Experimental Fluid Mechanics Lab Report: September 2018

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/335444168
Experimental Fluid Mechanics lab report
Technical Report · September 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10856.21760
CITATIONS READS
0 1,744
2 authors, including:
Mohammad Mohammadzadeh
Sapienza University of Rome
7 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Power management strategy in hybrid electric vehicles using artificial intelligence genetic programming and internet of thing. View project
Feasibility study of developing a binary ORC geothermal power plant in Húsavík, Iceland. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Mohammadzadeh on 28 August 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Experimental Fluid Mechanics
Prof. Giovanni Paolo Romano
Report Group #8
Pietro Albeggiani
Costantino Annigliato
Mattia Manno
Alessandro Minzolini
Mohammad Mohammazadeh
A.Y. 2017-2018
1
Sommario
1.Microfluidics ................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1) Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 5
1.2) Experimental equipment ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.3) Experimental procedure ......................................................................................................................... 6
1.4) Data analysis........................................................................................................................................... 6
1.4.1) Calibration ....................................................................................................................................... 6
1.5) Image processing .................................................................................................................................... 9
1.5.1) First method .................................................................................................................................. 10
1.5.2) Second method ............................................................................................................................. 12
1.6) Error Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 15
1.6.1) Error committed calculating Re in the calibration phase .............................................................. 15
1.6.2) Error on the jet geometry.............................................................................................................. 16
1.7) Comparisons ......................................................................................................................................... 17
1.7.1) Core length .................................................................................................................................... 17
1.7.2) Jet aperture ................................................................................................................................... 19
1.8) Appendix: MatLAB code ....................................................................................................................... 23
2.Pressure on a Blade ...................................................................................................................................... 27
2.1) Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 27
2.2) Experimental equipment ...................................................................................................................... 27
2.3) Experimental Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 28
2.4) Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 29
2.5) Comparison with Javafoil ..................................................................................................................... 36
2.6) Error Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 40
2.6.1) Attack Angle Error ......................................................................................................................... 42
2.7) Test results ........................................................................................................................................... 44
2.7.1) Test 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 44
2.7.2) Test 3 ............................................................................................................................................. 50
2.7.3) Test 4 ............................................................................................................................................. 55
2.8) Comparisons ......................................................................................................................................... 61
2.8.1) Comparison between test 1 and 2 ................................................................................................ 61
2.9) Appendix: MatLAB code ....................................................................................................................... 65
2
3.Velocity profiles in boundary layers ............................................................................................................. 75
3.1) Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 75
3.2) Experimental equipment ................................................................................................................... 78
3.3) Laboratory procedure ........................................................................................................................ 80
3.4 Results and Discussions ......................................................................................................................... 81
3.5) Experiments (check graphs with different origin) ................................................................................ 82
3. 5.1) Smooth plate, parallel plates, air velocity = 10 m/s ..................................................................... 82
3.5.2) Smooth plate, parallel plates, air velocity = 20 m/s ..................................................................... 83
3.5.3) Smooth plate, parallel plates, air velocity = 30 m/s ...................................................................... 84
3.5.4) Rough plate, parallel plates, air velocity = 20 m/s ........................................................................ 85
3.5.5) Smooth plate, convergent asset, air velocity = 20 m/s ................................................................. 86
3.5.6) Smooth plate, divergent asset, air velocity = 20 m/s .................................................................... 87
3.5.7) Rough plate, convergent asset, air velocity = 20 m/s ................................................................... 88
3.5.8) Rough plate, divergent asset, air velocity = 20 m/s ...................................................................... 89
3.6) Error analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 91
3.7) Appendix: Matlab codes ....................................................................................................................... 93
4.Major Head Losses...................................................................................................................................... 106
4.1) Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 106
4.2) Experimental equipment .................................................................................................................... 107
4.3) Experimental procedure ..................................................................................................................... 107
4.4) Equations and Relations ..................................................................................................................... 109
4.4.1) Theoretical................................................................................................................................... 109
4.5) Results and Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 110
4.5.1) Laminar to turbulent: Internal..................................................................................................... 110
4.5.2) Laminar to turbulent: External .................................................................................................... 112
4.5.3) Turbulence to laminar: Internal .................................................................................................. 113
4.5.4) Turbulence to laminar: External .................................................................................................. 115
4.6) Error analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 116
4.7) Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 117
4.8) Appendix: MATLAB codes .................................................................................................................. 118
5.Signal Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 121
5.1) Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. 121
5.2) Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 121
5.3) Procedures.......................................................................................................................................... 121
5.4) Statistical Moments............................................................................................................................ 124
5.5) Probability density.............................................................................................................................. 127
3
5.6) Autocorrelation coefficient ................................................................................................................ 132
5.7) Cross correlation factor ...................................................................................................................... 135
5.8) Spectral Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 140
5.9) Filter ................................................................................................................................................... 143
5.10) Conclusions....................................................................................................................................... 145
5.11) Appendix: MatLAB Codes ................................................................................................................. 146
4
1.Microfluidics
1.1) Introduction
The laboratory practice consists of a flow visualization of a water micro jet made visible through an injected
dye into an ambient fluid at rest. The jet was observed in different condition of velocity, to evaluate the
effect of the transition from laminar to turbulent regimes and the jet geometrical properties, as the core
length and aperture angle, as a function of Reynolds number. The analysis was made starting from the
acquisition of a series of photos of the jet, elaborated trough the use of Matlab.
1.2) Experimental equipment

The experimental apparatus consists of a pressure regulator, made by the company Elveflow, connected to
a compressor and governed via the "ESI" software from the PC, that varies the pressure inside a tube
containing a blue colour liquid, obtained by mixing methylene blue to water, necessary for a better
visualization of the jet inside the tank. This liquid is injected into a supporting plexiglass tank using a 1
meter long tube made of plastic and at the end of copper, whose inner diameter is 0.7 mm, which enters
the tank vertically, with the exit section under the water surface. With the use of a high resolution camera
able to shoot up to six photos per second with a buffer memory of fifteen photos, the images of the jet
have been acquired and later have been elaborated with Matlab software.
5
1.3) Experimental procedure
In the first laboratory day the measurements necessary for the calibration of the experimental apparatus
were carried out. First of all, it has been measured the time taken by the solution of water mixed with
methylene blue to empty a certain 𝛿𝑉 volume at several different pressures.
The pressure values, expressed in mbar, imposed for the calibration phase are: 25, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150,
175, 200, 250, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 850, 1000, 1200 1400, 1600, 1800, 2000. A range of 25 mbar has
been chosen for pressures up to 200 mbar in order to evaluate with good precision the transition from
laminar to turbulent regime. This evaluation was carried out with a special attention to the type of
instability of the jet, almost sinusoidal in the laminar system, and unstable with the presence of vortices in
turbulent conditions. From this visual inspection of the jet it was found that the transition occurs for
pressure values around 150 mbar.
In order to obtain a high quality measurement, it was chosen a bigger ∆𝑉 for higher pressures, since the
emptying speed increases with pressure.
In the second part of the experience it was observed the jet behavior when varying the pressure imposed
by the regulator. Through the high-resolution camera, about 50 jet images were acquired for each observed
condition. The pressure conditions chosen are: 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750,
2000.
Before taking pictures, some parameters of the camera have been set such as objective focal length,
objective aperture and shutter time, in order to obtain good images. Also the lighting conditions and the
concentration of ink in the mixture have been evaluated.
1.4) Data analysis
1.4.1) Calibration
In the calibration phase, the jet flow rate Q was calculated by the ratio of the variation in volume of the
water contained in the test tube and the time taken to empty such volume, with different values of
pressure set by the regulator. This flow rate is necessary to calculate the speed at the end of the copper
pipe and it is done by considering the conservation of flow: 𝑄 = 𝐴 × 𝑢
2
𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑡
where 𝐴 is the exit section and it is equal to 𝐴= 𝜋∙ 4
Once derived the speed it was possible to calculate the Reynolds number and trace out the calibration
curve and associate to each Reynolds number a pressure value imposed by the regulator.
The graph for the calibration curve is the following:
6
Analyzing the graph you notice how there is a linear relationship between pressure P0 and Reynolds number
for P0 < 150 mbar, which characterizes the laminar regime. The transition interval is identified between 150
mbar and 200 mbar. Later in the turbulent phase the curve has a similar trend to a parabola branch. The
pressure values identified graphically for the transition are entirely in accordance with what was observed
in the laboratory.
Subsequently an analysis of the load losses, in both laminar and turbulent conditions, was done. These load
losses are related to the friction coefficient moody, F, by the relationship:
𝑑𝑃 1 1
− = 𝑓 𝜌𝑢2
𝑑𝑥 2 𝐷
Where ρ is the density of the liquid, equal to 1000 kg/m3, u is the velocity of the fluid and D the inner
diameter of the tube in which the solution flows. Studying and developing this equation we can derive the
relationship between P0 and Re.
These pressure losses should be assessed from the test tube (in which the pressure imposed is equal to P0)
to the output of the copper pipe. In literature there are experimental correlations linking the friction
coefficient to the Reynolds number.
64
𝑓=
𝑅𝑒
0,316
𝑓=
𝑅𝑒 0,25
These experimental correlations are strictly valid for straight tubes, so it was necessary to identify new
coefficients to substitute those reported in the preceding formulas, in order to be valid in the present study
case.
Developing the load losses relation and using the Bernoulli equation the dependence of P0 from Re was
derived.
In the Laminar case the formula is:
7
64 2
0,5 𝜌 𝜐 2
𝑃0 = 𝜌𝜐 ∆𝑥 𝑅𝑒 + 𝑅𝑒 2 + 𝑃𝑠
2𝐷3 𝐷2
The second-degree term can be neglected since it is at least two orders of magnitude lower than the first-
degree term. Therefore we can see the linear relationship between P0 and Re.
Using the Matlab tool "Curve fitting" a fitting of the calibration points for the laminar system was carried
out by means of a first-degree polynomial 𝑦 = 𝑎 ∙ 𝑥 + 𝑏. The coefficient of the first degree term (a) was
identified and was used to calculate the value of the experimental coefficient that substitutes the "64" in
the correlation for friction factor in the laminar case.
𝜌 ∙ 𝜐2 ∙ ∆𝑥
𝑎 = "New coefficient" ∙ 0,5 ∙ = 40,65
𝐷3
Therefore, the experimental correlation for the calculation of the friction factor in laminar mode is:
21,54
𝑓=
𝑅𝑒
A very similar procedure was carried out for the analysis of the turbulent regime. By appropriately
developing the same equation for load losses, but with a different friction factor relation for the turbulent
case, it was obtained:
0,316 ∙ 𝜐2 ∙ 𝜌 ∙ ∆𝑥 1,75
0,5 ∙ 𝜌 ∙ 𝜐2
𝑃0 = ∙ 𝑅𝑒 + ∙ 𝑅𝑒 2 + 𝑃𝑠
2 ∙ 𝐷3 𝐷2
We proceeded with the fitting of the points used in the calibration, by means of a Custom equation like:
𝑦 = 𝑎 ∙ 𝑥2 + 𝑏 ∙ 𝑥𝑐 + 𝑑
8
Dalla quale si sono ricavati i coefficienti da inserire nella correlazione sperimentale per il friction factor in
regime turbolento:
0,2816
𝑓=
𝑅𝑒 0,3810
1.5) Image processing

