This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
NASA TM X2787
AN INVESTIGATION OF HYDRAULICLINE RESONANCE AND ITS ATTENUATION
by John L. Sewall, David A. Wineman, and Robert W. Herr Langley Research Center Hampton, Va. 23665
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION • WASHINGTON, D. C. • DECEMBER 1973
1. Report No. NASA TM X2787 4. Title and Subtitle
2. Government Accession No.
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
AN INVESTIGATION OF HYDRAULIC LINE RESONANCE AND ITS ATTENUATION
7. Author(s)
5. Report Date December 1973
6. Performing Organization Code 8. Performing Organization Report No. L8738 10. Work Unit No.
John L. Sewall, David A. Wineman, and Robert W. Herr 9. Performing Organization Name and Address NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Va. 23665
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
501220501
1 1 . Contract or Grant No. 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Technical Memorandum 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C. 20546
IB/Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract
An investigation of fluid resonance in highpressure hydraulic lines has been made with two types of fluid dampers (or filters) installed in the line. One type involved the use of one or more closedend tubes branching at right angles from a main line, and the other type was a fluid muffler installed inline. These devices were evaluated in forced vibration tests with oscillatory disturbances over a 1000Hz range applied to one end of the line and with oscillatory pressures measured at various stations along the main pipe. Limited applications of acousticwave theory to the branched systems are also included. Results show varying attenuations of pressure perturbations, depending on the number and location of branches and the type of muffler. Up to three branches were used in the branchresonator study, and the largest frequency range with maximum attenuation was obtained for a threebranch configuration. The widest frequency ranges with significant attenuations were obtained with two types of fluid mufflers.
17. Key Words (Suggested by Author(s))
18. Distribution Statement
Vibration Hydraulicline resonance Acousticwave theory Hydraulic muffler Branchpipe damper
19. Security Qassif. (of this report) Unclassified
Unclassified  Unlimited
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
21. No. of Pages
77
Unclassified
Domestic, $3.75 Foreign, $6.25
For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151
AN INVESTIGATION OF HYDRAULICLINE RESONANCE AND ITS ATTENUATION
By John L. Sewall, David A. Wineman, and Robert W. Herr Langley Research Center SUMMARY An investigation of fluid resonance in highpressure hydraulic lines has been made with two types of fluid dampers (or filters) installed in the line. One type involved the use of one or more closedend tubes branching at right angles from a main pipe, and the other type was a fluid muffler installed inline. Evaluations of these devices were made in forced vibration tests in which oscillatory disturbances over a 1000Hz range were applied to one end of the line and oscillatory pressure responses were measured at various stations along the main pipe line. Limited applications of acousticwave theory to the branched systems are also included. Results show varying attenuations of pressure perturbations with frequency, depending on the number and location of branches and the type of muffler. Up to three branches were considered in the branchresonator study, and the largest frequency range containing maximum attenuation was obtained for a threebranch configuration. The widest frequency ranges with acceptable and significant pressure attenuations were obtained with either of two types of mufflers of equivalent volumes. One of these was a commercial damper with an intricate internal flow arrangement which gave pressure attenuations over a slightly wider frequency range than the other type, which was a simple expansion chamber. The study also included exploratory tests of structuralfluid interactions in a closedend Utube configuration, and results of these tests illustrated the possible pressure reductions obtainable near structural and fluid resonances as a consequence of adequately anchoring the piping system.
INTRODUCTION
Pumps transmitting fluid through hydraulic lines under high pressure impart periodic pulses to the fluid which can induce undesirable vibrations. The crash of an advanced fighteraircraft prototype was traced to a break in the hydraulic line of the control system because of severe localized responses to periodic pressure pulsations produced by a pump operating at high frequencies. These responses were associated with strong structuralfluid resonances which were not sufficiently damped by fluid leakage internal to the aircraft
hydraulic system. Moreover, there was no accumulator and, therefore, no pressure reservoir to absorb flow disturbances generated by the pump. A solution to this problem was sought by introducing damping (or attenuating) devices into the fluid line to reduce resonant oscillations to an acceptable level. Fluid resonance in hydraulic lines and its attenuation have been widely studied and are based on the fundamentals of wave propagation through continuous media, as presented in references 1 and 2, for example. Reference 1 includes the development and application of these principles to the acoustics of fluid in pipes with straight branches and Helmholtz resonators. Reference 2 contains a review of waterhammer research, pressure and flowscaling relations, and related useful design information. The work presented in reference 3 is also designoriented and includes some basic data on fluid properties important to fluid vibration. Basic studies of fluid dynamics in straight transmission lines are reported in references 4 to 12. Reference 4 presents the first of a series of studies conducted at the NASA Lewis Research Center on the dynamic behavior of hydraulic fluid in a long line subjected to sinusoidal pulses at one end and having variable impedance at the other end of the line. References 5 and 6 give solutions based on various forms of the NavierStokes equations for fluid flow in pipes. The natural longitudinal frequency of the pipeline itself is also shown in reference 5 to have a pronounced effect on oscillatory pressure responses. Reference 7 is a theoretical treatise on fluid dynamic response to periodic and nonperiodic inputs at one end of a hydraulic line terminated at the other end by nonlinear orifice conditions. Reference 8 demonstrates the application of finite element technology applied to the flow of blood. Viscosity effects are treated in varying depth in references 5 to 15, with references 5 and 9 offering somewhat more on the subject than the others. The effect of viscosity in Newtonian fluids is shown in reference 5 to depend on the parameter where a is the inside radius of the fluid line, w is the frequency of fluid oscillation, and v is the kinematic (or effective) viscosity. An increase in the magnitude of this parameter is associated with a decrease in the viscosity effect, and a value approaching infinity corresponds to a lowviscosity fluid oscillating at very high frequencies in a large diameter tube. For nonNewtonian fluids (such as Mil 05606 and other aircraft hydraulic oils), where the effective viscosity decreases with increasing shear rate (which varies from one fluid to another), a//j7 is shown to be the governing viscosity parameter. In reference 9 the application of acousticwave theory to viscous Newtonian fluids is demonstrated for sinusoidal disturbance propagation in long, straight, cylindrical, nonvibrating pipelines. This work is reinforced in reference 10, in which the method oi characteristics was applied to the onedimensional modelof transient flow and showed good agreement with experiment, particularly in accurate prediction of distortion effects characteristic of waterhammer response.
Although this work was done with air as the test medium. perpendicular to a main hydraulic line is described in references 13 and 14. can effectively attenuate sinusoidal perturbations to a very low level over a wide frequency range. pressure amplitudes of fluid oscillations are reduced by the introduction of flexible tubes or bars into the main fluid line. in which the attenuation properties of over 75 mufflers and muffler combinations are measured and compared with attenuation properties calculated by acousticwave theory. the use of closedend branches. Results of this study show large attenuation of pressure perturbations at discrete frequencies for which the branch length is an odd multiple of quarterwave length. kerosene. mufflers (or filters). In the third group of attenuators. In reference 13. a small viscosity effect is shown for such liquids as water. 3 . Considerable knowledge about these devices is contained in the comprehensive investigation reported in reference 15. The possibilities of these inserts producing substantial reductions in fluid oscillatory pressures over a wide frequency range are discussed in reference 16.or multiplewalled tubes or for a spongerubber bar'contained within the fluid lines. Each of the branches (socalled shunt assemblies in ref. half that of the line. Equations relating pressures and flows at the ends of multiple parallel branch configurations are given in reference 6 without experimental confirmation. measured pressureperturbation ratios agree closely with analytical predictions of these ratios which are based on acousticwave theory for nonviscous fluid in a hydraulic line with a branch located at the midpoint of the line and having a length equal to. Two different types of constriction (shunt element) are evaluated. These devices may be roughly classified in three groups: branch resonators. In reference 14. it is shown that a large number of short branch resonators.In reference 11. alcohol. and transmission theory is shown to predict accurately the attenuation constant and the ratio of downstreamtoupstream pressures. The second group of fluid perturbation attenuators consists of mufflers of various types introduced into a hydraulic line and includes single or multiple expansion chambers and parallel branch configurations. 14) has a small accumulator at the closed end and a flow constriction near the branch junction. which shows that elastic pipeline walls exert considerable influence on the spatial propagation of the modes of a viscous fluid. The relation between conduit flexibility and fluid viscosity is discussed in reference 12. In the first group. the results are also applicable to liquids as long as viscosity and compressibility differences between gases and liquids are taken into account. or standpipes. in which test results are reported for single. This implies essentially complete reflection of waves at the branch junction and no wave motion downstream from this point. References 13 to 16 are concerned with various attenuating devices used to reduce oscillations in fluid lines. closely spaced relative to the wave length of the sinusoidal disturbance. and internal dampers. and others having a low value of v.
