50 views

Uploaded by Kagendren Ayan

fluids lab

fluids lab

© All Rights Reserved

- Geo Mathematics
- Lab Report v2.0
- Stokes Law and the Idea of Terminal Velocity
- Pressure Distribution around a Hollow Cylinder
- Paraglider Recovery System for the Saturn Booster
- Tutorial 1
- problemset2
- Droplet
- With Acumulator
- Formulae for Injection Molding
- Chapter6_Wind Loads.pdf
- AMI Flow Analysis Results
- Engelund_Hansen1967
- Helicopter Drag Fuselage- Combined CFD and Experimental Studies
- Assignment 2 Solutions
- grissom_06.pdf
- Cylinder Flow Sbs
- joomla.pdf
- Amicarelli Et Al 2017 IJCFD Preprint for ResearchGate
- Application of Fractional Calculus to Fluid Mechanics - FC to FLUID DYNAMICS (ASME JFE) (1)

You are on page 1of 26

SARAWAK CAMPUS

Lab Report

Prepared by:

Claudia Li Chia Chirng 4304667

Joan Caroline Yong Jun Dhing 4323483

Kagendren Sivakumar 4321677

Kong Zong Yang 4304497

2 November 2015

Table of Contents

Page

Table of Contents

1.0

1.1

Aim

1.2

Objectives

1.3

Theory

1.3.1

1.3.2

1.3.3

Drag coefficient, CD

1.3.4

1.4

Experimental Procedure

1.5

Results

1.5.1

1.5.2

1.6

Calculations

1.6.1

1.6.2

1.7

Discussion

1.8

Conclusion

2.0

Experiment 2: Sedimentation

2.1

Theory

2.2

Objectives

2.3

Experimental Procedure

2.4

Results

2.5

2.5.1

2.5.2

2.6

Conclusion

References

1.1 Aim

The aim of the two experiments that were carried out was to analyse the effect of

particle shape on the falling rates and drag coefficients.

1.2 Objectives

1. To determine the relationship of particle Reynolds number and the corresponding

drag coefficient of spheres.

2. To investigate the effect of particle shape on the rate of fall.

1.3 Theory

1.3.1 Viscosity and Drag Force

Viscosity (temperature dependant) is often referred to as the fluid property of resistance

to flow. The viscosity of liquids arises primarily due to the intermolecular forces

present within the liquid. Consider a solid sphere falling through a viscous liquid, as

illustrated below, the forces acting on the sphere are weight (W), drag force (FD) and

buoyant force (FB) respectively.

FD

FB

W

Figure 1: Schematic of the forces exerted on a solid sphere falling in a liquid in the

direction of gravity.

Drag force can be classified into two components, which are surface drag and form

drag. Surface drag comes from friction between the fluid and the surfaces over which it

is flowing. This friction is associated with the development of boundary layers, and it

scales with increase in Reynolds number. Form drag comes from the eddying motions

that are set up in the fluid by the passage of the body. This drag is associated with the

formation of a wake, and it is usually less sensitive to Reynolds number than the

frictional drag. Formally, both types of drag are due to viscosity, but the distinction is

useful because the two types of drag are due to different flow phenomena.

1.3.2 Stokes Law and Reynolds number

Stokes law relates the drag force experienced by a falling sphere to the spheres

constant velocity in a fluid of known viscosity, as shown in the equation below:

F D =3 DV

where is the fluid viscosity, V

diameter of the sphere.

D is the

Referring to Figure 1, since the sphere falls at terminal velocity as stated by Stokes law,

the acceleration will be zero. Hence, if we perform a balance of forces:

Fnet =ma

When a=0,

F D + F B W =0

Weight is defined as:

1

W =mg= s g D3

6

where m is the mass of sphere,

the density of sphere.

s is

1

3

F B= f g D

6

where

Hence, substituting these values in the force balance equation above gives us:

F D =mgF B

( s f ) g D3

1

F D=

6

3

( s f ) D

1

FD=

6

where s and f

Stokes law can only be applied if the flow is smooth and non-turbulent, that is when

there is no form drag. We can determine this smoothness by calculating the Reynolds

number.

Thus, by equating both the drag force equations above, we will be able to obtain the

experimental viscosity of the fluid being tested.

( s f ) D3

1

F D =3 DV =

6

Hence,

( s f )

V

( s f ) 2 2

= R

V

9

2

D

experimental=

18

Besides that, equating the drag forces allows us to calculate the theoretical terminal

velocities of the spheres, using the measured or theoretical viscosity of the fluid.

s

(

f)

measured

D2

V theoretical =

18

Reynolds number can be calculated as follows:

=

VD

The most satisfactory way of representing the relationship between drag force and

velocity involves the use of two non-dimensionless groups, which are Re and CD.