In order to analyze the geometric properties of the jet as the number of Reynolds varies, it has been done
an overlap of the images acquired for each pressure condition, through the use of the Matlab software,
obtaining an average of the images of the jet with a more defined contour than the single image.
The images, in format. TIF, were treated as matrices of pixels and their average has been evaluated.
Figure 1. Average images at 300mbar
9
Thus from the average images obtained it was possible to calculate the lengths of the core and the opening
angles of the jet. Two different methods have been identified to carry out these measurements and will be
presented below. The two methods have given different results, so they will be compared.
Note that the opening angle of the jet is not equal on both sides, as it can be easily seen from the figure 1,
so two different opening angles were then calculated for each pressure.
1.5.1) First method

It is a simple method based on measuring the characteristic lengths of the jet, made through the
application "Image Viewer" of Matlab, which allows to measure in pixel selected parts of an image.
Figure 2: lengths calculated with the “image viewer”
The distances were converted from pixel to mm through the ratio of the diameter of the jet at the output
(in pixels), and the inner diameter of the known tube (in mm), used as a conversion factor.
For the calculation of the opening angles the mean line was extended and two triangles were constructed
with the hypotenuse parallel to the opening of the jet, in order to calculate the angle as the arctangent of
the relationship between the lengths of the cathetes.
The results of the calculations, in this case done with Excel, are shown in the table, where the length of the
core and the opening angles of the jet are highlighted:
10
In the preceding table with W we indicate the width of the jet, XC indicates the length of the core, while A, B
and C indicate respectively hypotenuse and cathetes of the triangles. Alpha indicates the opening angle of
the jet and with the subscribes 1 and 2 we distinguish respectively top and bottom triangles (same for the
angles).
The following graphs are of the length of the core and the opening angles of the upper and lower jets as the
Reynolds number varies.
11
1.5.2) Second method
The second method was used to calculate exclusively the opening angles of the jet. The images undergo
carried out through Matlab.
The average jet photo has been converted from an array of pixel to a bit array, associating at each point in
the image with a binary value (0;1). This conversion was done by employing the edge detection through the
edge function of MATLAB, that takes an image as input and returns a binary image of the same format as
the starting one with the pixels, where the function finds the contours as 1 and 0 elsewhere. In particular,
the Prewitt method was used, which determines the outlines using an approximation to the derivatives and
returns the outlines at the points where the image gradient is maximum. The binary image shows a more
definite form of the jet, as you can see in figure 3.
12
Figure 3: average image 300mbar converted in binary code
The bits of the matrix forming the jet were then turned into points identified by a pair of coordinate vectors
X,Y. This step is necessary in order to use the Matlab application Curve Fitting , which allows to
approximate discrete points to a function. The result of converting the bits to points is shown in figure 4.
Figure 4: average image 300mbar converted in points P(X,Y)
13
At this point through the Curve Fitting we can select a certain number of points on the edge of the jet, in
order to find a line that represents well the opening of the same. Figure 5 shows the enlargement of a
stretch of the jet, where a dozen points have been selected on which to "adapt" the line. The application
itself gives us the angular coefficient of the line, that is the tangent of the opening angle of the jet. The
angle found must be corrected since the jet has an inclination respect to the X axis, so, still with the help of
Curve Fitting, we trace out the straight line that approximates the average line of the jet.
Figure 5: the approximation line that yields the angular coefficient
The results for each pressure imposed on the jet (so for each Reynolds number) are shown in the table
below, where the upper and lower angles are indicated with theta_1 and theta_2 respectively:
14
1.6) Error Analysis
1.6.1) Error committed calculating Re in the calibration phase

In the calibration phase, it is necessary to take into account an error on the time measurement ∆𝑡 and
volumes ∆𝑉, that propagates along the calculation starting from the flow rate to the Reynolds number:
- The error on ∆𝑡 is determined as the standard deviation of the emptying times, calculated three
1
times for each pressure studied ( 𝜀𝛥𝑡 = ̅̅̅)2 ).
× ∑𝑖=1(𝛥𝑡𝑖̇ − 𝛥𝑡
𝑛−1
- The error on ∆𝑉 is considered in relation to the approximation given by the test tube scale
(εDv=5*10-7 m3).
𝛥𝑉 𝑑𝑄 𝑑𝑄
𝑄= 𝛥𝑡
𝜀𝑄 = |𝑑𝛥𝑣| × 𝜀𝛥𝑣 + |𝑑𝛥𝑡| × 𝜀𝛥𝑡
𝑄 𝑑𝑈
𝑈= 𝜀𝑈 = | | × 𝜀𝑄
𝐴 𝑑𝑄
𝑢×𝑑 𝑑𝑅𝑒
𝑅𝑒 = 𝜈
𝜀𝑅𝑒 = | 𝑑𝑢 | × 𝜀𝑈
15
The following table shows the error values.
1.6.2) Error on the jet geometry