The finiteelement approach allows for fluidstructural coupling due to both lateral and longitudinal motions of the pipes and can also approximate the effects of filters. in the system. which are shown in parentheses following the International System of Units. It should be noted that both of these analytical methods involve linear theory. Reference 13 provided the initial stimulus for the branchpipe tests with one. reported herein. and results of these two tests are compared with each other and with results of the straight line without a muffler. In the first of these analytical studies. and direct comparison of analytical results with test results is not possible because the amplitudes and pressures in the test program were sufficiently large to be considered nonlinear. the procedures described in reference 13 for a singlebranch configuration are applied herein to obtain interterminal pressure and flow ratios for systems with more than one branch. \ Muffler tests were made for two distinct expansion chambers of the same volume but with differing internal flow arrangements.S. This work. The test program was complemented by calculations based on the acousticwavetheory presentations of references 4 and 13 for branchpipe configurations and also on a finiteelement model utilizing the NASTRAN computer program.In support of an investigation of the aircraft accident mentioned earlier. In addition. or oscillatory pressure pulses. Customary Units. vibration tests were made on a Ushaped closedend pipe in order to study structuralfluid interactions. consisted of a test program and limited analytical studies. SYMBOLS The measurements and calculations were made in the U. c d speed of sound in hydraulic fluid diameter of hydraulic fluid in main pipe . along with interesting results. introduced at "one end of the line by two different shaker configurations. Hydraulic fluid at moderatetohigh static pressure levels was subjected to ripples. Vibration tests were conducted on straight liquidfilled pipes with and without standpipe branches located at various points along the pipe. but some results were obtained with an accumulator at this end. SI. Reference 17 contains the essentials of this approach. two. Most of the tests were conducted with the downstream end of the main line capped. or three branches at various distances from one end of the main pipe and with two branches at a common junction. and also with and without mufflers in the pipe. the Langley Research Center evaluated various fluid dampers and studied fluid pressure responses in hydraulic lines subjected to oscillatory disturbances. as well as branch resonators.
1%.K t>. P(l) pressure perturbation amplitude at ith station along main pipe (i = 1. 2. respectively) pressure perturbation amplitude at closed end of branch (see figs. U^ UTD L. (9) and (32)) I l±. PO j. £4 P(x) PQ PE P. w/277. P(0) exit pressure perturbation amplitude. also eqs. respectively. respectively) velocity perturbation amplitude at branch inlet (see figs. dm diameter of hydraulic fluid in kth and mth branch pipes (see figs. refer ence pressure for branched configurations pressure perturbation amplitude at branch inlet (see figs.. 32 and 36.K U(x) U . respectively. m UA k. 12. 32 and 36. 32 and 36. 32 and 36. total length of main pipe lengths along main pipe (see figs. respectively) velocity perturbation amplitude at closed end of branch (see figs. Hz ' ^m length of kth and mth branches (see figs.r . 32 and 36. 3) peaktopeak pressure fluctuation of main pipe without branches. U(0) PA k. n m i5. also eqs. (14) and (31)) frequency. 34 to 50) pressure perturbation amplitude at station x along main pipe inlet pressure perturbation amplitude.> UJ3. respectively) velocity perturbation amplitude at station x along main pipe inlet velocity perturbation amplitude. 32 and 36. P^ m VD L> PTS JI).
2rf.) These pressures were measured at discrete frequencies ranging from less than 100 Hz to over 900 Hz. (5)) mass density of hydraulic fluid frequency. hydraulic fluid (low viscosity) was excited by pressure pulsations introduced at one end of a hydraulic line" that was capped at the other end for most of the tests.UE x y Z Z™ Hi z(x) p u> .Two separate test systems were used in this study and are shown schematically in figures 1 and 2. (Pressure transducer 2 failed early in the test program. In the present test program. pc exit impedance dimensionless impedance at station x (see eq. and resonant frequencies were located approximately within the discretefrequency intervals. . and particularly the inletflow profile. Test setups.895 MN/m^ (1000 psi) and offset from the main line by means of Tjoints at the locations indicated in figures 1 and 2. exit velocity perturbation amplitude longitudinal coordinate of main pipe (see fig. precluded quantitative determination of relationships between oscillatory fluid pressures and velocities. not only at the inlet but also elsewhere in the system. 32) branch coordinate (see fig. oscillatory pressures were measured to determine attenuation magnitudes and frequencies for various single. Lack of sufficient instrumentation for measuring flow rates. 32) characteristic impedance of hydraulic fluid.involves the installation of branch resonators or dampers along and perpendicular to the main line of fluid flow. Longitudinal and lateral pipe motions were constrained as much as possible in both systems in an effort to isolate fluid resonances from structural pipe resonances. In each system.. rad/sec EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION Hydraulic Line With Branch Resonators As is shown in references 13 and 14.and multiplebranch systems. and oscillatory pressure amplitudes were measured by means of resistancewire straingage transducers statically calibrated to 6.also called pump ripple . one method for reducing oscillations caused by a pump in a hydraulic system .
The downstream end of the line was closed at the vacuum pumpdown valve.1 attenuation (75. Results. an attempt was made to hold peaktopeak pressure fluctuations (double amplitude) constant at the inlet throughout the frequency range. the volume disturbance did not remain constant because of the resilience of the diaphragm. In tests with branches. In this apparatus. Pressure fluctuations at the station closest to the downstream end of each branch configuration (pressure transducer 3 in figs. As shown in figure 2. the rootmeansquare (rms) current value to the servovalve was adjusted to the values used in the test without branches. This trend is shown in figure 3 by the circular symbols which represent pressure fluctuations in the station closest to the inlet in the line without branches. 5). and the ratio PS/PS r is shown as a function of frequency..34 MN/m^ (1500 psi) in the setup of figure 2. the points in figs. 3 to 20 are not connected.34 MN/m^ (700 to 1500 psi) in the setup of figure 1 and was about 10.825 to 10. 8. Since the back pressure on the servovalve does affect the flow into the system.) These results indicate that for a singlebranch configuration with a quarterwavelength. Here a diaphragm ripple generator was connected to a large electrodynamic shaker.to 90percent reduction in pressure) is possible within the region of the branch resonant frequency (area indicated by arrows in figure). displacements at higher frequencies up to the maximum g levels of the shaker. In the test setup of figure 1. depending on whether the shutoff valve at the end of line was open or closed. and 14). and it was possible to hold the displacement of the diaphragm constant for frequencies up to 650 Hz. resonator located closest to the inlet (fig. In order to gain better control of the input forcing function. However. The use of two or more dampers of dif . but reduced. it should be noted that even with a constant displacement. it is evident that the forcing function did not remain constant.25 to 0. due to the power limitation of the servovalve. the level of inlet pressure fluctuations dropped off as the frequency increased. It was also possible to obtain constant.The static pressure level ranged from 4. 3. however. an accumulator was attached at the end of line. . 0. 1 and 2) are divided by pressure fluctuations at the corresponding station on the pipe without branches (figs.Results of tests with branch resonators are presented in figures 4 to 7 for the apparatus of figure 1 (test system I) and in figures 8 to 20 for the apparatus of figure 2 (test system n). the test setup shown in figure 2 was devised. (Because resonant frequencies were only approximately located. the fluid in the system was excited by a hydraulic shaker with its driving cylinder locked and the pressure pulses into the fluid controlled by a servovalve. Tests were made with the accumulator included or excluded.