In theory, the drag coefficient depends on Reynolds number as shown in the plot below:

Re < 1

1 < Re < 1000

1000 < Re < 2105

Re > 2105

24

24

0.687

C D = (1+ 0.15 )

C D 0.44

C D 0.10

CD=

The graph below shows the theoretical drag coefficients vs. Reynolds number for

sphere at low Reynolds number, which was tested through this experiment.

1.3.4 Assumptions when analysing the experimental data

The experiment was conducted and the results were analysed with some assumptions in

place, hence resulting in some deviations from theoretical readings. Firstly, the settling

of spheres were not affected by the presence of other particles in the fluid. Moreover,

the walls of the containing vessel did not exert an appreciable retarding effect, and there

were no bubbles present. Lastly, the fluid was considered to be a continuous medium,

which means the particle is large compared to the mean free path of the molecules of

the fluid. Otherwise, the particle may occasionally slip between the molecules and thus

attain a velocity higher than that calculated.

1. The particle drag coefficient apparatus model FM102 was used to carry out

these experiments. The apparatus was filled with cooking oil in one glass tube

whereas with detergent in the other glass tube. The room temperature and the

viscosity of the fluids provided by the supplier were noted.

2. Then, a set of mild steel spheres and stainless steel spheres were weighed using

an electronic balance. Their respective diameters were also measured using

Vernier callipers. The readings were recorded and tabulated.

3. The mild steel spheres were dropped in the cooking oil one at a time. The

passage of the spheres between the one meter mark on the wall of the tubes

were timed using a stopwatch and recorded. Two runs for each sphere were

performed to obtain the average. These steps were then repeated using the

stainless steel spheres.

4

4. After that, the whole process of timing the passage of spheres was repeated with

detergent. All the readings were recorded and tabulated in Table 1 and Table 2

respectively.

5. Lastly, the effect of particle shape on the rate of fall was tested. The fluid used

was detergent. Two mild steel spheres and two streamline shapes of the same

material were chosen, and their mass and diameter were measured and recorded.

6. The passage of the spheres between the one meter mark on the wall of the tubes

were timed using a stopwatch and recorded. Two runs for each sphere were

performed to obtain the average. These steps were then repeated using the

streamlined shapes.

7. All the results were recorded and tabulated in Table 4.

8. Once the experiment was completed, the FM102 was unplugged and cleaned.

1.5 Results

1.5.1 Experiment A: Measurement of drag coefficients

Fluid Medium: Cooking Oil

Table 1: Measurement of drag coefficients of spheres in cooking oil

Object

Shape

Material

Mild

Steel

Sphere

Stainless

steel

Diameter, D

(cm)

Mass, m

(g)

Density.

s (kg/m3)

0.95

0.80

0.64

0.50

0.30

0.95

0.79

0.63

0.50

0.31

3.5285

2.0146

1.0431

0.5140

0.1296

3.4870

2.0417

1.0306

0.5143

0.1302

7859.97

7514.85

7599.54

7853.34

9167.32

7767.52

7908.83

7871.72

7857.93

8346.94

Specific

Weight,

s (N/m3)

77106.27

73720.67

74551.50

77041.28

89931.46

76199.39

77585.59

77221.61

77086.25

81883.48

1

Average

Velocity

(m/s)

1.09

1.16

1.19

2.00

3.53

1.19

1.40

1.53

2.53

3.63

1.00

1.13

1.19

1.94

3.47

1.38

1.59

1.60

2.34

3.72

1.05

1.15

1.19

1.97

3.50

1.29

1.50

1.57

2.44

3.68

0.96

0.87

0.84

0.51

0.29

0.78

0.67

0.64

0.41

0.27

Viscosity

(kg/m.s)

0.122

0.135

Re

CD

68.82

52.89

40.71

19.21

6.49

50.26

35.93

27.37

13.96

5.73

0.35

0.45

0.59

1.25

3.70

0.48

0.67

0.88

1.72

4.18

Gravitational acceleration, g = 9.81 m/s2

Specific weight of cooking oil, f = 9025.2 N/m3

Average s of mild steel ball = 7999.00 kg/m3

Average s of stainless steel ball = 7950.59 kg/m3

Average s of mild steel ball = 78470.23512 N/m3

Average s of stainless steel ball = 77995.26366 N/m3

6

Fluid Medium: Detergent

Table 2: Measurement of drag coefficients of spheres in detergent

Object

Shape

Material

Mild

Steel

Sphere

Stainless

steel

Diameter, D

(cm)

Mass, m

(g)