Several sources of error are identified in the two methods used to the calculate the length of the core and
the angles of opening:
• In method 1 you will find an error in the conversion pixel/mm, due to the imperfection of the focus,
which makes it impossible to pinpoint precisely the length of the diameter of the jet at the exit
from the pipe. Thus it yields a different jet diameter coming out of the pipe for each average
scanned image, and then a different pixel/mm conversion factor. The imperfection of the focus
causes further errors in calculating the length of the core and the determination of the opening
angles, to be summed up with the conversion error.
• In method 2, the error depends, not only on the focus, but also on the conversion of the bit pixels.
When the used algorithm converts pixel values to binary code there is definitely a loss of points on
the edge that affects the new format. This error is very difficult to quantify. An attempt was made
to give an evaluation to this error by modifying the threshold value for contour recognition, varying
it by 10% from the default value returned by the algorithm. In this way different binary images are
obtained, which for each on the opening angles have been assessed. This analysis was made for the
pressure jet equal to 700 mbar, for which the default threshold value is 0.0055.
16
From the tables it comes out that for a variation of 10% of the threshold, there is a maximum
variation of 11% of the opening angle.
Another error in determining the opening angle of the jet is due to the choice of the points on the
edge of the jet in the Curve Fitting to derive the line whose angular coefficient identifies the
opening angle. To evaluate this type of error it has been repeated this procedure for 5 times,
always for the same pressure value and comparing the results we assessed the impact of the choice
of points on the result. The following tables contain the results for the pressure of 700 mbar:
It emerges that there is a maximum variation of about 10% compared to the mean value for the
theta_1 angle and 9% for the theta_2 angle. Since we met a lot of difficulty to quantify these types
of errors and their propagation in the measurements, it seemed appropriate to establish an
average error on the length of the core and on the opening angle of 10% for both methods used.
1.7) Comparisons
In this chapter the comparisons will be made between the experimental results obtained with the two
different methods and also between the experimental results and the results present in literature.
1.7.1) Core length
The core length analysis results obtained with the first method was compared with the results
reported on an article published by NASA titled “Experimental investigation of an axisymmetric
free jet with an initially uniform velocity profile”. The article shows a curve that reconstructs the trend
of the potential core length, adimensionalized with respect to the diameter of the jet, according to the
Reynolds number. Also on the experimental results the same adimensionalization was carried out.
17
The following are the graphs in comparison:
Figure 6: experimental investigation of an axisymmetric free jet with an initially uniform velocity profile
Figure 7 :experimental results method 1
From the graphs it can be observed how experimental results obtained are approximable to a curve,
obtained through the application "curves Fitting" of Matlab, with a trend very similar to the dashed one in
the first graph. Note that the first discrete point, corresponding to a jet at pressure of 300 mbar, was
discarded by the approximation, since it is the only data incompatible with the reference information. In
both cases we register a growing trend for low Reynolds numbers and a peak around 1000 Re, following an
almost exponential degrowth. In the reference graph it is noted that for Reynolds values greater than 2800,
the length of the core returns to increase, which is not recorded in our case and this can be explained by
the fact that the test was made for maximum Reynolds equal to about 2600.
18
1.7.2) Jet aperture
Here is presented a comparison between the trend of the opening angle obtained with the two different
methods. This comparison is made both for the angle relative to the upper and lower part of the jet. Alpha
and Theta indicate the same angle, respectively obtained by applying the first or second method.
The graphs show that for the upper corner, indicated with the subscript 1, the results obtained with both
methods are very similar, both in terms of trend and of absolute values. For high Reynolds values, however
there is an appreciable difference between the two results.
Comparing the lower angles instead it can be noticed a substantial difference in the values in the two cases,
although the trend is essentially the same. This may be due to the background of the bottom of the images
being considerably darker than the background of the upper part (see the following image), which may
cause uncertainties in the Edge detection.
19
The darker background is due to a more intense coloring of the water at the bottom of the image, which
corresponds to the right side of the experimental apparatus and this is caused by the geometry of the
experimental apparatus itself, in which the tube of copper is not centrally positioned respect to the
supporting tank, but instead is placed near the right side.
In addition, the opening angles of the jet obtained with both methods were compared with those of an
article published by the American Institute of Physics ("Reynolds number dependence of plane jet
development in the transitional regime", P. R. Suresh, K. Srinivasan, T. Sundararajan, and Sarit K. Das).
The article reports a study on the opening of the jet where, experimentally measuring the geometry of the
jet and the velocity gradient as the number of Reynolds varies, a jet spread rate is defined through the
following relationship:
𝑏𝑢 𝑥
= 𝑘2𝑢 ( − 𝐶2𝑢 )
𝑑 𝑑
where 𝑏𝑢 is the jet half-width, d is the diameter of jet, x is the axial distance from nozzle, K2u is the jet
spread rate and C2u is the location of virtual origin for the jet half-width.
The most interesting parameter to compare with our experimental results is the parameter K2u, since K2u is
equal to the derivative of jet half-width versus x, it represents the slope of half-width and allows us to
derive the opening angle of the jet at varying Reynolds.
The following table shows the values of the coefficients
shown in the article and the resulting angles.
20
From the tables you can see that each Reynolds value corresponds to a single angle, which will be referred
as Theta_teor, so there is no distinction between the upper and lower angle as in our case. The following
figures are a graphical comparison with the experimental results presented above.
The curve of Theta_teor has a strong decreasing trend, passing from about 13 ° (Re = 550) up to about 8 °
(Re = 2000), then the angle varies by about 3 ° until it reaches Re = 6250. This trend can be compared with
the experimental ones obtained by the two different methods.
Figure 8: graphical comparison between theoretical and experimental angles
21
From the comparisons just shown, note that Theta_2 has a quite similar course to that of Theta_teor,
although the absolute values of the angles are different. Instead, the curves relative to alpha 1 and alpha 2
both have a higher gradient than the reference case up to Re ≈ 1800.
Since the article describes only one opening angle of the jet, we thought to make a comparison also with a
medium angle between the upper one and the lower one.
This last comparison shows us how the average of the angles calculated by method 2 (Theta 1, Theta 2), is
very close to the trend obtained from the reference article.
22
1.8) Appendix: MatLAB code
%% Calibration
ni=1.138*10^-6
Q = DV ./ Dt;
A = pi * diam_int^2 / 4;
u = Q/A;
Re = u * diam_int / ni;
errorbar(Re,P0,epsilonRe,'*-');
P0_Pa = P0 * 100;
ro = 1000
L_tubo = 1
P0_graphs =
[300;400;500;600;700;800;900;1000;1250;1500;1750;2000];
fun_Re_P0 = polyfit(P0,Re,2);
Re_graphs = polyval(fun_Re_P0,P0_graphs);
%epsilon_Re = [50;50;50;50;50;50;50;50;50;50;50;50] errore
residuo max sulla polyfit
%plot(P0_graphs,Re_graphs,'o-');
%errorbar(P0_graphs,Re_graphs,epsilon_Re);
plot(Re_graphs,P0_graphs)
%% P0 laminare
a_dritto_lam = 0.5 * ro * ni^2 /diam_int^2;
b_dritto_lam = 64 * ro * ni^2 * L_tubo / (2 * diam_int^3)
% b >> a quindi y = b Re + c ma dal fitting usiamo un
polinomio di secondo
% grado poiche fitta meglio.
b_fit_lam = 40.68;
Coef_lam = b_fit_lam * 2 * diam_int^3/(ro * ni^2);
%% P0 turb
a_dritto_turb = 0.5 * ro * ni^2 / diam_int^2
b_dritto_turb = 0.326 * ni^2 * ro * L_tubo / (2 * diam_int^3)
c_dritto_turb = 1.75;
b_fit_turb = 0.5316;
c_fit_turb = 1.619;
Coeff_b_turb = b_fit_turb * 2 * diam_int^3 /( ni^2 * ro);

Coeff_c_turb = 2 - c_fit_turb;
%% errore su reynolds
epsilonDV=5*(10^(-7));
epsilonDt=[0.81;0.24;0;0.06;0.11;0.13;0.16;0.17;0.3;0.57;0.1;
0.19;0.27;0.96;0.07;0.22;0.13;0.12;0.08;0.03;0.32];
epsilonQ=(((1./Dt).*epsilonDV)+((DV./(Dt).^2).*epsilonDt));
epsilonu=(1/A).*epsilonQ;
23
epsilonRe=(diam_int/ni).*epsilonu;
%% import
[foto,pathname] = uigetfile('*.TIF','Pick a file',
'Multiselect','on');
I_temp = imread(fullfile(pathname,foto{1}));
[m,n,l] = size(I_temp);
for i = 1:length(foto)
I_temp = imread(fullfile(pathname,foto{i}));
I(:,:,i) = I_temp(:,:,1);
end
Mean = uint8(mean(I,3));
imshow(Mean);
Meanad = imadjust(Mean);
imshow(Meanad);
Meanedge2 = edge(Meanad,'Prewitt');
imshow(Meanedge2)
%% trasformata bit in punti
k=1;
for i=1:2848;
for j=1:4288;
if Meanedge2(i,j)==1
Y(k)=i; X(k)=j;
k=k+1;
end
end
end
%% vettori angolo di apertura METODO 2
theta_up =
[11.05;15.0;13.02;10.04;11.04;8.78;6.53;5.7;5.47;6.84;6.62;6.
07]; % il valore pari a P0=800 è inventato
theta_down =
[14.9;15.37;14.71;13.02;12.77;12.02;11.27;9.78;9.63;9.47;9.04
;8.8];% il valore pari a P0=800 è inventato
epsilon_theta_up = 0.1 * theta_up;
epsilon_theta_down = 0.1 * theta_up;
errorbar(Re_graphs,theta_up,epsilon_theta_up,'x-');
hold on
errorbar(Re_graphs,theta_down,epsilon_theta_down,'x-');
%% grafici METODO 1
epsilon_xc= 0.1 * x_c;
errorbar(Re_graphs,x_c,epsilon_xc,'x-')
24
%% vettori angolo di apertura METODO 1
epsilon_alpha1 = 0.1 * alpha1;
epsilon_alpha2 = 0.1 * alpha2;
errorbar(Re_graphs,alpha1,epsilon_alpha1,'x-');
hold on
%% confronto tra angoli
hold on
figure
hold on
%% confronto dati sperimentali
dimlesscore=x_c/0.70;
errorbar(Re_graphs,dimlesscore,epsilon_xc,'x-')
%% confronto angoli con risultati letteratura

plot(Re_teor,theta_teor,'x-')
hold on
xlabel('Re')
ylabel('Angle [°]')
legend('Theta_t_e_o_r','alpha_1')
title('Theta_t_e_o_r vs alpha_1')
grid on
figure
hold on
xlabel('Re')
legend('Theta_t_e_o_r','theta_1')
title('theta_t_e_o_r vs theta_1')
grid on
figure
hold on
xlabel('Re')
legend('Theta_t_e_o_r','alpha_2')
title('Theta_t_e_o_r vs alpha_2')
grid on
figure
25
hold on
xlabel('Re')
legend('Theta_t_e_o_r','theta_2')
title('Theta_t_e_o_r vs theta_2')
grid on
%% confronto con angoli medi
theta_avg = (theta_up+theta_down)/2;
alpha_avg = (alpha1+alpha2)/2;
hold on
errorbar(Re_graphs,theta_avg,epsilon_theta_up,'x-');
xlabel('Re')
legend('Theta_t_e_o_r','theta_m_e_a_n')
title('Theta_t_e_o_r vs theta_m_e_a_n')
grid on
figure
hold on
errorbar(Re_graphs,alpha_avg,epsilon_theta_up,'x-
');xlabel('Re')
legend('Theta_t_e_o_r','alpha_m_e_a_n')
title('Theta_t_e_o_r vs alpha_m_e_a_n')
grid on
26
2.Pressure on a Blade
2.1) Introduction
The aim of the laboratory practise is to investigate about the
aerodynamic behaviour of a wing/blade model in a wind tunnel.
The main aspects to be evaluated are the pressure coefficients
around the wing/blade model and the lift and drag coefficients,
at different angles of attack and different wind speeds.
Moreover, the experiment has been repeated with a stall
retarder device on the wing/blade model to evaluate its effects
on the previous coefficients. The experimental results have
been compared with theoretical results obtained using the
software Javafoil.