Test apparatus. the Quincke tube (e. it consists of a series of resonating chambers interconnected by impedance flow tubes and combines the salient features of the Helmholtz resonator (e. Other results show the effects of two branches at the same location and of branch entrance. For the first of these effects. the attenuations were higher over upper and lower frequency ranges than in the middle (fig.. Moreover. whereas with the rounded branch inlet. or filters. 10.g. 12). however. 1). The largest frequency range with maximum attenuations was obtained for the threebranch configuration of figure 7. ref. The systems with branches show a somewhat reversed tendency. 20. with the 90° bend in the branch near its inlet.g. and 17. 16. more highlevel discretefrequency pressure peaks with the accumulator than without it (compare figs. and 20. 16. in which branches of different lengths were located at wellseparated positions along the length of the main pipe. 17. Moreover.ferent wavelengths extends the attenuation of pressure fluctuations over wider frequency ranges (see figs. 9. in the hydraulic line. the attenuation was higher in the middle frequency range than over the upper and lower ranges (fig. 11). and 13 with figs. and 13 with figures 14. . there appears to be no consistent significant effect of the accumulator on pressure attenuations for the systems with branches. 8 and 14). that is. respectively). The effects of the accumulator in the system can be seen in a comparison of figures 8. 3) and a lowpass acoustic filter. there appear to be fewer highlevel pressure peaks with the accumulator included (open) than without it (accumulator closed). in which pressure fluctuations were measured and compared for three systems: a 8 . ref. 11. 15. 9. Concerning the branchinlet effect. 15. figures 11 and 12 indicate opposite results for a 90° bend and a rounded inlet. In the system without branches (figs. the singlebranch configuration resulted in higher attenuations.A smaller model of the filter was made available for the present tests. that is.. Part of the experimental work undertaken in this study involved the evaluation of a commercial pulsation damper which was considered for installation in the prototype aircraft that crashed and was to be placed in the hydraulic line as close to the pump as practicable. Hydraulic Line With Mufflers Another means of attenuating pumpripple pressures is by use of mufflers. 10. According to the manufacturer of this filter. the peak pressure levels are lower with the accumulator open than with it closed. 11. comparison of figure 13 with figure 9 shows less variation in pressure peaks over the full frequency range for the twobranch configuration than for the singlebranch configuration with larger branch diameter. 6 and 7) and also reduces the boost in pressure fluctuations at frequencies above and below the branch resonant frequencies.
Results of muffler tests. The variation of measured pressure fluctuations with frequency for the system with the commercial damper installed is shown in figure 23. The ripple generator consisted of a 1. At frequencies above 500 Hz.) diameter piston which was driven by a 133.) long with a 0. This line was restrained from moving by means of rigid clamps at each end. The hydraulic line was similar to that of figure 2 and was 342. The reduced response amplitudes apparent at the higher frequencies in figure 22(b) are attributable to the smaller amplitude of the ripplegenerator piston at these frequencies. Results obtained with a single expansion chamber are given in figure 24.) outside diameter and a 0. the ratio of outlet pressure to inlet pressure for both the commercial damper and the single expansion chamber are plotted as functions of frequency. the force limitation of the shaker combined with the mass of the driving coil restricted the maximum acceleration of the driving piston to 60g. closedend hydraulic line with no damper. Moreover.) for frequencies up to 490 Hz. the frequency range is wider than that of any of the branched systems considered.The ripple pressures (single amplitude) of the hydraulic line without a muffler are shown as functions of frequency in figure 22. and the third transducer (P^j was located near the closed end of the line. as indicated in figure 21.straight. The commercial damper clearly provides greater attenuation over a wider frequency range than does the expansion chamber.0 in. Above this frequency.9 cm (135. As may be seen. Dimensions of the three test systems are given in figure 21. the piston was driven through a constant oscillatory amplitude of ±0. In figure 25. Either damper is seen to provide appreciable attenuation of pressure pulsations over a wide frequency range.1245cm (0.4kN (30 000lb) force electrodynamic shaker. the same system with the commercial filter installed near the ripple generator. the pressure pulsations at the muffler outlet and near the end of the closed line (Po) are extremely low. the ripple pressure at the muffler outlet /P^) is less than that at the muffler inlet (P^\ throughout the frequency range. and the closedend pipe with a single expansion chamber having the same volume as the commercial unit and also located near the ripple generator. For ease of fabrication. and pressure fluctuations downstream from the muffler are also very low at frequencies above 600 Hz. the inside diameter of the single expansion chamber muffler was made somewhat smaller than the diameter of the commercial muffler.0025 in. The sharp .) thick wall. Two of these transducers were located near the inlet tP]} and outlet fa^) of the mufflers.953cm (3/8in. The commercial damper is effective down to about 200 Hz and the expansion chamber to about 375 Hz.. For these tests.049in.0635 mm (±0. This necessitated a longer cylindrical chamber in order to keep its volume equal to that of the commercial muffler. Three pressure transducers were installed in the line.91cm (3/4in.
This is particularly evident in the low frequency (structural) range of figures 27 and 28.89mm (0. A structural resonance of this system occurred at about 167 Hz and a fluid resonance at 515 Hz. A somewhat similar behavior accounts for the peak in P^/P. Pressure fluctuations are shown in figures 27 and 28 as functions of frequency for the same input displacements to the ripple generator for supported and unsupported conditions. supporting the tube at the locations indicated in figure 26 resulted in decreased levels of pressure fluctuations in the vicinity of both structural and fluid resonant frequencies. &/ i near 400 Hz for the commercial damper. at this frequency.635cm (1/4in.035in. 10 . Aluminum tubing of 0. UTube Configuration The experiments reported thus far are concerned with fluid resonances and their attenuation.presented in reference 4 and applied in reference 13 to a hydraulic line with a singlebranch resonator is utilized herein to calculate inlettoexit perturbation pressure and flow ratios for a pipe with more than one branch resonator. ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION The acousticwave theory.) outside diameter and 0. with hydraulic fluid supplied through the shutoff valve indicated in the lower part of figure 26.) wall thickness was used. In an effort to determine the effect of tube motion on pressure fluctuations. Figure 29 compares response amplitudes at the deflection target for two input ripple displacements for the configuration shown in figure 26 in the unsupported condition. Tests were intended to determine whether or not anchoring the hydraulic system of the prototype aircraft previously referred to would significantly reduce pressure fluctuations due to pump ripple. as may be seen in figure 24. The Utube was excited by the electrodynamic shaker and ripple generator (test system II in fig.pressure ratio peak at 735 Hz for the expansion chamber is attributed to the sharp drop in P. The fact that doubling the input displacements caused only small differences in response amplitudes near the structural resonance suggests that the general level of amplitudes (and pressures) are high enough to be considered nonlinear. 2). and oscillatory pipe deflections were measured at the center of the vertical leg by means of an optical wedge (deflection target). the Utube configuration shown in figure 26 was assembled with both fixed and removable pipe anchors as shown. Oscillating pressures were measured at stations 1 and 2 along the horizontal legs. Tests were conducted with all anchor locations fixed (supported) and with some anchors removed at the locations indicated (unsupported). As can be seen.
u(0) (ZE + zo)e ° .Basic assumptions include fluid incompressibility.x ) + Z 0 U E sinh ^.x) + Z0UE cosh &(i . differential equations of motion relating fluid pressure and flow perturbations in a. respectively. I is the length of the line.(ZE . the existence of undamped acoustic waves within the system. for pressure and velocity perturbations P(x) and U(x) at any station x along the line in response to a sinusoidal pressure input at one end of the pipe. The input forcing frequency is denoted by w. ZE is the impedance at the downstream end of the line. Equations (1) and (2) may also be written as P(x) = PE cosh } g . and Zo is the characteristic impedance pc where p is the mass density of the fluid. Cosh Hft IT (5) _ x) • 11 .(ZE  u(x) .x) Dividing equation (3) by equation (4) gives the dimensionless impedance (3) (4) z(x) = ^Hft _ x ) + ±2.x) Z0U(x) = PE sinh ^ (l .straight pipe are solved to give jcu(^x) jco(Zx) c (ZF + Zn]e c + (ZF . Straight Pipe Relations In reference 4.2> L^. neglect of longitudinal motion of the pipe itself.z o) e . ( i .Z n )e P(x) = U(0)Z 0 iJi. c is the fluid sonic speed. and negligible velocity of mean fluid flow relative to fluid sonic speed.21 (1) (ZE + zo)e c . The positive and negative exponentials represent transmitted and reflected waves in the pipe.(l .
k cosh £(hk .y) + z0uB. Assuming the branch coordinate to be given by y as shown in figure 32.) ' (7) from which the wellknown fundamental organ pipe frequency f = £• is obtained when n = 1 for a pipe open at one end and closed at the other. the fluid velocity perturbation Ug = 0.. The corresponding pressure perturbation distribution along the pipe is readily obtained from equation (3) which.k sinh ^(hk . The continuity conditions require that the pressures in all parts of the junction be equal and that the mass flow of fluid into the junction from upstream be equal to the mass flow into the branch pipe and downstream portion of the main pipe. together with conditions of continuity of pressure and flow at a junction between the main pipe and a branch.x) = j cot g(l . and resonances are indicated by the uncapped peaks of PTT/PQ at odd integral multiples of the organpipe frequency. for the capped pipe.x) .If the pipe is capped at x = I. equations (3) and (4) may be applied to give = PB.k ^sh f (hk . Branch Pipe Equations Equations for terminal perturbation pressure and flow ratios in hydraulic lines with straight branches at right angles to the main pipe may be developed by application of equations (1) to (4). z(0) = 0 is satisfied by . whence the impedance p • becomes infinite.y) + Z 0 U B)k sinh (hk . and equation (5) reduces to z(x) = coth (l . (6) When x = 0. reduces to the simple relation E Variations of this ratio and its inverse with frequency are shown in figures 30 and 31 for x = 0.y) (10) 12 .y) (9) z0uk(y) = PB.