0.95

0.80

0.64

0.50

0.30

0.95

0.79

0.63

0.50

0.31

3.5285

2.0146

1.0431

0.5140

0.1296

3.4870

2.0417

1.0306

0.5143

0.1302

Density,

s

(kg/m3)

7859.97

7514.85

7599.54

7853.34

9167.32

7767.52

7908.83

7871.72

7857.93

8346.94

Specific

Weight,

s (N/m3)

77106.27

73720.67

74551.50

77041.28

89931.46

76199.39

77585.59

77221.61

77086.25

81883.48

1

5.63

5.81

8.09

19.47

45.97

6.1

8.53

13.41

20.41

49.09

2

5.75

5.75

12.18

19.28

46.44

6.38

8.31

13.43

20.29

49.12

Average

5.69

5.78

10.14

19.38

46.21

6.24

8.42

13.42

20.35

49.11

Velocity

(m/s)

0.18

0.17

0.10

0.05

0.02

0.16

0.12

0.08

0.05

0.02

Viscosity

(kg/m.s)

1.582

1.782

Re

CD

1.08

0.89

0.41

0.17

0.04

0.87

0.54

0.27

0.14

0.04

22.29

26.89

58.94

144.21

573.19

27.55

44.70

89.34

170.70

664.34

Gravitational acceleration, g = 9.81 m/s2

Specific weight of detergent, f = 10006.2 N/m3

Average s of mild steel ball = 7999.00 kg/m3

Average s of stainless steel ball = 7950.59 kg/m3

Average s of mild steel ball = 78470.23512 N/m3

Average s of stainless steel ball = 77995.26366 N/m3

Viscosity of detergent at room temperature (24C) = 1.111 kg/m.s

1000

100

Cooking Oil

CD

Detergent

10

1

0.01

0.1

10

100

0.1

Re

Figure 4: CD vs. Re plot for mild steel sphere using Stokes law

1000

100

CD

Cooking Oil

10

Detergent

1

0.01

0.1

10

100

0.1

Re

Figure 5: CD vs. Re plot for stainless steel sphere using Stokes law

Fluid Medium: Cooking Oil

Table 3: Comparison between CD calculated using Stokes law and Intermediate

correlation

Object

Shape

Material

Mild

Steel

Sphere

Stainless

steel

Diameter, D

(cm)

0.95

0.80

0.64

0.50

0.30

0.95

0.79

0.63

0.50

0.31

Velocity

(m/s)

0.96

0.87

0.84

0.51

0.29

0.78

0.67

0.64

0.41

0.27

Viscosity

(kg/m.s)

0.122

0.135

Re

68.82

52.89

40.71

19.21

6.49

50.26

35.93

27.37

13.96

5.73

CD

Stoke's law

Intermediate

0.35

1.31

0.45

1.49

0.59

1.72

1.25

2.68

3.70

5.70

0.48

1.53

0.67

1.84

0.88

2.15

1.72

3.30

4.18

6.27

Comparison of Drag Coefficient against Reynolds number between Stokes Law and

Intermediate correlation

1000

100

CD

10

1

0.01

0.1

10

100

0.1

Re

Cooking oil (Stokes)

Detergent

1000

100

CD

10

1

0.01

0.1

10

100

0.1

Re

Cooking oil (Stokes)

Detergent

10

Fluid Medium: Detergent

Table 4: Effect of particle shape on the rate of fall

Shape

Sphere

(Mild steel)

Streamline

Diameter, D

(cm)

0.95

0.64

0.96

0.63

Length, L

(cm)

3.19

1.82

1

5.63

8.09

14.91

32.84

2

Average

5.75

5.69

12.18

10.14

15.12

15.02

33.21

33.03

Velocity (m/s)

0.18

0.10

0.07

0.03

1.6 Calculations

1.6.1 Experiment A: Measurement of drag coefficients

Let gravitational acceleration, g = 9.81 m/s2

Specific weight of cooking oil , f =f g= ( 920 ) ( 9.81 )=9025.2 N /m 3

Specific weight of detergent , f = f g=( 1020 ) ( 9.81 )=10006.2 N /m 3

All the necessary calculations were computed using Microsoft Excel. The results were

tabulated in the Tables in the Results section. The corresponding plots were also done in

Microsoft Excel, as illustrated in the Figures in the Result section.

Sample calculation for the Mild steel sphere in cooking oil:

Firstly, the smallest sphere of the lightest material was chosen, which was the 1/8 Mild

Steel Sphere. The diameter of the sphere is 0.30cm or 0.003m.