The model section is an air foil similar to NACA 2412, equipped with pressure taps connected to an alcohol
manometer both on upper and lower surfaces. The wind tunnel is also equipped with the velocity
controller powered by an electric panel. The wind speed is changed by turning a knob on the control panel
that changes the frequency and therefore the fan speed, is measured by the pitot tube and can be
visualized on a digital meter. Also, the wing which is tested in our experiment is fitted on the fixed stand
which have a facility to change its height from the ground level and the angle.
27
2.3) Experimental Procedure
The experimental test is to derive the pressures in various
points of the wing through the measurements of the
heights of the alcohol columns, observed on the pressure
gauges. First, the size of the profile was measured, the
distribution of the static sockets on the wing and the
heights of the alcohol columns of every outlet in the
absence of flow and to assume them as reference heights.
Then it has been defined the measurement method and
the parameters to vary:
It was decided to carry out the experiment with two speeds in the tunnel (12 m/s and 18 m/s)
It is decided to vary the angle of inclination of the model from -8° a 18°In the case without retarder, and by-
8° a 24° In case with Retarder, with a step of 2 °.
In both cases the objective was to discover the angle at which it manifests the phenomenon of stall. This
phenomenon consists in the rapid decrease of the coefficient of lift and is due to the separation of the
boundary layer caused by a pressure gradient
adverse to the motion and the viscous strains
of the wall. Experimentally the stall manifests
itself through the abrupt variation of the
heights of the liquid columns of the
manometers in the sockets placed on the
back of the wing.
Figure 1: Boundary and velocity profiles
28
The experiment was carried out in two days. During the first day the measurements were carried out
without the retarder: for each speed condition the heights on the manometers were recorded, depending
on the angle of inclination of the wing. In the second day the same procedure was carried out on the model
with the stall retarder.
On this report the tests will be named as:
- Test 1: speed of the fluid current of 12 m/s, without stall retarder.

- Test 2: speed of the fluid current of 18 m/s, without stall retarder.
- Test 3: speed of the fluid current of 12 m/s, with stall retarder.
- Test 4: speed of the fluid current of 18 m/s, with stall retarder.
2.4) Data Analysis
In the following paragraph it will be shown the elaboration of the data acquired in the laboratory. In order
to make the reading of the work easier, only the procedures related to test 1 (speed of 12 m/s without stall
retarder) will be shown. The other remaining tests will be reported only with results in graphic form, to
carry out the various comparisons.
The Matlab calculation software has been used for data processing and the developed codes are shown in
the appendix chapter.
The following table shows the heights in mm recorded during the test.
Table 1: height’s values
The variation of the height of the columns inside the capillary tubes of the pressure gauge is directly
proportional to the applied pressure: a depression is perceived with an increase in the level of alcohol
compared to the reference dimension, while an overpressure generates a lowering. The δp is calculated as
a product between the difference in height versus the reference (static case), the density of alcohol (789
Kg/M3) and the gravity acceleration (9,81 m/s2):
29
∆𝑝 = − 𝜌𝑎𝑙𝑐 ∙ 𝑔 ∙ ∆ℎ
The negative sign is due to the fact that the pressure sockets are connected from the top.
The values of the pressure variations in Pa are shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Δp values
Through the calculation of the Δp the pressure coefficient Cp can be measured, which is the difference
between local static pressure and free-stream (at ∞) static pressure, adimensionalized by the free-stream
dynamic pressure. At any point in the flow where the local pressure coefficient Cp is defined as:
∆𝑝
𝐶𝑝 =
1⁄ ∙ 𝜌 2
2 𝑎𝑖𝑟 ∙ 𝑈0
where ρair= 1,225 kg/m3 is the density of air, and U0 is the velocity of the flow.
Table 3 shows the values of the pressure coefficients calculated on each static socket, for each angle of
attack.
The pressure coefficient shows us the trend of pressures around the wing, and is closely related to the
aerodynamic forces acting on the body, lift and resistance, which will be discussed later.
Table 3. Pressure coefficients
30
The following graphs describe the trends of the pressure coefficients along the profile, for each angle of
attack. In the graphs, the uncertainties about the evaluated values are also reported, resulting from the
analysis of the propagation of errors.
31
32
From a first analysis of the graphs shown you can see how for attack angles ranging from -8 ° to-2 ° the
pressure coefficient on the upper side is greater than the corresponding one on the lower side, i.e. on the
upper part we have an over pressure and on the lower a depression, which generates a negative lift.
As the angle of attack increases, the depression increases also on the upper part until 𝛼 = 16 ° where a
consistent decrease occurs (i.e. stall) during which the lift falls sharply.
The phenomenon of stall is due to the separation of the fluid vein from the profile and it can be noted by
the fact that in the last two graphs the Cp of the upper and lower part tends to diverge.
By appropriately integrating the pressures between the upper and lower part of the body, it is possible to
obtain the acting force on the wing profile. These pressures have to be referred to the Δp introduced
earlier. Thus, after the evaluation of the integral along the entire surface, we obtain a generic force F with a
certain direction. If we decompose this force in a perpendicular and a parallel component in respect to the
wind we will obtain two the lift (L) and shape resistance (D).
𝐿̅ = − ∫𝑆 𝛥𝑝 ⋅ 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝜃 ⋅ 𝑑𝑆
𝐹̅ = − ∫𝑆 𝛥𝑝 ∙ 𝑛̂ ∙ 𝑑𝑆 {
𝐷̅ = − ∫ 𝛥𝑝 ⋅ 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜃 ⋅ 𝑑𝑆
𝑆
33
In a similar way the coefficients of these forces can be calculated through the integration of the pressure
coefficient.
1
1
𝑐𝐿 = − 𝑆 ∫ 𝑐𝑝 ⋅ 𝑐𝑜𝑠 𝜃 ⋅ 𝑑𝑆
𝑆
𝑐𝐹 = − ∫
𝑆 𝑆
𝑐𝑝 ∙ 𝑛̂ ∙ 𝑑𝑆 { 1
𝑐𝐷 = − 𝑆 ∫ 𝑐𝑝 ⋅ 𝑠𝑖𝑛 𝜃 ⋅ 𝑑𝑆
𝑆
To carry out the calculation with Matlab through discrete data, the coefficients were calculated with the
help of the following summations:
15
1
𝑐𝐿,𝑗 = − ∑ 𝐶𝑝,𝑖 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜃𝑖 + 𝛼𝑗 ) ∙ ∆𝑆𝑖
𝑆
𝑖=1
15
1
𝑐𝐷,𝑗 = − ∑ 𝐶𝑝,𝑖 ∙ 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜃𝑖 + 𝛼𝑗 ) ∙ ∆𝑆𝑖
{ 𝑆
𝑖=1
where the subscript j Indicates the different angles of attack, in fact we will have a lift and a resistance
coefficient for each angle of attack; the subscript i, on which the summation is carried out, indicates the
different pressure outlets; α is the angle of attack and θ It is the angle between the vertical and the normal
to the surface; ∆𝑆𝑖 = ∆𝑥𝑖 ˑ 𝑏 represents the surface portion of the wing between two consecutive pressure
outlets, ∆𝑥𝑖 is the distance between the two outlets and b is the wingspan.
34
Here are reported the graphs of CL and CD Depending on the angle of attack.
35
Looking at the graph of the lift coefficient we can notice that for attack angles smaller than -2 ° the lift is
negative, α =-2° is the angle for which the lift is null. The coefficient increases linearly with alpha, up to α =
10°. α = 14 ° is the angle for which the stall occurs and for higher values of angle a sharp decrease in the
coefficient is noted. This is perfectly in accordance with what was mentioned above in the analysis of the
pressure coefficients. While the resistance coefficient is always positive, which means that a body in motion
always generates a resistance, even if it is not noticeable for angles of attack lower than the stall angle. The
𝐶𝐷 has an almost parabolic pattern until the stall angle, beyond which it has a rapid increase.
2.5) Comparison with Javafoil
In this paragraph it is explained how the experimental results of the lift coefficient have been compared
with theoretical values obtained from a simulation software named Javafoil.
JavaFoil is a relatively simple program, which uses several traditional methods for airfoil analysis in subsonic
flows. The following two methods build the backbone of the program:
• The potential flow analysis is done with a higher order panel method (linear varying vorticity
distribution). Taking a set of airfoil coordinates, it calculates the local, inviscid flow velocity along
the surface of the airfoil for any desired angle of attack.
• The boundary layer analysis module steps along the upper and the lower surfaces of the airfoil,
starting at the stagnation point. It solves a set of differential equations to find the various boundary
layer parameters. It is a so called integral method.
A standard compressibility correction has been implemented to take mild Mach number effects into
account. As long as the flow stays subsonic, the results should be fairly accurate (Mach<0.5).
Limits of this software are due to the fact that it does not model laminar separation bubbles and turbulent
flow separation, the results will be incorrect if larger areas of flow separation are present. Massive
separation, as it occurs at stall, is modelled to some extent by empirical corrections, so that maximum lift
can be predicted approximately for "conventional" airfoils. If you analyse an airfoil beyond stall, the results
will be quite inaccurate.
36
The working of Javafoil is based on the
profile geometry data of the wing, which, in our case, is a NACA 2412. After the data concerning the fluid
current have to be inserted and in particular:
density of air set as ρair=1.225 Kg/m3, kinematic viscosity υ=1.46 · 105, sound of speed equal to 340 m/s and
Mach number equal to 0.0353 in the case of a 12 m/s flow rate.
Although the Reynolds number would be about 100000 with the values considered above, it was set to a
much higher value, around 500000, in order to have a better model that would be inherent to reality. This
because Javafoil tends to simplify too much and yields not accurate results.
Afterwards, the lift and resistance coefficients have been calculated for the angles of attack of interest, i.e.,
from -8° to 18° with a 2° pitch and plotted with the help of Matlab.
It is important to point out that there is a remarkable difference among the lift coefficient for an airfoil
section and that for the entire wing.
Since there is a substantial difference between the lift coefficient of a theoretical profile and one of a
physical model, the result of Javafoil must be corrected with the following relationship:
𝑑𝐶
( 𝐿⁄𝑑𝛼 )
𝑑𝐶𝐿 𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑖𝑙
( ) =
𝑑𝛼 𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝐶
( 𝐿⁄𝑑𝛼 )
𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑖𝑙
1+
𝜋 ∙ 𝐴𝑅
Where AR is the aspect ratio, which is equivalent to the ratio of wingspan and rope for a rectangular wing.
37
This 1st order differential equation has been resolved to derive CL, Wing with a system of linear equations, by
choosing CL, airfoil =CL, Wing for α = 0 as a boundary condition . The MATLAB code used to solve the equation is
shown in the appendix.
From the graph it can be observed how the correction applied to the theoretical curve, obtained with
Javafoil, significantly approximates the curve to the experimentally obtained results. Nevertheless, there
continues to be an obvious difference between experimental and theoretical values, probably due to
random errors in laboratory measurement, difficult to quantify, and therefore not considered in the
propagation of errors. Moreover, it can be easily noted that in the theoretical curve, the stall angle is ahead
of that seen in the laboratory. This difference is probably due to Javafoil's limits in analyzing behavior in the
next and post-stall phases.
In addition, in the following chapter where it’s described the error analysis it will be evaluated a possible
error related to the angle of attack.
Regarding the resistance coefficient, the error made by Javafoil is greater than the lift coefficient, so we
made a comparison with what we obtained from the theory of the finite wing, strictly valid for a
rectangular wing.
38
From this comparison it can be observed that the theoretical curve obtained from the finite wing theory is
almost coincident with the one obtained from the experimental data (apart from the initial part), which is
even more evident if the uncertainty about the measure is considered. The most noticeable difference is
beyond the stall angle, after which the experimental resistance coefficient increases sharply, while the
theoretical one has a decreasing trend. This trend could be explained by analyzing the relationship used for
calculating the theoretical coefficient:
2
(𝐶𝐿 − 𝐶𝐿,0 )
CD is proportional to the square of the difference between CL in the considered angle of incidence and the
2
CL calculated for α = 0 °. After the stall angle (𝐶𝐿 − 𝐶𝐿,0 ) starts to decrease because the lift collapses.
Considering what we have just said, we trust theoretical results up to the stall angle.
The comparison between the experimentally calculated pressure coefficient and the one obtained with the
use of Javafoil is reported below. The comparison was made for two different angles of attack: -2 ° (the
angle of attack where the lift is zero) and 8 °.
39
We note similar trends of the coefficients, which however differ considerably in the absolute values
probably because of the substantial difference between the airfoil considered in Javafoil and finite wing,
and the fact that Javafoil neglects the viscous effects.
2.6) Error Analysis
In the phase of elaboration of results it has been taken into account the propagation of the error, starting
from the identification and the quantification of errors committed during direct measurements carried out
in the laboratory.
40
In general, the error of an indirect measure is defined as:
Where f is the indirect measure considered, 𝑀𝐺,𝑖 are the fundamental quantities and 𝜀𝑀𝐺,𝑖 i is the error on
those quantities. In the Matlab codes listed in the appendix the error calculations are also present.
Firstly, it has been considered the error on the heights of the alcohol columns of the gauge, quantified with
respect to the sensitivity of the instrument, in our case of 1 mm. Therefore, we considered an error on the
measures equal to half of this sensitivity, 0.5 mm.
This error propagates on the measurements as:
∆𝑝 = − 𝜌𝑎𝑙𝑐 ∙ 𝑔 ∙ (ℎ0 − ℎ)
{ 𝜀ℎ = 𝜀ℎ0
𝑑∆𝑝 𝑑∆𝑝
𝜀∆𝑝 = | | 𝜀ℎ + | | 𝜀 = 2 ∙ 𝜌𝑎𝑙𝑐 ∙ 𝑔 ∙ 𝜀ℎ = 7,74 𝑃𝑎
𝑑ℎ 𝑑ℎ𝑜 ℎ0
The error committed on the pressure coefficients, besides the propagation of the error on Δp, it was also
considered an error on the value of the velocity of the airflow in the wind tunnel, measured by the Pitot
tube, considered equal to the oscillation of the reading on the display of the digital meter, which was 0.1
m/s.
∆𝑝 𝑑𝐶𝑝 𝑑𝐶𝑝
𝐶𝑝 = 1⁄ 2 𝜀𝐶𝑝 = | | 𝜀∆𝑝 + |𝑑𝑈 | 𝜀𝑈0
2∙ 𝜌𝑎𝑖𝑟 ∙𝑈0 𝑑∆𝑝 𝑜
The results of the errors on the pressure coefficients for the case in question (U0= 12 m/s, without retarder)
are shown below.
41
Table 4. Error on pressure coefficients.
To calculate the error committed on the lift and resistance coefficient, it was considered the propagation of
the error on the Cp and also on the angle of attack, quantified according to the sensitivity of the instrument
used to change this angle, equal to 1 °. This error was equal to 0.5 ° but it was negligible.
𝑑𝐶 𝑑𝐶
𝜀𝐶𝐿 = | 𝐿 | 𝜀𝐶𝑝 + | 𝐿 | 𝜀𝛼
𝑑𝐶𝑝 𝑑𝛼
𝑑𝐶 𝑑𝐶
𝜀𝐶𝐷 = | 𝐷 | 𝜀𝐶𝑝 + | 𝐷 | 𝜀𝛼
{ 𝑑𝐶𝑝 𝑑𝛼
Here are the tables showing the obtained values:
Table 5. Error on CL.
Table 6. Error CD.
2.6.1) Attack Angle Error