2 where. respectively. the subscripts k. terminal pressure and flow ratios can be obtained in the manner described in reference 13 and may be written as shown in figure 33. k.k sinh &(hk . k + — k. With the branch assumed capped.2) shown in figure 34 can be developed from the singlebranch equations written in the form 13 . .) branch. and the subscripts A. .y) At the junction of the branch and the main pipe.For the singlebranch configuration illustrated in figure 33. 2 identify conditions just downstream of the junction. as shown in figure 32. The inside pipe diameters of the main and branch pipes are denoted by d and d^. Ug ^ = 0 and equations (9) and (10) reduce to p cosh B. . k = 1. where Pg ^ and Ug ^ are pressure and velocity pertur bations at the free end of the branch (point B in fig. the continuity conditions of pressure and flow may be written as — . Equations for the terminal pressure and flow ratios for the twobranch configuration (k = 1.k identify conditions at the branch entrance (y = 0). (13). . 2.for the kth (k = 1. dividing through by the cross sectional area of the main pipe gives equation (14) in somewhat more convenient form as follows: Series of branches. (12). the subscripts k..k (hk (12) Z0Uk(y) = PB. where equations (11). 1 identify conditions in the main pipe just upstream of the junction.l4— A . and (15) have been used with k = 1. 32) and hk is the branch length.
r + ^ tanh . +Z 2 sinh c (.2 > B. —— j~3 "o cosh . A.2. • U /.Ug for the singlebranch configuration are replaced by PQ i.2 identify conditions downstream from the second junction. . 2 P jo>h 2 = cosh —T2 (20) B. <v . \ sinh WZi + £«) + i &> i r. c c Z oU2. Between the second junction and the end of the main pipe in figure 34. i.18) Z u o . . • i• itanh i—i sinh i^i sinh (16) sinh&p! + L +  tanh • cosh — cosh . . y = 0 and from equations (11) and (12) for k = 2.cosh . At the branch entrance station A. —T. 2.= cosh c . 9 c \ j. c . + £ +  Vd / tanh —i sinh — c o s h —£. i. equations (3) and (4) may be applied to give the perturbation ratios 2.2 . . oj cosh .Uo i for the twobranch system at the main branch station 2.2 = sinh + =— irTT ^ ^TT ^ (19) where subscripts 2.2 = sinh (21) 14 . cosh (17) where Pg. .1 just upstream from the second junction.
2 _ P P E A.2 PE P A.2 PE cosh o A.2 2.2 = tanh c J B.2P 2.3) of figure 35 can be developed in a similar manner from the twobranch equations written in the form P Q = P3.l{c°sh¥(h+l2+h)+& cosh Z3) do tanh — cosh sinh sinh sinh sinh tanh  sinh ^ sinh do] tanh jwho sinh sinh sinh (25) 15 .£ } tanh P E Z u o 2.1 J •^= ^ ^ ' + „ ' = { .2 PE (23) /d 2 f z o u A.2 P 2.2 (24) Dividing equations (16) and (17) each through by Pg for the twobranch configuration and substituting equations (18).2 PE P A.2 /d2f 'u 0U2.2 PB.2P A. (19).2_ PB.Combining equations (13) and (15) with equations (20) and (21) gives P B.2 E Z U 2.2 Z o u 2.2.2 _ P B.l _ PB. Equations for terminal pressure and flow ratios for the threebranch configuration (k = 1. and (24) for the ratios P2 i/Pg and Z O U 2 j/Pg leads to the twobranch terminalratio equations given in figure 34.2 (22) Z U o A.
and (29) for the ratios Pg jP and ZU. sinh c ZE (27) Z u ___ o 3. (24)) is found to be 3. 16 .1 just upstream from the third branch junction. Between the third junction and the end of the main pipe in figure 35..and twobranch pipes.Ug for the doublebranch system are replaced by P$ 1>^3 1 a* station 3.\2 # tanh c cosh tanh cosh sinh + cosh * + 0U35 ! cosh tefa + 12 + h) + tanh cosh sinh ^ + 2 T/ tanh c sinh  tanh —i cosh ^ sinh ^ a. the flow relation for the third junction (analogous to eq.2 identify conditions just downstream from the third junction.Z U o 0 •= 3. (28). equations (3) and (4) may again be applied to give the ratios •3.2 = Cosh — + .j /P equations given in figure 35.l ' P sinh i tanh H cosh 'd. Proceeding in the manner used for the one.2 = sinh cosh (28) where the subscripts 3. leads to the o U. + cosh Igfa + 12] (26) where Pg.2 ^jtanh c (29) Dividing equations (25) and (26) each by Pg for the three branch configuration and suband Z stituting equations (27).
Branches at a common junction. the continuity relations of equations (13) and (15) may be written as (30) M .The same procedure described in the preceding section can be applied to the system with more than one branch at the same junction with the main pipe.m Z QUA. .m+UD (3D P (32) B. In the notation of figure 36.m Applying equations (3) and (4) to mainpipe sections on either side of the junction results in the following: (34) ZU (35) P D = u cosh J wZ 2  Z o S• +  Z0U n ° D = sinh PE c ^+7r°cosh ZE 0 ^ (37) 17 .m P = sinh q^S (33) B.2 U < \f X ' m= 1 For the mth branch A.
In all calculations. The speed of sound in the hydraulic fluid was chosen as 1. Z jwZ 1 r 0Ur ^2_Q o_C = sinh _1 cogh . and (40) into equations (41) and (42) gives the equations shown in figure 36. the downstream end of the main pipe was assumed to be closed.From equations (30) to (32). and 37 to 50.L_1 P P c P c E E E 42 Substitution of equations (36). the terminal pressure ratios are given only by the real parts of the equations in figures 33 to 36 for PQ/PE> anc* uncapped pressure ratios occur at particular frequencies in the plots of figures 30./sec). Analytical Results Perturbation terminal pressure ratios were calculated for each of the branchresonator configurations tested in the experimental program and also for some conceptual configurations.m ^E ••" " E B. whence the impedance Zg is infinite at this point.m E E P E m=l  (40) Equations (34) and (35) may be written as Z 0 U n PC jwZ. Thus. 31. (37).237 km/sec (48 700 in. P R m P R m P A rn P R m Pn 1 Pr> 'E ^A. 18 .
nearly corresponding experimental ratios from figure 3 for test system I shows fair agreement between experimental and analytical trends for frequencies up through the first resonance and beyond but poor agreement near and above the second resonance. These discrepancies may be partially due to the fact that more precise values of resonant frequencies were not actually determined either for these tests or. Within a 100Hz frequency range.' ^e e^ec^ °* branch location on this resonant frequency appears to be opposite for the two test systems. such as shown in figure 38. that is. Despite these deficiencies. 791. and 42). however tenuous.As previously noted. figure numbers of the analytical plots are matched with the corresponding figure numbers of the experimental plots in table 1. the pressure ratios in figures 30 and 31 for test systems I and II were computed from the simple cosine relation of equation (8) with x = 0. Main pipe with branches. which are linear. the overall fluid resonant response behavior of these pipes without branches seems well enough understood to permit some appraisal of attenuation capabilities of the branched systems. approximate agreement is indicated in experimental and analytical frequencies for resonances (PE/PO ~~ °°)anc* maximum attenuations ( !PE /PQ = OJ. 615.. 440.. and 968 Hz. as indicated by the generally discontinuous rise in PQ/PE anc* corresponding zero value of PE/PO a* ^s frequency. the minimum value of PE/PO *s ^/^ rather than zero owing to the finite limit of the product tan ——=• sin — — cos —=• for h^ = Zj = 1% in the equation for given in figure 33.Direct comparison between analytical and experimental pressure ratios is not generally possible because of the large pressure amplitudes of the test program in contrast to the analytical pressure amplitudes. 39. 264. this closest resonance tends to be farther removed from the frequency of maximum attenuation 19 . 40. for test system II with the branch near an end of the main pipe (figs. the attenuation of this system clearly remains nearly at a relative maximum (PE/PO ~ ^/^) over a wide range of frequencies (about 200 Hz) in contrast to the other single branch configurations for which pressure perturbations are attenuated over narrower frequency bands with one resonant frequency very close to the discrete frequency of maximum attenuation (PE/PO = . Because the same branch length was used in all these cases. analytical resonances occurred for system I at 203 Hz and 609 Hz and for system II at 88. Moreover. However. For an equilateral system.In order to facilitate these comparisons. A somewhat similar observation may be made for test system II which had the same number of experimental and analytical resonant peaks up to 900 Hz and deteriorating agreement between experimental and analytical resonant frequencies above the first resonance. Main pipe without branches. maximum attenuation of the pressure perturbation occurred at 406 Hz. for tests of the branched configurations. Comparison of terminal pressure ratios in figure 30 with the.Variations of analytical pressure ratios with frequency for the single branch test systems are presented in figures 37 to 42. as is evident by comparing figures 8 and 31.