The average density of mild steel sphere:

Average density , s=

s =7999.00 kg/m3

5

Average density , s=

s =7950.59 kg/m3

5

Hence,

Average specific weight of mild steel sphere , s= s g

( 7999.00 )( 9.81 )

78470.24 N /m3

11

( 7950.59 )( 9.81 )

77995.26 N /m3

The average time taken for the sphere to travel a distance of one meter in cooking oil:

Average timetaken , T =

3.53+3.47

=3.50 s

2

1 m 1m

Fall velocity , V =

=

=0.29 m/s

T

3.5 s

Assuming Reynolds number, Re<1, hence the viscosity of cooking oil was calculated

using Stokes law.

( s f ) (0.003)2 (78470.249025.2)

kg

=

=0.122

V

18

m.

s

( 0.29)

2

D

cooking oil =

18

Then, the Reynolds number was calculated.

=

f VD (920)(0.29)(0.003)

=

=6.49

f

(0.122)

Eventhough the Re is not less than 1, Stokes law was used to compute the CD, despite

the value of viscosity being invalid.

CD=

24 24

=

=3.70

6.49

The same calculation process was repeated for all the other spheres, both the mild and

stainless steel spheres. The results were tabulated in Table 1.

These steps were also used to compute the values for mild and stainless steel spheres in

detergent. The results were tabulated in Table 2.

Then the CD vs. Re graph was plotted for both mild steel sphere and stainless steel

sphere separately, as illustrated in Figure 4 and 5 respectively.

Since the Reynolds number for spheres in detergent were equals to or less than 1,

hence, the assumption of Stokes law is valid. Hence the CD values calculated are valid.

However, this is not the case for cooking oil. Since the Reynolds number were

considerably larger than 1, hence assumption of Stokes law is not valid. Hence, a

separate calculation for the CD values was done using the intermediate region

correlation.

12

For the mild steel sphere of diameter, D = 0.003m;

CD=

24

( 1+0.15 0.687) = 24 ( 1+ 0.15(6.49)0.687) =5.70

(6.49)

This equation was used to compute the new CD values for all the spheres in cooking oil.

The results were tabulated in Table 3. The difference in CD values obtained using the

different correlation was compared and analysed. Then, the CD vs Re graph was plotted

for the mild steel sphere and stainless steel sphere separately, as shown in Figure 6 and

7 respectively. This plot serves as a clear comparison (with theoretical results) and

proves towards the vital dependency of the CD values on the Reynolds number.

Lastly, for the purpose of analysis, the theoretical fall velocity, or terminal velocity was

calculated in order to compare with the experimental fall velocity. A sample calculation

for mild steel sphere of diameter, D = 0.003m in cooking oil, is as follows:

( s f ) (0.003) (78470.249025.2)

=

=0.08 m/s

measured

18

(0.454 )

D2

V terminal =

18

2

This was then repeated for other spheres in both cooking oil and detergent. The results

were tabulated in the tables below.

Table 5: Experimental fall velocity vs. theoretical terminal velocity of spheres in

cooking oil

Object Shape

Material

Sphere

Mild Steel

Stainless

steel

Diameter, D (cm)

Velocity (m/s)

0.95

0.80

0.64

0.50

0.30

0.95

0.79

0.63

0.50

0.96

0.87

0.84

0.51

0.29

0.78

0.67

0.64

0.41

0.77

0.54

0.35

0.21

0.08

0.76

0.53

0.33

0.21

13

0.31

0.27

0.08

detergent

Object Shape

Material

Mild Steel

Sphere

Stainless

steel

Diameter, D (cm)

Velocity (m/s)

0.95

0.80

0.64

0.50

0.30

0.95

0.79

0.63

0.50

0.31

0.18

0.17

0.10

0.05

0.02

0.16

0.12

0.07

0.05

0.02

0.31

0.22

0.14

0.09

0.03

0.31

0.21

0.13

0.08

0.03

The fluid medium chosen was detergent. Both the sphere and streamlined shape are of

the same material, which is mild steel.

Sample calculation for the streamlined shape in detergent:

The diameter of the streamlined shape is 0.63cm or 0.0063m.

The average time taken for the streamline shape to travel a distance of one meter in

detergent:

Average timetaken , T =

32.84+ 33.21

=33.03 s

2

1m

1m

Fall velocity , V =

=

=0.03 m/s

T

33.03 s

The same calculation process were repeated for all the other shapes, and for all the

dimensions. The results were tabulated in Table 4.

***The Excel file will be attached and submitted with the soft copy of this report for

reference.

14

1.7 Discussion

Based on the results obtained, the experimental viscosities calculated has a percentage

error ranging from 40% to 75% when compared to the measured viscosities of the

respective fluids.