It has been hypothesized the possibility of an error with respect to the angle of attack. This hypothesis was
made by observing the comparison graph of the lift coefficient with the results of Javafoil, where there is a
delay in the stall of about 2 °. It was then modified the range of the attack angles adopted to carry out the
measurements in the laboratory, from -10 ° to 16 ° instead of -8 ° to 18 °.
Considering this modification as a result we have obtained the following graph:
42
The results show a better approximation of the experimental results (blue curve) compared to theoretical
ones (orange curve).
43
2.7) Test results
This chapter shows the results obtained in the other three tests. The analytical procedures to get to the
results are the identical to the ones explained in detail in the preceding chapters, so we report only the
final results, then make a comparison and evaluate the effects of the different conditions.
2.7.1) Test 2
Table 7: height values of test 2
Table 8: Δp values of test 2
Table 9: pressure coefficients values of test 2
44
45
46
47
48
49
2.7.2) Test 3
Table 8: pressure coefficients of test 3
50
51
52
53
54
2.7.3) Test 4
55
Table 15: pressure coefficients of test 4
56
57
58
59
60
2.8) Comparisons
In the following chapter a comparison is made between the different tests, in order to evaluate the effect
of the speed variation and the presence of the stall retarder on the lift and resistance coefficient.
The following comparisons were made:
2.8.1) Comparison between test 1 and 2
The first comparison relates to tests 1 and 2, i.e. between the flow rate of 12 m/s and 18 m/s without the
stall retarder.
The following graphs show the comparison between the lift coefficients and the resistance coefficients.
From the graph you can notice that there is no appreciable difference between the two speeds, in fact the
two graphs are practically overlapping up to the angle attack α = 6°, then the coefficient relative to the
higher speed is slightly higher. The stall angle is the same in both cases, equal to 14°.
61
Even for the resistance coefficients there is no appreciable difference. The coefficient of resistance has the
same parabolic pattern before the stall angle and increases sharply for larger attack angles. In any case the
coefficient is slightly higher in the case of lower speed.
If we compare test 1 and 3 you can make an evaluation of the effect of the stall retarder on the lift and
resistance coefficients.
From the graph we observe immediately how the presence of the stall retarder actually causes an
anticipation of the stall, a result which is clearly opposite to what expected. This opposite effect could be
due to the fact that the retarder, which consists of a wire placed near the edge of the model, was attached
with duct tape, that could cause fluid vein detachments and therefore an anticipation of the stall.
Moreover it can be observed that the coefficient values are globally smaller with the retarder.
62
Instead, the resistance coefficient decreases with the presence of the stall retarder for attack angles less
than about 10°, but starts to increase before respect to the first test, probably due to an early separation of
the limit layer for the same reasons mentioned above.
This comparison should draw conclusions similar to those obtained from the previous confrontation, in fact
we compare two tests carried out at the same speed with and without the stall retarder.
Also in this case we can notice the anticipation of the stall.
63
Even for the resistance coefficient, the effects are quite similar to those described in the previous test 1 and
3.
In the comparison between tests 3 and 4, i.e. speed of 12 m/s and 18 m/s in the presence of the stall
retarder, the results expected are similar to those obtained from the comparison between tests 1 and 2.
The graph shows how the coefficient does not have significant differences related to the different speeds of
the air flow. The curves are practically overlapping up to the attack angle equal to 4°, beyond which it turns
out to be slightly greater for the speed of 18 m/s. The stall angle is the same in both cases, equal to 12°.
64
The velocity variation of the undisturbed flow seems not to affect the coefficients of resistance, in fact the
two curves are to practically coincident for angles of attack between 4 ° and 14 °, whereas it is slightly
higher the coefficient for the speed of 12 m/s for angles less than 4 °.
2.9) Appendix: MatLAB code
%% Input
for i = 1 : 15 , j = 1 : 14
Dp_U1(i,j) = ro_alc * g * (h0(i) - matrix_h_U1(i,j)) *
10^-3; %matrice dei delta P; colonne sono i vettori per ogni
angolo
Cp_U1(i,j) = Dp_U1(i,j) / press_din;
end
for j = 1: 14
hold on
plot(x_c , Cp_U1(:,j))
end
%% CL completo
clear CL
CL(j) = 0;
for i = 1:15 , j = 1:14;
CL(j) = CL(j) - ((1/S)*(Cp_U1(i,j) .*