he and Carl M. Results for test system I with two branches appear in figure 43 and show frequencies of maximum attenuation at 406 Hz and 609 Hz corresponding to the longer and shorter of the two branches. and crosssectional diameter.2 cm (30. Variations of pressure ratios with frequency for systems with branches 20 . Indeed. in addition to another to be discussed. reduced values !PE/PO occurred near 406 Hz and from about 850 to 950 Hz. The effects on analytical pressure perturbations of additional branches in series are shown in figures 43 and 44 (corresponding to figs. as figure 44 shows. with each branch length equal to the longest branch length in figure 44 (76. Results of other branched systems.Pressureperturbation ratios were also calculated for a number of other branched systems featuring arbitrary variations in branch length. minimum PE/PO values moved from the 600.and threebranch combinations in series.)). 41). Here the effect of a smaller branch diameter than main diameter is included. These results suggest that pressure attenuations can be extended over a wider frequency range by adding more branches of different lengths.. and PE/PO = ° from about 60° to 75° HzThis last uninterrupted 150Hz frequency range of maximum attenuation resembles a similar experimental behavior shown in figure 7.than with the branch near the middle (fig. location. respectively. Blade of NASA Lewis Research Center in official correspondence. and the analytical pressure perturbations are very similar to those shown in figure 41 for the singlebranch configuration with equal branch and mainpipe diameters. 14) show the effectiveness of a special distributedbranch system in reducing pressure perturbations to a very low continuous level over a maximum frequency range. Results for two equal branches at a common junction are shown in figure 45.0 in. Comparison of figure 46 with figure 44 indicates that holding the branch length the same in a threebranch configuration had the effect of shifting the maximum pressureratio attenuations to another frequency band. A possible extrapolation of this idea is a large number of closely spaced branches distributed along the main pipe as suggested by Robert J. suggest that multiple branches at a common junction with the main pipe may not be. The presence of a third branch extended the range even farther. Attenuated pressure perturbations are indicated over a frequency range of about 300 Hz interrupted by a resonance at 485 Hz.to 600Hz range in figure 46. That is. 6 and 7 for experimental results). 37 and 38).to 750Hz range in figure 44 to the 400.as effective pressure attenuators as branches in series. Here. whereas a reverse tendency is indicated for test system I (figs. Figures 46 to 48 show theoretical pressure ratios for particular two. Holland (ref. These results. with the third frequency of maximum attenuation equal to 725 Hz. Sample results of these calculations are presented in figures 46 to 50 and give some indication of the sensitivity of system attenuation to these properties.
' CONCLUDING REMARKS An investigation of fluid resonance and its attenuation in highpressure hydraulic lines is reported. Limited applications of acoustic wave theory to the branched systems are also included. branching from a main pipe. depending on the number and location of branches along the main hydraulic line. or standpipes. certain structural fluid interactions were explored in a closed end Utube. These reductions were somewhat less but still significant when the branch was located near the middle of the 21 . and the other type was a fluid muffler installed in the main pipe line.2 cm (6. Maximum reductions in pressure perturbations for the single branch configuration were obtained with the branch near the main inlet or near the exit. The study was aimed at understanding fluid vibrations in simplified hydraulic systems and evaluating two different types of fluid pulsation dampers. with conventional hydraulic fluid excited by a 1000Hz range of oscillatory disturbances at one end of a system that was closed at the other end. and comparison of the two figures shows generally better attenuation characteristics because of this change. Figures 49 and 50 show the effects of increasing the number and the diameters of branch resonators located at a common junction on the main pipe. Results for the branched systems show varying attenuations of pressure perturbations. Figure 50 reveals a similar effect of increasing branch diameters. In figure 47. in which a combination of three closely spaced . Comparison of figures 49 and 45 shows that reduced pressure ratios Pg /Pgl were obtained over slightly wider frequency ranges near the maximum attenuation frequency as the number of branches was increased.) from point E. The pressure response characteristics in both figures are clearly similar to those in figure 45. the two branch configuration of figure 43 has simply been shifted toward the capped end so that £3 is 15. or attenuators. Other results (not shown) indicate smaller frequency bands of attenuated pressure ratios with this branch combination close to the inlet and near the middle of the main pipe. The resonance of 591 Hz in figure 47 appears to be sharply defined and may therefore not have as adverse an effect on pressure attenuation as resonances extending over wider frequencies. branches of equal length are located close to point E and there are two sharply defined resonances at 355 and 465 Hz within the frequency band of highest attenuation. One of these types featured one or more closedend tubes. In addition.0 in. Somewhat similar effects are evident for the threebranch system of figure 48. with over even lower values of wider frequency bands interrupted by more sharply defined resonances.closer to the exit (or capped) end of the main line (denoted by point E) than to the inlet end (denoted by point 0) are shown in figures 47 and 48. Most of the study involved forced vibration testing.
at different locations along main pipe). and they occurred over limited frequency ranges. June 15. Mounting an accumulator at the exit end of the main pipe without branches resulted in fewer highlevel resonant peaks than with the exit closed. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.e. and the largest frequency range containing maximum attenuation was obtained for three branches of different lengths at relatively separated positions along the main pipe. The muffler vibration tests showed that either a commercial damper with an intricate internal flow arrangement or a single expansion chamber of equivalent volume produced attenuated pressure perturbations over wider frequency ranges than those of the branched systems. The frequency range of the commercial damper was a little larger than that of the expansion chamber. Vibration tests of the Utube configuration demonstrated the need for adequately anchoring the tube structure to reduce the levels of pressure perturbations near structural andfluid resonant frequencies. 22 .main pipe. The use of more than one branch at the same location did not produce as much attenuation as did branches in series (i. Hampton. Va. Langley Research Center.. Increasing the number of branches along the main pipe from one to three resulted in large pressure attenuations over wider frequency ranges. but no significant effects of the accumulator on pressure attenuations could be observed for the branched systems.. 1973.
Univ. Trans. 201 . c. Keller. Ray.: An Experimental Determination of the Dynamic Response of a Long Hydraulic Line. NSRDC3201. Robert G. 1967. D. and Dorsch. 1969. Austin R. Ser. Blade. Mar. 3.: Dynamic Response of Fluid Lines. 8. 262. 12. 23 . Strunk. ASME. 1968. pp. J. Second ed.. Dec. 5. S. Ser.. ASME. and Oldenburger. D. 1. Basic Eng. William. pp. 1956. vol. 1963. 90.. 9. U.. 13. First ed. Carl M. Robert J. Basic Eng. Pennsylvania State Univ. ASME. Franklin Inst. Sept.: Attenuation of Sinusoidal Disturbances in Nonviscous Liquid Flowing in a Long Line With Distributed Leakage. D: J.. I960. R. Ser.REFERENCES 1. 3. pp.. D: J. 89. W. Robert J.. pp. Trans. Inc. J. NASA TN D576. E.1962. Streeter. 2. no. Robert J.1969. 109115. F. Ph. 1966. C. pp... and Holland. George R.. 589598. no.2047. Gautam: Finite Element Analysis Methods in Dynamics of Pulsatile Flow. S. Richard Dean: Longitudinal Wave Propagation in Liquid Lines of Finite Length Including the Effect of Nonlinear Boundary Conditions. and Dorsch. Robert G. Blade. and Frey. Lawrence E. 6. J. Thesis.: Attenuation of Sinusoidal Perturbations Superimposed on Laminar Flow of a Liquid in a Long Line.: Fundamentals of Acoustics..S. 4. D: J. 6. D'Souza. no. R. Regetz. vol. Chang. 1964. 782788. 11. 1969. Carl M. A.. Inc. 14. Jr. Thesis. Zielke.: Hydraulic System Analysis. Dec. L. NASA TND3563. John D..: Dynamics of Viscous Fluid Oscillations in Hydraulic Lines.: Handbook of Fluid Dynamics. 186216. D. Blade.. c. pp. McGrawHill Book Co. (Available from DDC as AD864595... vol. NASA TND3099. of Illinois. 10..: Study of the Effect of a ClosedEnd Side Branch on Sinusoidally Perturbed Flow of Liquid in a Line. John Wiley & Sons.: Wave Propagation in Viscous Fluid Lines Including Higher Mode Effects.: Transient Effects of Supply and Connecting Conduits in Hydraulic Control Systems. 1961... Jarski. ed. Hydraulics & Pneumatics Mag. 86. Lewis. 1970. and Parker. Kinsler. Jan.) 7.. NASA TND1876. Holland. vol. Ph. Victor L.: FrequencyDependent Friction in Transient Pipe Flow. Navy. 1965. Trans. Gerlach. 437452. Basic Eng.