Percentage error of fluid viscosity is calculated as follows:

Percentage error=

valueCalculated value

( MeasuredMeasured

) 100

value

Table 7: Percentage error in fluid viscosity

Fluid

Cooking oil

Detergent

Sphere

Mild steel

Stainless steel

Mild steel

Stainless steel

Measured

viscosity

(kg/m.s)

0.454

1.111

Experimental

viscosity

(kg/m.s)

0.122

0.135

1.582

1.782

Percentage

error (%)

73.13

70.26

42.39

60.40

The huge deviations are mainly due to the assumptions made during calculation of the

viscosity of fluid. We assumed that the fall velocity is the terminal velocity of the

sphere. However, this is not true as the particles continued to accelerate or decelerate

even after passing through the on meter mark. This can be theoretically proven as

shown in Table 5 and 6, whereby the fall velocity obtained was not exactly close to the

theoretical terminal velocity. Hence, the accuracy of our experiment was hampered.

According to Stokes law, the sphere is assumed to be falling in an infinite ocean of

fluid. Thus, on one hand, the tube must be sufficiently long, which is not practical.

Other than that, in order to increase the accuracy, the sphere should be allowed to slow

down before being timed. For instance, start timing the passage of the sphere after 0.5

meters. This might increase the credibility of the results obtained. Moreover, repeated

drops should be performed to obtain the average. We only repeated the experiment

twice due to time constraints, which might have also affected the results of the

experiment.

Nevertheless, the results obtained managed to confirm the relationship between the

drag coefficient and the Reynolds number of particles, which is the spheres in our case.

The drag coefficient correlation is highly sensitive towards the Reynolds number. For

instance, based on our experiment, detergent managed to fall in the region of Stokes

law, whereas cooking oil did not. Despite that, the Stokes law correlation was

calculated for both fluids and the results were plotted as shown in Figure 4 and 5. The

curves, when compared to the theoretical curve as illustrated in Figure 3, shows slight

deviation for the cooking oil part when Stokes law was used to obtain CD. This was

invalid as Re>1, hence, when a corrected correlation was used, the subsequent data

obtained for cooking oil pretty much satisfied the theoretical curve. This can be clearly

seen when we compare Figure 3 with Figure 6 and 7. In short, the results were close

enough to validate Stokes law but there were some discrepancies present which caused

the readings obtained to be wide spread.

15

The discrepancies include the fluids used being impure. Moreover, the aspect of human

error greatly reduces the accuracy of the results obtained. For instance, the eye level of

the timer should be in the plane of the mark so as to minimize parallax error. Apart

from that, the irregularities in starting and stopping the stopwatch also lead to huge

errors. Besides that, since the glass tube is filled with liquid, refraction occurs, hence

distortion might be present.

Other than that, the steel balls used might also been a source of error. The irregular

shape of the sphere may cause it to travel at different velocities. We also assumed there

were no bubbles present, however in reality, there were some bubbles present.

Therefore, with such discrepancies, this explains the reason behind the huge deviation

between the theoretical and experimental results obtained.

When different shapes were tested to observe the rate of fall, the sphere travelled at a

faster speed compared to the streamlined shape. This is mainly due to the larger surface

area of the streamline shape which causes it to experience surface drag. Even though

streamline is usually associated with reduction in drag, it needs to be noted that this

condition is relevant only for fluid of low viscosity, where form drag becomes

predominant. Therefore, in short, the results validate this theory and the experiment

managed to yield the desired results, as shown in Table 4.

1.8 Conclusion

In conclusion, the results obtained in the first experiment shows that the free settling of

sphere method to measure the viscosity of cooking oil and detergent were inaccurate.

The data collected from the experiment did not verify Stokes Law, though it did show

that the revised version of Stokes Law correcting for Reynolds Number was fairly

accurate. This proves that Stokes Law is very sensitive to flow Reynolds Number, and

experiments must account for this. Improvements in this experiment can be made to

obtain more precise data for the calculation of the Stokes Law drag coefficient by

eliminating the human factor in measuring velocity, plus using optical sensors

connected to a computer to calculate the time of travel and velocity of the spheres.

Even though there were huge errors present, the results were satisfactory. Meanwhile,

for the second experiment, in conclusion, the shape of the particle does affect the rate of

falling, depending on the viscosity of the fluid. The results obtained were quite accurate

and desirable. In short, the objectives set for these experiments were achieved.

16

2.1 Theory

The figure below shows a batch sedimentation process where the solid is uniformly

distributed in the liquid at the beginning and the total depth of the suspension is Zo.

After some time, the solid will settle to give a zone of clear liquid, zone A and zone D

as in Figure 8b. On top of zone D is zone C where the solid content varies from that in

the original pulp to that in zone D, normally known as transition layers. In Zone B, the

concentration is uniform and equal to the original concentration as the settling rate is

the same throughout this zone.