cos(theta_rad(i)+alpha_rad(j)) .* DS(i)));
end
%% CD completo
CD(j) = 0;
for i = 1:15 , j = 1:14;
65
CD(j) = CD(j) - ((1/S) * (Cp_U1(i,j) .*
sin(theta_rad(i)+alpha_rad(j)) .* DS(i)));
end
%% calcolo errori
epsilon_Dp = 2*ro_alc * g * 0.0005 %errore Dp
%% calcolo errore nel cp
for i = 1 : 15 , j = 1 : 14
epsilon_Cp_U1(i,j)=(1/(1/2*ro_air*U1^2))* epsilon_Dp +
2*(Dp_U1(i,j))/(1/2*ro_air*U1^3)*0.1
end
%% prova DCl/Dalpharad
for i = 1:13
DCl(i) = CL(i+1) - CL(i);
Dalpha_rad(i) = alpha_rad(i+1)- alpha_rad(i);
diffCl_alpha(i) = DCl(i) / Dalpha_rad(i);
end
%prova DCl_java/Dalpharad
for i = 1:13
DCljava(i) = cljavaV1(i+1) - cljavaV1(i);
diffCl_alpha_java(i) = DCljava(i) / Dalpha_rad(i);
end
%relazione Cl con Cl_java
for i = 1:13
relaz(i) = diffCl_alpha_java(i) / (
1+(diffCl_alpha_java(i)/(pi*(b/c))));
end
%prova DCl_java/Dalpharad
for i = 1:13
66
DCljavaRe5(i) = cljavaV1Re5(i+1) - cljavaV1Re5(i);
diffCl_alpha_javaRe5(i) = DCljavaRe5(i) / Dalpha_rad(i);
end
%relazione Cl con Cl_java
for i = 1:13
relazRe5(i) = diffCl_alpha_javaRe5(i) / (
1+(diffCl_alpha_javaRe5(i)/(pi*(b/c))));
end
%% plot
plot(diffCl_alpha)
hold on
plot(relaz)
%% Clalateorico Re100000
CLteor(5)=0.096;
for i = 1:4
CLteor(i) = - relaz(i) * Dalpha_rad(i) + CLteor(i+1)
end
for i= 6:14
CLteor(i) = relaz(i-1) * Dalpha_rad(i-1) + CLteor(i-1)
end
%% Clalateorico Re500000
CLteorRe5(5)=0.096;
for i = 1:4
CLteorRe5(i) = - relazRe5(i) * Dalpha_rad(i) +
CLteorRe5(i+1)
end
67
for i= 6:14
CLteorRe5(i) = relazRe5(i-1) * Dalpha_rad(i-1) +
CLteorRe5(i-1)
end
%% Clcorretto (VERIFICA)
CLcorrRe5(5)=0.096;
for i = 1:4
CLcorrRe5(i) = CLcorrRe5(i+1) - ((cljavaV1Re5(i+1)-
cljavaV1Re5(i))/(1+((cljavaV1Re5(i+1)-
cljavaV1Re5(i))/((alpha_rad(i+1)-alpha_rad(i))*(pi*(b/c))))))
end
for i= 6:14
CLcorrRe5(i) = CLcorrRe5(i-1) + ((cljavaV1Re5(i)-
cljavaV1Re5(i-1))/(1+((cljavaV1Re5(i)-cljavaV1Re5(i-
1))/((alpha_rad(i)-alpha_rad(i-1))*(pi*(b/c))))))
end
%% plot Cp , Cl , Cd
plot(alpha,CL)
hold on
plot(alpha,cljavaV1)
plot(alpha,CLteor)
plot(alpha,cljavaV1Re5)
plot(alpha,CLteorRe5)
errorbar(alpha,CL,meanepsilonCL);
%% CDteor
for i = 1:4
68
CDteor(i) = CD(5) + (((CL(i)-CL(5))^2)/(pi*(b/c)*0.85));
end
CDteor(5) = CD(5);
for i = 6:14
CDteor(i) = CD(5) + (((CL(i)-CL(5))^2)/(pi*(b/c)*0.85));
end
plot(alpha,CD)
hold on
plot(alpha,CDteor)
%% errore CL
DepsilonCL(j) = 0;
for i = 1:15 , j = 1:14;
DepsilonCL(j) = sqrt(((DepsilonCL(j) -
((1/S)*(cos(theta_rad(i)+alpha_rad(j))).*
DS(i))).^2).*(epsilon_Cp_U1(i).^2));
end
meanepsilonCL(j) = DepsilonCL(j)
%% errore CL gradi
DepsilonCLa(j) = 0;
for i = 1:15 , j = 1:14;
69
DepsilonCLa(j) = sqrt(((DepsilonCLa(j) -
((1/S)*(Cp_U1(i,j) .* sin(theta_rad(i)+alpha_rad(j))) .*
DS(i))).^2).*(0.00872665).^2);
end
meanepsilonCLa(j) = DepsilonCLa(j)/15
meanepsilonCLtot=meanepsilonCLa+meanepsilonCL
%% prova grafico Cp
for i=1:14
figure
errorbar(x_c(1:8),Cp_U1(1:8,i),epsilon_Cp_U1(1:8,i),'x-b')
hold on
errorbar(x_c(8:end),Cp_U1(8:end,i),epsilon_Cp_U1(8:end,i),'x-
r')
legend('upper','lower')
xlabel('x/c')
ylabel('Cp')
str=num2str(alpha(i));
title(['alpha=',num2str(alpha(i)),'°'])
end
%% prova grafico Cp
for i=1:4:14
figure
errorbar(x_c(1:8),Cp_U1(1:8,i),epsilon_Cp_U1(1:8,i),'x-')
hold on
errorbar(x_c(8:end),Cp_U1(8:end,i),epsilon_Cp_U1(8:end,i),'x-
')
xlabel('x/c')
70
ylabel('Cp')
str=num2str(alpha(i));
title(['alpha=',num2str(alpha(i)),'°'])
end
%% plot Cl e Cd
errorbar(alpha,CL,meanepsilonCLtot,'x-')
xlabel('alpha [°]')
ylabel('Cl')
figure
errorbar(alpha,CD,meanepsilonCDtot,'rx-')
ylabel('Cd')
%% plot cljava
plot(alpha,cljavaV1Re5)
ylabel('CLjava')
%plot cdjava
plot(alpha,cdjavaV1)
ylabel('CDjava')
%% errore CD
DepsilonCD(j) = 0;
for i = 1:15 , j = 1:14;
71
DepsilonCD(j) = sqrt(((DepsilonCD(j) -
((1/S)*(sin(theta_rad(i)+alpha_rad(j))).*
DS(i))).^2).*(epsilon_Cp_U1(i).^2));
end
meanepsilonCD(j) = DepsilonCD(j)
%% errore CD gradi
DepsilonCDa(j) = 0;
for i = 1:15 , j = 1:14;
DepsilonCDa(j) = sqrt(((DepsilonCDa(j) +
((1/S)*(Cp_U1(i,j) .* cos(theta_rad(i)+alpha_rad(j))) .*
DS(i))).^2).*(0.00872665).^2);
end
meanepsilonCDa(j) = DepsilonCDa(j)/15
meanepsilonCDtot = meanepsilonCD + meanepsilonCDa
%% plot confronto CD
errorbar(alpha,CD,meanepsilonCDtot,'x-')
hold on
plot(alpha,CDteor)
%% correzione angolo
alpha_rad_corr=alpha_rad - alpha_rad(6);
72
clear CL_corr
CL_corr(j) = 0;
for i = 1:15 , j = 1:14;
CL_corr(j) = CL_corr(j) - ((1/S)*(Cp_U1(i,j) .*