Davis.15. 1954. Jr. D15871. George L. Jr. Stevens. pp. HighCompliance Inserts. Don D. James T. 1954.: Applications of N AST RAN to Coupled Structural and Hydrodynamic Responses in Aircraft Hydraulic Systems. and Stevens. Dewey. Moore. 407419. 24 . 1192.) 16..: Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Mufflers With Comments on EngineExhaust Muffler Design. Moore. (Supersedes NACA TN 2893 by Davis. Hewlett. Gebhardt.... and Stokes and TN 2943 by Stokes and Davis. 1971. NACA Rep. Oct. 15. NASTRAN: Users'Experiences.. Stokes. Boeing Airplane Co.: Acoustic Impedance Measurements of Liquid Filled Pipes Containing Lossy. 17. George M. George T. NASA TMX2378.
2 cm (6.) . a20 6 7 Two branches. branch. accumulator closed (i.3 cm ^ = 251. Zj = 175.).3 8 5 4 a a n II II I I !8 !9 9.) Single Single Single Single Single Single branch. downstream end closed) for all other experimental figures in table.5 in.0 in. . with 11 = ^ = 0 . a!6 10.) (98.0 in. I = 152. branch.) (69.7 cm (18.9 in.2 cm l± = 30.8 cm (138. I = 351.0 in.) (30. Z3 = 45.0 in. l± = 12 = 15".0 in.e.2 cm ^ = 76. Zj = 15.5 cm 7i = 99. a!7 Accumulator open at downstream end. 13. :'25 ..4 cm (60.3 cm (69.) (39. 6 5 d d n 45 .INDEX TO PLOTS . branch.0 cm (24.0 in.1 cm (6. l± = 15.2 cm (6.1 in.) 30 31 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Figure Analytical Experimental .) : No branches.). branch.1. Two common branches.) (12.4 cm l± = 175. branch.0 in.TABLE 1. Test •system I II I I II Configuration No branches.).) Three branches.0 in.0 in.0 in. . 12 = 6.
o 3 °J m^ 0— "••••.•• ON ""^E i 1 1 15. B.S H !H +J >i t) H O . 2U (6) . 1 —T I ' 1 •p !H 0 : 'ci > 0 > ^ <U W 0 & ^ 0 EH Hydraulic supply < 1 I ^ L1. T( p HI ve ^ Own va P ^3 Q.J. All dimensions in centimeters Branch resonator connections at stations A. v J J.."' rt 1 1 .•' ir> •. 3 § S Ld TO oJ ^ ^ & « "SO) o X! . ' 1 .SP \^ \ 26 lulic shaker system (test system I). 2k '^15.•"* C r w iT H H & : Pressure transducer 1 / CM g ^ IU _* ir> H ' OO m to B Fi <U f< Td o £ '"E < i t ^••"" CO a s * 1 ^> & iu 9 •f W P 1 4> °° oo : . C\J OJ ""^E . ' i. (6) (60) .J CM  p 5 o d ". and D. « ! i '=E ro (H 0) O t> W S Co ^i P (U O H vo > ..' i ' • i 11 /' rt •S i ^3 d I •S H 85 ^^ !H 0) M 01 ' ^«J ^ ^ a x! . C.a * ^ 03 '^ 5 ^ « "S 1 0 « M ci 0 tn 3 .Pressure transducer 2 ' rH 3 _^CO •H <d O a d3 H *""' ll H> •H *l •H & w to 0 IU Jn CM 3" 1 lf\CO . i _ _ f [. .
••' OJ OO CD OJ CO e o ^ o <u 03 27 .H Hi • W • •04''1 I tn CO (N vO O 1 oo !H 0) O 3 rrt r^ ro **^ w §0 !H ! OJ^ '"& ^£ cu a i a Is S£ p cu S CO CO "w ra o\ t— ... J— 1 3 ~l r i \ CO ! . p O p 0) LTN 3 vo t— OJ ^< ON OJ • 1—1 CO • CD VO H O rH U CO 2 ^. CO LTV • Lf\ CO ^* ^t t— ON CM ^"^ o •. . l't n.H CO 1 LT\ OO OO H LT\ ON t— .1TN OON oj <d • • O H a 3 i M a . CO LTN • t— ON OJ H . ft w o *••.U v •H H H w '"p . vo i 3 3. g e 1 ON O Q~ .S rt . "*""•. A a P. t~— LT\ . ^ « 8 La 5 4 1 I' v..
0 ~ 600 3. 500 Frequency.MW/m psi 800 5. 1).Peaktopeak pressure fluctuation versus frequency for test system I (fig.r cu on UOO • ^ * ' r ~] • ttopeak pre CO CO i\> o ° 200 0 ° "' : Q • 0" 9 § .0. E '• p •H • •> •P O 3 **.0. 1 500 QD S I 100 0 1 100 ': ' Frequency.r  0^ . 1) with no branches.) branch at station C.: o O o OO 0 1000 '3. 28 ..0in.0 c o oj r  ' ' L_! < u nn 0 pi . .0 o J_ 100 o . 2.0 O 1. singlebranch configuration with 76.2cm (30.. Hz Figure 3.. Hz Figure 4. • . .0 [^* j 0) PM t3 1.Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system I (fig.0 /**^\ (*) ***** :. " ' .Q • • .
2.0in. Hz 0 1 1000 Figure 6.r .0 3. 29 .) branch at station A and 50. singlebranch configuration with 76. twobranch configuration with 76.2cm (30.r O O Q Branch resonant region Q o o 100 500 Frequency.0 °H^ i P  100 o O 0 0 1000 0 f^'l 500 Frequency.2cm (30.u..^ vl) o Branch resonant region _ /—v v " W 1.0 O 2. Hz Figure 5. 1).Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system I (fig.0 '3.) branch at station A.0in.o 0 3..) branch at station C.0in. 1).8cm (20.Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system I (fig.0 r 0 1.
0in. Hz (?) i 1000 Figure 7. Hz Figure 8. t 1 . o '""<•?> i kv:v:vT) 01 500 Frequency. 30 .0in.0 0 0 3. 2) with no branches. 0 200 •a <u 0 0 100  O o o 0 ft p 0 •a 0) 5 (§>• I 100 500 1 1000 Frequency.5 0 2.8in..r ^Lc Branch 0region r / » " .Peaktopeak pressure fluctuation versus frequency for test system II (fig.6cm (16.. and 42. threebranch configuration with 50.2. 1).) branch at station C.) branch at station A.8cm (20. psi 1*00 r a o 2.0 300 % p o CO 0 en 0) ft . 76.) branch at station B.Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system I (fig.2cm (30. accumulator closed.
o _ '3. 2). Hz Figure 10.r "(§) 1 {^'(jt\rJ/  100 500 1000 Frequency.Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system II (fig.Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system II (fig.0in. accumulator closed.0 _ Q Q 0 00 ° .r 0 O "<§?o 100 ooo 1 G£ J 500 1000 Frequency.0 Q 0 '3.) branch at station C. Hz Figure 9. accumulator closed. singlebranch configuration with 76.2cm (30.0 r °o i. . 0 0 1.) branch at station D.0in. 2.0r " '. 31 .. singlebranch configuration with 76.2cm (30. 2).2.
r O 0° 0' 0 100 500 I 1000 Frequency.Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system n (fig.2cm (30. 90° bend in the branch near its inlet.. 2).o 3..O '3.2cm (30. singlebranch configuration with 76. 2. Hz Figure 12.2.0 o 0 o oo 1 •• 500  i.r •<§> o Frequency j Hz 100 1000 Figure 11.0in.) branch at station C. accumulator closed. 32 .) branch inlet at station C. 2).0ih. rounded branch inlet. singlebranch configuration with 76.0 r oo l.Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system II (fig. accumulator closed.