As the settling continues, the depths of zone A and D increases while the zone C

remains nearly constant and zone B decreases as shown in Figure 8c. In the end, zone B

will disappears and the solid are all in zones C and D as shown in figure 8d.

Meanwhile, the gradual accumulation of solid puts stress on the material at the bottom,

which compresses solids in the layer D. Finally, when the weight of the solid is

balanced by the compressive strength of the flocs, the settling process stops as shown in

Figure 8e. This entire process is known as sedimentation.

2.2 Objectives

17

1. The SOLTEQ Sedimentation Studies Apparatus which consists of five equal

sized glass cylinders mounted on a vertical back-panel was used in this

experiment.

2. The glass cylinders were cleaned and the back light illumination was switched

on.

3. Four different sets of kaolin mesh 60 were prepared and mixed with water in a

beaker according to the specifications in Table 7 in the next section. The

suspension was then inserted into the respective cylinders in order to make up to

the stated height of suspension.

4. It was ensured that the mixture of kaolin and water was stirred thoroughly to

form a uniformly distributed solution.

5. The stopwatch was started and the initial height of suspension was observed and

recorded.

6. The readings for the height of interface were taken at one-minute intervals until

at least three consecutive results were obtained. The reading of the height of

interface was taken from the base of the column.

7. The results were tabulated as shown in Table 8 below. Graphs of height of

interface versus time were then plotted.

2.4 Results

Table 7 shows the specifications of the amount of kaolin and water inserted into the

cylinders.

Table 7: Specifications of kaolin and water in cylinders

Mass of kaolin powder (g)

Volume of water (L)

Initial height of suspension (cm)

Initial concentration (g/L)

Cylinder 1

28.26

0.57

30

49.58

Cylinder 2

56.57

1.13

60

50.06

Cylinder 3

84.86

1.70

90

49.92

Cylinder 4

127.29

1.70

90

74.88

Table 8: Experimental results for sedimentation experiment

Time (min)

0

1

2

Cylinder 1

29.0

26.5

23.5

Cylinder 2

Cylinder 3

56.5

90.0

54.2

87.9

51.5

85.2

Cylinder 4

90.0

88.5

85.0

18

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

20.5

17.3

14.3

11.3

8.6

6.4

5.8

5.2

4.8

4.4

4.0

3.7

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.2

3.1

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

49.0

46.0

43.5

40.5

37.8

35.2

32.4

29.5

27.0

24.3

21.5

18.7

16.0

13.5

11.5

11.0

10.5

10.1

9.7

9.3

8.9

8.5

8.2

7.8

7.5

7.0

6.7

6.5

6.4

6.3

6.1

6.0

6.0

6.0

82.5

80.0

77.5

75.0

72.0

69.6

66.9

64.1

61.5

58.7

55.8

52.8

50.3

47.5

43.5

41.2

39.4

36.6

34.0

31.0

28.6

25.9

23.0

20.5

18.9

18.3

17.7

17.2

16.7

16.3

15.9

15.5

15.1

14.7

14.4

14.0

13.7

13.3

13.0

12.5

12.3

12.0

11.7

11.4

11.1

10.8

83.6

81.8

79.9

77.8

76.0

74.1

72.2

70.3

68.4

66.5

64.5

62.5

60.6

58.7

56.8

54.9

53.0

51.0

49.2

47.4

45.5

43.8

42.0

40.0

38.5

37.0

35.5

34.3

33.1

32.2

31.4

30.6

30.0

29.4

28.8

28.4

27.8

27.3

26.9

26.4

25.8

25.5

25.0

24.7

24.2

23.9

19

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

10.5

10.3

10.0

9.8

9.6

9.4

9.3

9.2

9.1

9.0

9.0

8.9

8.9

8.8

8.7

8.7

8.6

8.5

8.5

8.5

23.4

23.0

22.7

22.3

21.9

21.5

21.2

20.9

20.5

20.2

19.9

19.5

19.2

18.9

18.5

18.3

18.0

17.8

17.4

17.0

16.8

16.5

16.2

16.0

15.7

15.5

15.2

15.0

14.8

14.5

14.3

14.0

13.8

13.6

13.3

13.0

12.8

12.7

12.5

12.4

12.3

12.2

12.1

12.0

12.0

11.9

20

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

11.8

11.7

11.6

11.6

11.5

11.4

11.4

11.3

11.2

11.2

11.2

2.5.1 Effect of Initial Height on Settling Rate

The suspensions in Cylinders 1, 2, and 3 were used in the analysis of the effect of

column height on the settling rate. The initial concentrations were assumed to be

constant at 50 g/L. Figure 9 shows the graph of interface height versus time.

