: 5th November. − Pipe Flow 3D .cmu. 4th ed. J (2004). V (2006) Investigation of Friction Factor with Flow in Pipes Rothfus. Available: http://www. Filters and Filtration Handbook.edu/tlab/fluid1/projects/t10s06/t10_s06_r2. Dickenson. 2010 . 2010 − Chou.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.