0. twocommonbranch configuration with 0.Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system n (fig... accumulator open. diameter.0 o© 100 o I 500 Frequency. 1000 Figure 14.0 i I 100 500 Frequency.2. Hz 1000 Figure 13.0 0) •a •a <u PM ••200 1.. 76.635cm (1/4in. tn ft 2. 33 . Hz. * on ^ a o u MN/m 3.0in.) outside .Peaktopeak pressure fluctuation versus frequency for test system II (fig.2cm (30. accumulator closed. 2) with no branches.) branches at station C.— psi itOO 0 O.. 2).
standard Tjoint.) branch at station C. Hz Figure 15.0in.3.r 1. singlebranch configuration with 76.0 o h 0 _© O I 2.0 o © o 000 '3. 34 .. 2).2cm (30.Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system II (fig. accumulator open.0 o o 100 60 1000 500 Frequency.
) branch at station C.3. 90° bend at branch inlet. accumulator open.Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system n (fig. standard Tjoint.0 o o I 500 Frequency. singlebranch configuration with 76..0 o o o o }0 "3.0in. 35 . 2).2cm (30.r 1.0 o _ o o o o o o 100 2. Hz 1000 Figure 16.
t .u O 3.0in. accumulator open..^— y^~N.0 . X**N v^X 500 1000 Frequency.r 1. 2). 2).635cm (1/4in.0 T 0 2.Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system II (fig.0 O : o P —23.) outside diameter. accumulator open.2cm (30.o r~\ \^j o.0 ° 0 u ' ° G o°o 1 1000 0 1 100 1 500 Frequency. . .Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system II (fig.) branch at station A.. oo C^\ ^/ •' 1. Hz Figure 17..0 I 0 O O \ 100 0 ° °0 O d? O 0°° 0 00 00 f "N >.r 2. singlebranch configuration with 76.) branches at station C.0 ^ _ O '3.0in. twocommonbranch configuration with 0.. 76.2cm (30.3. Hz 36 Figure 18.
0 ' O 100 o o 0 o o o 500 Frequency. 37 .k. 2).r Q 1.2cm (30.O o 3.0 0 O _Q 2..) branch at station B.0in.0 I 3. accumulator open.Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system II (fig. Hz O I 1000 Figure 19. singlebranch configuration with 76.
38 .0 o o o 0 1000 Lo o o o 500 100 Frequency. accumulator open. singlebranch configuration with 76.Pressure ratio versus frequency for test system II (fig.r 1.. Hz Figure 20.0 — o o '3.2cm (30. 2).0in.) branch at station D.0 o 3.
ir\ oo CO cu o to oo o " H OJ co n OJ PH CD O c C CU CO 0) 0) a< t— OJ a a f~l 0 ^ s ro _O O £> 0) VD OJ QJ. O t— s •a ff a 13 w •3 •H A o •H a CD rt a o 'w ^^ OJ co "^ a o in co O O • • OJ bC »! ?a 0) o .CT> O CM u"i .. 42 J. a a « 0) O .i w c co g.a rt cu a o o O a a o hfl C 5 c o d co o CO OJ • co H> cu a CO t— o [^ t^ CO 0) H CM cu (H bft ft ft •H 39 .
•equenc >> CS1 O IA § <u MH fe.CM _bD «<H CD . o J o ! e 0) n. •a • r4 rt ta o o M o £>. T! O O J 1—1 PH s tl 0 «p^ S O o ^ *+H 3 o rvi CO 0) CO CO 0) 0) CM eg CD £ be 40 .
o o s o o o\ 0) O O esi OJ t< § CM 41 .
2 3 O) ts to 0. a s o CM o CO ft T3 o c O) o 4» O rt CU 1 w 0) (U 2 I o.O) QJ co QJ a. CO CS1 CD _ O J_ I u\ o 42 . 73 a rt c .
tn co <D tf I CM (U I sxnssaad 43 .<M hi) CD 0) JH 0) • r1 o CO oi a 0) bX) CO CM PH CO TJ g (1) 0) c o d <D S.
3 o tt CD 3 <4H O CQ O i CM CD ^i » 44 .CD ^ 3 CO a 0) •s I M I •W iH ti a o CD a <u g.
0) u CU a CO u CO 0) w (U h 0) u co O 'M a £ '•a !H o o o t» CO 01 M •s cu •4> I P HH o d fi a I 8 cu ra i 45 .•o (U 1 •s.
Downstream pressure (station 2) versus frequency for Utube configuration (see fig. l.CD Unsupported MN/m P si O Supported •H a o 1.25 •a I . Hz 500 520' 5^0 560 Figure 27..00 150 S 0 p O • 75 100 to in 0) ft 0) .OOi 150 75 100 ra in <u Pi P Unsupported G Supported 50 50 25 •a 0) Pi •a 0) I I ikO 160 I 180 200 U80 Frequency. 26).160 180 200 " k80 Frequency'. 46 . 26).50 50 ft o p I .Upstream pressure (station 1) versus frequency for Utube configuration (see fig. Hz 500 520 560 Figure 28..
25*4 mm (0.Target deflection versus frequency of two inputs for Utube configuration (see fig. 47 .0 11 •s p I I 130 150 .0 © Input. Hz Figure 29.mm 3. 0. 26). 170 190 Frequency..127 mm (0.005 in.010 in.) a o 2.) El Input 0.
).. 48 .0 in.Perturbation pressure ratios for test systerrv I (fig. I = 152. 1) without branches. 2 O Experimental 200 400 600 800 1000 Frequency. Hz Figure 30..4 cm (60.Analytical J.
.Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system n (fig.8 cm (138. 2) without branches.).. I = 351. 49.5 in. Hz 600 1000 Figure 31.200 400 Frequency.
B, k
— d,
,k
0 f~
k.l k.2
Figure 32. Geometry of the kth branch.
l
Oscillatory force ^jo
d 2 
1,1 1.2 tan sin cos
= cos
d wh l\ tan ^i l sin ^ sin f \rl
2 U
o Q _ zo
PE
ZE
.Ui tan
sin
+J

tan —^ cos
Figure 33. Geometry and terminal perturbation pressure and velocity ratios for singlebranch configuration.
50
.' h.
e.
iB.l
__.
B.2

dj
'
l
d  *~ 2
Oscillatory
L 1
r
* > *• 2 A.l 4,
L
»• f 1 f A.2
7 3
I 1
1.1 1.2
cos tan sin
d
2,12,2
cos
=
cos
ui wni . wti . wto , . ../ _1 tan gl sin ^1 sin J  sin f fa +
J
sin

tan
sin
sin
do
A lan

Sln
.
E
^E
H ^
 fel tan >d
cos
sin
iltan
o
sin
d /
/
tan
c
cos — sin
,., . C os Ufa+ Lx 2)
J<
J
sin
tan
cos
cos
Qol
\*
COho
tan
U
U>1<:
COS
1
Tl
c^
IT
d 1 tan T^J d /
c
coii cos _! sin ^
....  COs gfa
+ 12)
Figure 34. Geometry and terminal perturbation pressure and velocity ratios for twobranch configuration.
51
B,2
•~
f~ ^~
— '^,
B.3
'
r~ h
"
U.
L — * 1 A1
i
tan
h 7
2
h.
3
"2 i A;!
. AJ
, '
L J
•*. A.3
* i "
, ..
7
4
n
l E
rorce
o .
n i ?
?i 2.2
11 12

sin
cos
tan
u)h?
tan 2*1 sin 2*1 sin 2*1 .
sin
sin
cos
tan 
cos
sin i
... . . sin Z + « ' sln
£4) 
tan
l.sin
sin
2
tan whrt 2

2 /di\.tan
sin

sln
 sin
+
.
tan
sin
sin
d o tan w1 o sln
2
T

tan whi 1 sin oiZi 1 sin ,, z,

'
,2
I, ,2
Whi <J>ll Win ... .1,
+ lf I tanjr^Hrl tan ^ cos ^ sin ^  cos £(£, + Z,)lsin £(!
sin

sin

;2
.
i, 2
sin gift
+ \fi tan,^ sin ^^i tan ^± cos ^
jsin
tan
cos
j^j
+
I2)co.
sin 2a cos 2*1
cos
cos
sln
Figure 35. Geometry and terminal perturbation pressure and velocity ratios for threebranch configuration.