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

Interface Height (cm)

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Time (min)

Cylinder 1

Cylinder 2

Cylinder 3

Figure 9: Graph of interface height from bottom of column versus time for suspensions

of different initial heights

Based on the graph, the initial settling rates were calculated based on the initial linear

slope obtained and the results were tabulated in Table 9. The time taken for the latter

stages of settling is also noted based on the graph.

21

70

Cylinder

Initial settling

velocity (cm/s)

30

2.95

60

2.7

90

2.68

Final stage

of settling

From 7th to

21st minute

From 16th to

37th minute

From 26th to

69th minute

15

22

43

The negative sign is omitted from the initial settling velocity which was calculated from

the slope of the curve as it is understood the settling occurs in the downwards direction.

It can be seen that the initial settling velocity has remained almost constant for all three

cylinders. This shows that the initial height of column has no effect on the initial

settling rate.

However, it can be observed that the time taken for the final stages of settling increases

as the initial height of column increases. This is due to the compressive forces from the

water on top as well as the accumulation of kaolin particles at the bottom which force

the trapped water out from between the particles collected at the bottom. As the ratio of

the weight of water to the weight of particles is high, most of the compressive forces

originate from the water. As such, the settling times for the final parts of sedimentation

increased as the amount of water used increased.

2.5.2 Effect of Particle Concentration on Settling Rate

The suspensions in Cylinders 3 and 4 were used in the analysis of the effect of

concentration on the settling rate. The initial heights of both suspensions were constant

at 90 cm. Figure 10 shows the graph of interface height versus time.

22

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

Interface Height (cm)

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Time (min)

Cylinder 3

Cylinder 4

Figure 10: Graph of interface height from bottom of column versus time for

suspensions of different concentrations

As in the previous section, the initial settling rates were calculated based on the initial

linear slope obtained in the graph and the results were tabulated in Table 10. The time

taken for the latter stages of settling is also noted based on the graph.

Table 10: Analysis of the effect of concentration on the settling rate

Cylinde

r

Initial concentration

(g/L)

Initial settling

velocity

(cm/s)

49.92

2.68

74.88

1.89

Final stage

of settling

From 26th to

69th minute

From 29th to

102nd

minute

Time taken

(min)

43

74

It can be observed that the initial settling velocity decreases as the initial concentration

of the suspension increases. This is in line with the general assumption whereby the

decrease of the settling velocity is due to the generation of an upward flux of fluid in

compensation of the downward flux of fluid generated by the settling of particles. This

generated upward fluid flux is believed to lead to the net reduction of the average

settling velocity (Doychev 2014).

Besides that, it can be said that the time taken for the final stages of settling increases as

the initial concentration of particles increases. In this case, the volume of water used is

the same. Therefore, the compressive forces in this case originated from the settling

particles. The collected particles exerted stress on the bottom layers which led to the

expulsion of water and gradually lowered the height of the interface. The higher the

23

concentration, the longer the time taken for the final settling stage. This was because

the compressive forces were exerted gradually.

Slight inaccuracy might have occurred as some of the kaolin particles might have been

left in the beaker during the pouring process. The experiment might have been repeated

to obtain more readings in order to improve accuracy and to further justify the theory.

2.6 Conclusion

To conclude, it can be seen that the initial height of the column has no effect on the

initial settling rate and as the initial concentration of the suspension increases, the initial

settling velocity would decrease. In addition to that, it was observed that an increase in

either initial height of the column or the initial concentration would increase the time

taken for the final stages of settling. The objectives of this experiment was said to be

achieved.

References

Doychev, T 2014, The Dynamics of Finite-Size Settling Particles, KIT Scientific Publishing,

Karlsruhe, Germany.

Rhodes, M 2008, Introduction to particle technology, Wiley, London.