cos(theta_rad(i)+alpha_rad_corr(j)) .* DS(i)));
end
CD_corr(j) = 0;
for i = 1:15 , j = 1:14;
CD_corr(j) = CD_corr(j) - ((1/S) * (Cp_U1(i,j) .*

sin(theta_rad(i)+alpha_rad_corr(j)) .* DS(i)));
end
CLteorRe5_corr(5)=CL_corr(6);
for i = 1:4
CLteorRe5_corr(i) =( - relazRe5(i) * Dalpha_rad(i) +
CLteorRe5_corr(i+1))
end
for i= 6:14
CLteorRe5_corr(i) = ( relazRe5(i-1) * Dalpha_rad(i-1) +
CLteorRe5_corr(i-1))
end
errorbar(alpha_rad_corr,CL_corr,meanepsilonCL)
hold on
73
plot(alpha_rad,CLteorRe5_corr)
plot(alpha_rad,cljavaV1Re5)
74
3.Velocity profiles in boundary layers
3.1) Introduction
The origin of a boundary layer occurs when a fluid flows over a bounding surface where the effects of
viscosity can be registered. In fact, the relative velocity of a fluid that flows over a solid surface goes from
zero (at the surface itself) up to the velocity of the free stream, where the effects of the surface are
negligible (i.e. undisturbed condition), through the so-called boundary layer.
Considering a steady flow over a flat smooth surface, we can see as shown in fig.1 how the boundary layer
thickness increases from the point of contact between fluid and surface, passing through an initial
condition of laminar flow to a turbulent flow at the end. This transition is produced by small disturbances
which grow along the surface, producing apparently random whirls typical of the turbulent motions. These
steps are accompanied by the growth of the Reynold’s number which is proportional to the distance x from
the leading edge (𝑥 = 0) and characterizes the position of the transition zone. Since the flow is influenced
by factors such as turbulence and roughness of the surface, it is not possible to give a single value of Re at
which transition occurs, but it is usually found in the range of 105 ÷ 5∙105.
Figure 2: Boundary layer profile
The experiment is carried out in a small wind tunnel where a flat plate (smooth or rough) is inserted. A Pitot
tube, which is adjustable in distance thanks to the use of a Palmer micrometer, measures the velocity
profile of the fluid from the undisturbed condition to the no-slip condition at the surface (or at least in the
immediate vicinity). This measurement has been done both for smooth and rough surface with three
different constant velocities (10 m/s, 20 m/s, 30 m/s). The experiment has been done also changing the
conduit shape (convergent asset and divergent asset) with a velocity of 20 m/s to study the velocity profiles
in presence of a pressure gradient.
∆𝑝 ∆𝑝 ∆𝑝
=0 >0 <0
∆𝑥 ∆𝑥 ∆𝑥
75
Flat surface Divergent surface Convergent surface
The total experimental conditions adopted are 8:

5.1 Smooth plate, parallel plates, 10 m/s 5.2 Smooth plate, parallel plates, 20 m/s 5.3 Smooth plate, parallel plates, 30 m/s
5.4 Rough plate, parallel plates, 20 m/s 5.5 Smooth plate, convergent, 20 m/s 5.6 Smooth plate, divergent, 20 m/s
5.7 Rough plate, convergent, 20 m/s 5.8 Rough plate, divergent, 20 m/s
In all these conditions the ratio 𝑢(𝑦)/𝑈0 is plotted, where 𝑈0 is the velocity of the free stream, i.e. in the
undisturbed condition. In fact, the aim of the experiment is to understand how the thickness of the
boundary layer, mass flow rate and momentum change with respect to the undisturbed condition and
investigate the effects of the Re, pressure gradient and roughness on the fluid.
As well-known, the boundary layer thickness is the distance across the boundary layer, from the plate to a
certain distance at which the velocity of the fluid reaches the 99% of the undisturbed velocity of the fluid.
In this region the velocity variation affects flow rate and momentum across the boundary layer, and this
will be evaluated in the following experiment using essentially two parameters: displacement thickness 𝛿
and momentum thickness 𝜃. The only boundary layer thickness, in fact, is not very useful in this case since
the asymptotic growth of 𝑢(𝑦) reaching 𝑈0 in a very small region affects the precision of measurements
and it would be too inaccurate and coarse.
For every of the 6 velocities profile we will have a certain displacement thickness δ:
1 𝑦𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝛿∗ = ∫ (𝑈0 − 𝑢)𝑑𝑦
𝑈0 0
Where ymax is any arbitrary distance from the wall which satisfies the condition 𝑢 = 𝑈0 (undisturbed
velocity) and 𝑢 is the measured velocity. The other extreme of the integration 0, corresponds to the real
zero distance from the wall; anyway, this value cannot be reached in practice because of the Pitot tube
itself, which doesn’t have an infinitesimal dimension, even if it has very thin tube walls, so it will be placed
at a finite distance from the plate. In this model, it is used the discretized value of the displacement
thickness:
𝑛
1
𝛿= ∑(𝑈0 − 𝑢𝑖 )∆𝑦𝑖
𝑈0
𝑖=1
76
𝑢(𝑦)
Geometrically, this value represents the total area minus the area below the graph function ⁄𝑈 ; in
0
other words, the complementary area of the rectangular area that has for sides the total boundary layer
𝑢(𝑦)
thickness and the unit ⁄𝑈 ≅ 1. In fact, the shear stress occurring on the fluid causes a reduction of
0
𝑢(𝑦)
the mass flow rate in every part inside the boundary layer (where ⁄𝑈 < 1). If we consider an inviscid
0
fluid instead, without friction that would reduce its mass flow rate, there would be no such losses. Anyway,
we can imagine a situation in which the fluid is inviscid but with the same mass flow rate of the viscid one.
To make this kind of evaluation we should displace the boundary layer to compensate these losses.
Figure 3: displacement thickness
If the two shaded areas are equal, it means that the mass flow loss due to the presence of the boundary
layer or more precisely due to the friction interaction between fluid and surface, equals the mass flow loss
resulting from having reduced the boundary layer itself with the displacement. Using the displacement
thickness, we also obtain the same flow rate at the two sections (A’B’ and AB), while, always for the effect
of the viscosity interaction between the fluid and the surface, in the case of the real boundary layer this
flow rate is reduced from the section A’O to the section AC. This solution is useful in all the problems in
which considering the velocity profile is difficult.
A further definition is required when momentum effects within the boundary layer are considered. We can
obtain by the same principle of the distance account the loss of momentum of the boundary layer: like the
previous approximation, we would obtain an inviscid fluid with the same mass low rate of the viscid one.
The distance by which the boundary layer should be displaced to compensate for the reduction in
momentum of the flowing fluid is called Momentum thickness. This other important parameter, obtained
by the momentum equation, is the following:
1 𝑦𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝜃= ∫ 𝑢(𝑈0 − 𝑢)𝑑𝑦
𝑈02 0̅
Also in this case, the discretized formula is used:

𝑛
1
𝜃 = 2 ∑ 𝑢𝑖 (𝑈0 − 𝑈𝑖 )∆𝑦𝑖
𝑈0
𝑖=1
It is frequently useful to refer to the ratio of displacement thickness 𝛿 ∗ to momentum thickness 𝜃 and it is
called the shape factor H:
77
𝛿∗
𝐻=
𝜃
Shape factor is always greater than one and high values of H stand for strong adverse pressure gradient. In
fact, H is strongly related to Reynold’s number because for adverse pressure the Reynold number reduces,
meaning the presence of a laminar flow. Value oh H ranges between 1.3 to 2.6, respectively turbulent and
laminar flow as explained before. Here are reported two examples given by sheets with respective values of
H, one of a turbulent flow and the other of a laminar flow.
𝛿 = 1.721 ∙ 𝐿⁄ 0.5 𝛿 = 0.046 ∙ 𝐿⁄ 0.2

𝑅𝑒𝐿 𝑅𝑒𝐿
𝐿𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑟 𝜃 = 0.664 ∙ 𝐿⁄ 𝑇𝑢𝑟𝑏𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝜃 = 0.035 ∙ 𝐿⁄
𝑅𝑒𝐿0.5 𝑅𝑒𝐿0.2
{ 𝐻 = 2.59 { 𝐻 = 1.29

The instrumentation consists of the following components:
78
1) The conduit is the part of the wind
tunnel in which the measurements
take place. Here we can see that the
tunnel is basically a passage where the
object under examination is inserted
in the middle. Air is moved by a
powerful ventilation system which can
regulate the speed of air.
2) The Pitot’s tube is the pressure

measurement instrument used to
measure fluid flow velocity. Its end is
flattened towards the flow.
3) The mechanical device used to set the

distance of the Pitot tube from the wall
is a micrometer. It is an extremely
accurate tool whose working is based on
the rotation of a graduated roller.
However, since the zero distance from
the plate doesn’t correspond to the zero
on the instrument scale, the
measurement is expressed in terms of
Δy of 1mm or 0,5mm.
4) It is an electronic instrument that

displays on the screen the values
measured by the tube, such as velocities
and pressures. It’s connected to the
instrument with a flexible tube.
5) The plate is the reference surface for the

measurements; it is a 23 cm slab placed
at the center of the conduit whose
surface is smooth on one side and rough
on the other side, in order to measure
the influence of roughness. Figure 4: Experimental equipment
79
3.3) Laboratory procedure
The experiment is made in the small wind tunnel with velocities that range from 10 to 30 m/s. The
laboratory practice is divided into three main jobs:
I. Positioning of the Pitot tube with the micrometer;