52
DB.4
M
.
sin^
 sm —^ sm m=l
,2 tan
Z U
o 0 _ zo P Z E E
COS %(li
+
 cos —^ sm
M .. /d _•"* , \ Ci d x2 21 V m\ • .r uh m m > 22 * tan L \"d~ A m=l
^ d\ + to +
cos
m=l
z
M
dm r
,2 tan
Figure 36. Geometry and terminal perturbation pressure and velocity ratios for configuration with several branches at a common location (e.g., in above sketch, M = 4).
53
10 200 400 600 800 1000 Frequency. £2 = 137. Hz (a) Inlettoexit pressure ratio.).0 in.).0 in.2 cm (54. h = 76.2 cm (30.2 cm (6.0 in.). £j = 15.Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system I with single branch close to the inlet. Figure 37. 54 . .
55 .Concluded. Figure 37.200 400 600 800 1000 Frequency. Hz (b) Exittoinlet pressure ratio..
200 400 600 800 1000 Frequency.Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system I with single branch equilateral configuration..cm (30. Hz Figure 38.2 . l^ = 1% = hj = 76. 56 .0 in.).
2 cm (30.10 4  3  2  200 400 600 1000 Frequency.). Hz (a) Inlettoexit pressure ratio..). Z2 = 321.5 cm (12. Figure 39.0 in. hj = 76.3 cm (126.5 in. £j = 30.0 in.). .Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system II with single branch close to the inlet.
Figure 39. 58 .H* 2  200 400 600 800 1000 Frequency.Concluded. Hz (b) Exittoinlet pressure ratio..
). 59 .Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system II with single branch.2 cm (30. 12 = 252.0 200 400 600 800 1000 Frequency.4 in. 11 = 99. Hz (a) Inlettoexit pressure ratio.1 in.0 in. Figure 40.4 cm (39.4 cm (99. hj = 76.).). .
H <2 I 200 400 600 800 1000 Frequency. . Hz (b) Exittoinlet pressure ratio. Figure 40. 60 .Concluded.
0 in..2 cm (30.Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system II with single branch about halfway from inlet to exit.). 12 = 176.5 cm (69. Figure 41.200 400 600 800 1000 Frequency. Zj = 175. hx = 76.).. Hz (a) Inlettooutlet pressure ratio.5 in.). 61 .0 in.3 cm (69.
Figure 41..400 600 800 1000 Frequency. Hz (b) Exittoinlet pressure ratio.Concluded. 62 .
Figure 42. Hz (a) Inlettoexit pressure ratio.). Zj = 251.6 cm (39.)..200 400 600 800 1000 Frequency. hj = 76.Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system II with single branch.1 cm (98.).2 cm (30.0 in.9 in.6 in. 63 . Z2 = 100.
. 64 .2 200 400 ' 600 Frequency. Hz 800 1000 (b) Exittoinlet pressure ratio.. Figure 42.Concluded.
2 cm (6. hj = 76.0 in.0 in. h2 = 50. l± = 15. Z3 = 76. 12 = 61.0 cm (24.Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system I with two branches.).10 h .2 cm (30.o ' l 1 h 2 E 200 400 Frequency.).8 cm (20.0 in. Figure 43.0 in.2 cm (30. Hz 600 800 1000 (a) Inlettooutlet pressure ratio.0 in.).).).. 65 .
h 0 l h2 E 200 400 Frequency. Figure 43.Concluded. Hz 600 800 1000 (b) Exittoinlet pressure ratio.. 66 .
7 cm (18.2 cm (6.T h^o '1 h 1 1 2 2 I3 "" I " J I h h 1 4 " 200 400 600 Frequency. . Hz 800 1000 Figure 44. h2 = 76.0 in.).2 cm (30. hj = 50. £4 = 76.0 in.8 cm (20.0 in.0 in. 67 . l\ = lz= 15.0 in.8 in. £3 = 45.Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system I with three branches.).). h3 = 42.).2 cm (30.6 cm (16.).).
). l± = 175..0 in.2 cm (30.).Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system II with two branches. hj = h2 = 76.5 in. Figure 45. Hz (a) Inlettooutlet pressure ratio.65. 68 . = 0. £2 = 176.5 cm (69.3 cm (69.400 600 800 1000 Frequency. ± = J.).0 in.
Hz (b) Exittoinlet pressure ratio. d 1 "H V h f E 1 J 1 l l d2_ 2 2 •' 200 400 600 800 1000 Frequency.. Figure 45. 69 .Concluded.0 ! < .
).).0 in.0 in. Zj = 12 = 15. 70 .0 in. hi = h2 = h% = 76.I l ' • 2 i h h 0 h 3 E 200 Frequency.0 in. . Hz 600 800 1000 Figure 46.Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system I with three branches of equal length. 1% = 45.). Z4 = 76.2 cm (30.7 cm (18.2 cm (30.2 cm (6.).
8 cm (20. Hz (a) Inlettoexit pressure ratio. Figure 47.0 in.).).0 cm (24.). hj = 76.2 cm (30.2 cm (6.0 in. 71 . Z2 = 61.0 in.).200 400 600 800 1000 Frequency.Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system I with two branches.2 cm (30.0 in.).. h2 = 50.0 in. Z3 = 15. Zj = 76.
Hz (b) Exittoinlet pressure ratio. Figure 47..Concluded. '"' "2 400 600 800 1000 Frequency. 72 .<.
0 in.).400 600 800 1000 Frequency. £]_ = 127.0 in. £4 = 5.0 cm (50.Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system I with three equal length branches near the exit. 1% = £3 = 102 cm (4.0 in. 73 .).0 in.).2 cm (30.).. hj = h2 = h3 = 76.1 cm (2. Hz Figure 48.
. = £ = 0. = hg = 76. 74 . . . .0 in.).65. Figure 49. l\ = 175.2 cm (30.).3 cm (69.5 in.5 cm (69. Hz (a) Inlettoexit pressure ratio.Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system n with six branches. £2 = 176.). i = ^ = .0 in.101 o 7 400 600 Frequency. hx = h2 = . .
P E 200 40CT Frequency..Concluded. Hz 600 800 1000 (b) Exittoinlet pressure ratio. Figure 49. 75 .
.0 in. 76 .0 in. £j = 175. . = £ = 1.Terminal perturbation pressure ratios for test system II with six branches. Hz (a) Inlettoexit pressure ratio.3  200 400 600 800 1000 Frequency.0. . ^ = ^ = .2 cm (30. . hj = h2 = .5 cm (69.). . 1% = 176.5 in.). = h6 = 76.).3 cm (69. Figure 50.
Concluded.2  1 * 400 600 800 1000 Frequency. 1973 32 L8738 77 . Hz (b) Exittoinlet pressure ratio. Figure 50. NASALangley..
sourcebooks. CONTRACTOR REPORTS: Scientific and technical information generated under a NASA contract or grant and considered an important contribution to existing knowledge. TECHNICAL TRANSLATIONS: Information published in a foreign language considered to merit NASA distribution in English. D. Technology Utilization Reports and Technology Surveys.C. . The Administration shall provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof. TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION PUBLICATIONS: Information on technology used by NASA that may be of particular interest in commercial and other nonaerospace applications. complete. Details on the availability of these publications may be obtained from: SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION OFFICE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Washington. monographs. data compilations. handbooks. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUMS: Information receiving limited distribution because of preliminary data. Also includes conference proceedings with either limited or unlimited distribution. and a lasting contribution to existing knowledge.NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON. Publications include final reports of major projects. to the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space." —NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958 NASA SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS TECHNICAL REPORTS: Scientific and technical information considered important. and special bibliographies. security classification. or other reasons.C. 2O546 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID NATIONAL A E R O N A U T I C S A N D SPACE ADMINISTRATION 451 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $3OO SPECIAL FOURTHCLASS RATE BOOK POSTMASTER : If Undeliverable (Section 158 Postal Manual) Do Not Return "The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute . Publications include Tech Briefs. . SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS: Information derived from or of value to NASA activities. TECHNICAL NOTES: Information less broad in scope but nevertheless of importance as a contribution to existing knowledge. D. 20546 .