24

- Geo MathematicsUploaded byLalit Narayan
- Lab Report v2.0Uploaded byViggy Pal
- Stokes Law and the Idea of Terminal VelocityUploaded byOlajide Emmanuel Olorunfemi
- Pressure Distribution around a Hollow CylinderUploaded bynga911
- Paraglider Recovery System for the Saturn BoosterUploaded byBob Andrepont
- Tutorial 1Uploaded byShaon Sen
- problemset2Uploaded byapi-314727764
- DropletUploaded byRob Morien
- With AcumulatorUploaded byFaishal Khairul Umam
- Formulae for Injection MoldingUploaded byVignesh Waran
- Chapter6_Wind Loads.pdfUploaded bytatarce
- AMI Flow Analysis ResultsUploaded byxthuy
- Engelund_Hansen1967Uploaded byNurLelyHardiantiZendrato
- Helicopter Drag Fuselage- Combined CFD and Experimental StudiesUploaded byPeter Ijaramendi
- Assignment 2 SolutionsUploaded bysiva961p
- grissom_06.pdfUploaded byalexandre_wylie8578
- Cylinder Flow SbsUploaded byjosejuanramos
- joomla.pdfUploaded byAnonymous N74GLGLcPp
- Amicarelli Et Al 2017 IJCFD Preprint for ResearchGateUploaded byCarlos Dutra Fraga Filho
- Application of Fractional Calculus to Fluid Mechanics - FC to FLUID DYNAMICS (ASME JFE) (1)Uploaded byHanzy Loeser
- Using Density 12MFUploaded byM Ahmed Latif
- 10.1007@bf00571023.pdfUploaded byMohamed Mohamed
- CE_F312_1196_2018_2019Uploaded byViral Patangiya
- Exchanger_Optimization_V2.8.pdfUploaded byJssu SaNcheez
- 1-s2.0-S0167610500000714-mainUploaded byAlejandro Garcia
- Numerical simulation of turbulent sediment transport, from bed load to saltationUploaded bykrpar
- Lesson 9 FallingUploaded bycgeorgiou80
- Viscosity en 2016Uploaded byNicole Macarena Perez
- IJETR011836Uploaded byAnonymous gF0DJW10y
- Engineering Thermodynamics - - Unit 3 - Week 2 - SI Unit, Definitions & ConceptsUploaded byM.Saravana Kumar..M.E

- STPM Maths T Sem 1 Past Year by ChapterUploaded byKenneth Chan
- FYRP (Chemical) Report Format v1.1Uploaded byKagendren Ayan
- Week 2 Interphase Mass TransferUploaded byKagendren Ayan
- Week 1 Introduction to Mass TransferUploaded byKagendren Ayan
- HEC3612_Project S2 2016Uploaded byKagendren Ayan
- Mass-Lab-Final-V1-1Uploaded byKagendren Ayan
- HEC3622-Unit of Study Outline Sem 1 2016(1)Uploaded byKagendren Ayan
- Extended_syllabus_heat and Mass TransferUploaded byKagendren Ayan
- HEC3521 Lab 3_Free ConvectionUploaded byKagendren Ayan
- Chemical Memo 140227(1)Uploaded byKagendren Ayan
- Harvard Quick GuideUploaded byAdrian Dadarlat
- EP CycloneReport S1 2015Uploaded byKagendren Ayan
- physics definaition listUploaded bywanaizuddin

- Two Dimensional Analysis of Shallow Water Flow With Submersible Large Roughness ElementsUploaded bymanek1980
- Vol5 Issue1Uploaded byPragyan Bhattarai
- Resistance ManualUploaded byhendra saputra
- A Comparative Flow Analysis of Naca 6409 and Naca 4412 AerofoilUploaded byInternational Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology
- Experimental Investigation of Effect of Multiple wingsUploaded byIJSRP ORG
- External Incompressible Viscous FlowUploaded bychrisnata gita prasandy
- Drag ReductionUploaded bytecreativ
- Two Cylinder_Edited Shahid (2)Uploaded byvigy1990
- 128-514-1-PB.pdfUploaded byItalo Adotti
- Ch10 SolutionskUploaded byTensay Fekede
- 1_On Aerodynamic Stability of Double Decked Trussed Girder for Cable Stayed Higashi Kobe BridgeUploaded bymahe32mahe
- Usaamrdl Tr 77 45aUploaded byMark Evan Salutin
- labreport1Uploaded byhakuna912
- PVongsingha 4314395 P2 ReportUploaded byRemus Cristi
- f1vwtmk4Uploaded byGary Ng
- Review of Aircraft AerodynamicsUploaded byIaNick
- Thermofluids - Level5 - Lecture9 - Fluids InternalExternalFlowsUploaded byLuiz Augusto
- Numerical and Experimental Investigation of Aerodynamics Characteristics of NACA 0015 AerofoilUploaded bymiguel sebastian rincon ortega
- Design Report for SAEUploaded byJudian Anthony
- Física Del ArcoUploaded byIñigo C. Sánchez
- 223597122-Report-Tesla-Turbine.pdfUploaded bySyd
- Aerodynamics of a RacecarUploaded byJeremy R.
- Laboratory Manual for ME231Uploaded byjames
- AhmedUploaded bycoolth2
- 01-Boeing Low Speed Wake SurveysUploaded byMiguel Angel Aguirre
- Thesis Air Inlets on AircraftUploaded byŒdgar Âçë
- 2014 JFS Wind Loads Microburst High Rise Building Yang Hu SarkarUploaded byVivek Kanti
- Wall CorrectionsUploaded byfox2233
- Bluff Body Aerodynamics - Lecture 1Uploaded byKonathala Swami
- Drag of Circular Cylinders for a Wide RangeUploaded byJunk Jettison