II. Recording of the measures read on the electronic display,
III. Registering data.
I. Start: the first thing to do before proceeding with the experiment, is to set the velocity inside
the conduit. Due to the structure of the tunnel itself and to its compressor, is not simple to set
twice the same velocity, so, it’s very important to try to use the same velocity conditions for a
wider range of conditions, having in this way a comparable situation between the conditions
corresponding to the same velocity flowing inside the conduit. Despite this precaution, the
velocity inside the wind tunnel remains hardly constant due to the machine imperfections and
to the high sensibility of the Pitot tube.
II. Positioning of the Pitot tube: the Pitot tube is positioned by a very precise instrument, which is
called Palmer micrometer. It is a mechanical device that can vary the position of the tube itself
with a sensibility of 0,05 mm. Before beginning with the recordings of data, the position of the
Pitot tube has to be adjusted in order to measure the undisturbed velocity and it’s done by
putting the tube at a sufficient distance from the plate where the velocity is equal to the one
set by the ventilation system. Once we have checked the velocity is the correct initial one, we
can move on to the next phase.
III. Recording measures: the Pitot tube is capable of measuring velocity and pressure values every
second, giving us the chance to estimate an average value of velocity. To do so, we adopted a
basic strategy to record data which consists in two people registering a sufficient number of
values (6÷8 measurements) and other two people calculating the average value with the use of
a PC. Thanks to this working method we managed to examine 7 different experimental
conditions and to obtain a reliable measurement of the velocity.
The whole process has been thought to be simple and well defined in order to carry out a very
systematic approach, with the aim to limit the measurement errors and to avoid to have poor quality
data.
80
3.4 Results and Discussions
The experimental data taken during the laboratory practice are reported in this section and the
different experimental configurations are analyzed separately, reporting graphs and explanations.
While proceeding with the experiment in the laboratory, three main problems have been recognized
that make necessary a deepening to understand better the phenomena and to compare the result s
with the theory. These three problems are:
• Absence of the end part of the curve (non-zero ending): this problem is due to the finite
dimension of the Pitot tube walls, that makes velocity measurement impossible at a very small
distance from the surface itself. The only way to overcome this problem, related to the real
conditions of laboratory practice, is to linearize the final behavior of the curve found by
previous measurements. Furthermore, also the choice of the right points for the linearization
is not easy; in fact, most of time, the last two points are not the points corresponding to the
real velocity profile (as shown in the next points). The experimental condition in which arise
this kind of error are (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8).
• Curve displaced from the origin of the axis: this problem is due to the calibration of the
distance of the Pitot tube. In fact, here the distance doesn’t represent the absolute distance
from the surface but the intervals Δy between two measurements which are used to calculate
the velocity in precise points respect to the plate. So, once linearized the curve, the curve
itself should be displaced by a value, which literally “moves” the curve on the left, toward the
origin of the axes. The experimental condition in which arise this kind of error are
(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8).
• Change in concavity of the curve: is also noted the presence of a series of increasing velocities
in the last part of the recorded values, corresponding to a change in concavity of the curve.
This happens when the Pitot’s tube is at the closest as possible to the surface and the meaning
of this error is related to the tube itself, because, when searching for the zero velocities, the
tube has been pushed too much toward the surface, causing its bending and as a result, it
determines an incorrect measurement which corresponds to values at a higher distance rather
than a closer one. The experimental condition in which arise this kind of error are (5,6,7,8).
Wall
Figure 4: Pitot’s tube bending phenomena
81
3.5) Experiments (check graphs with different origin)
3. 5.1) Smooth plate, parallel plates, air velocity = 10 m/s
Data results
Distance u(y)/U0
0.2000 0.5200
0.7000 0.7190
1.2000 0.8200
1.7000 0.8500
2.2000 0.9025
2.7000 0.9175
3.2000 0.9650
3.7000 0.9740 H 1.3947
4.2000 1.0000 𝜃 4.8469 ∙ 10-4
4.7000 1.0000 𝛿∗ 6.7600 ∙ 10-4
5.2000 1.0000 Re 1.7052 ∙ 105
5.7000 0.9950
6.2000 0.9900
6.7000 0.9950
7.2000 1.0000
7.7000 1.0000
8.2000 1.0000
8.7000 1.0000
9.2000 1.0000
82
3.5.2) Smooth plate, parallel plates, air velocity = 20 m/s
Data results
Distance u(y)/U0
0.2000 0.6525
0.7000 0.7350
1.2000 0.7825
1.7000 0.8335
2.2000 0.8600
2.7000 0.8977
3.2000 0.9200
3.7000 0.9328 H 1.2516
4.2000 0.9450 𝜃 6.2161 ∙ 10-4
4.7000 0.9625 𝛿∗ 7.7800 ∙ 10-4
5.2000 0.9750 Re 3.4104 ∙ 105
5.7000 0.9775
6.2000 0.9900
6.7000 0.9925
7.2000 0.9925
7.7000 0.9975
8.2000 0.9975
8.7000 1.0000
9.2000 1.0000
83
3.5.3) Smooth plate, parallel plates, air velocity = 30 m/s
Data results
Distance u(y)/U0
0.2000 0.6883
0.7000 0.7917
1.2000 0.8600
1.7000 0.8983
2.2000 0.9283
2.7000 0.9533
3.2000 0.9750
3.7000 0.9833
H 1.2258
4.2000 0.9883
𝜃 3.9633 ∙ 10-4
4.7000 0.9933
𝛿∗ 4.8583 ∙ 10-4
5.2000 0.9950
Re 5.1155 ∙ 105
5.7000 0.9950
6.2000 0.9950
6.7000 0.9967
7.2000 0.9967
7.7000 0.9967
8.2000 0.9967
8.7000 0.9983
9.2000 0.9983
84
3.5.4) Rough plate, parallel plates, air velocity = 20 m/s
85
Data results
Distance u(y)/U0
0.5000 0.5075
1.0000 0.5375
1.5000 0.6050
2.0000 0.6575
2.5000 0.7050
3.0000 0.7375
3.5000 0.7825
4.0000 0.8025
4.5000 0.8175 H 1.4653
5.0000 0.8625 𝜃 0.0011
5.5000 0.9075 𝛿∗ 0.0016
6.0000 0.9075 Re 3.4104 ∙ 105
6.5000 0.9525
7.0000 0.9525 3.5.5) Smooth plate, convergent asset, air
7.5000 0.9850 velocity = 20 m/s
8.0000 0.9850
8.5000 1.0000
9.0000 1.0000
Data results
Distance u(y)/U0
0.7000 0.6608
1.2000 0.7212
1.7000 0.8908
2.2000 0.9298
2.7000 0.9513
3.2000 0.9688
3.7000 0.9786
4.2000 0.9844
4.7000 0.9864
5.2000 0.9903
5.7000 0.9922
6.2000 0.9942
6.7000 0.9961
7.2000 0.9961
7.7000 1.0000
86
H 1.2822
𝜃 3.7930 ∙ 10-4
𝛿∗ 4.8635 ∙ 10-4
Re 4.4965 ∙ 105
3.5.6) Smooth plate, divergent asset, air velocity = 20 m/s
Data results
87
Distance u(y)/U0
0.7000 0.5705
1.2000 0.6242
1.7000 0.6868
2.2000 0.7293
2.7000 0.7740
3.2000 0.8098
3.7000 0.8434
4.2000 0.8792
H 1.3656
4.7000 0.8993
𝜃 8.8397 ∙ 10-4
5.2000 0.9217
𝛿∗ 0.0012
5.7000 0.9306
Re 3.9180 ∙ 105
6.2000 0.9709
6.7000 0.9933
7.2000 0.9942
7.7000 1.0000
3.5.7) Rough plate, convergent asset, air velocity = 20 m/s
88
Data results
Distance u(y)/U0
0.5000 0.6608
1.0000 0.7212
1.5000 0.8908
2.0000 0.9298
2.5000 0.9513
3.0000 0.9688
H 1.4778
3.5000 0.9786
𝜃 9.8964 ∙ 10-4
4.0000 0.9844
𝛿∗ 0.0015
4.5000 0.9864
Re 4.4211 ∙ 105
5.0000 0.9903
6.0000 0.9922
7.0000 0.9942
8.0000 0.9961
9.0000 0.9961
3.5.8) Rough plate, divergent asset, air velocity = 20 m/s
89
Data results
Distance u(y)/U0
0.5000 0.3689
1.0000 0.3770
1.5000 0.4426
2.0000 0.5027
2.5000 0.5492
3.0000 0.6011 H 1.7550
3.5000 0.6366 𝜃 0.0015
4.0000 0.6694 𝛿∗ 0.0026
4.5000 0.6858 Re 3.2080 ∙ 105
5.0000 0.7432
6.0000 0.8087
7.0000 0.8770
8.0000 0.9426
9.0000 1.0000
In the end we report a summary graph of the velocities and a comparison with the reference paper :
90
The last two graphs show how the experimental result have the same trend and are similar in values to
what we found in literature and how the effect of the pressure gradient changes the velocity of the flow.
The comparison was made with flows that have Re ≈ 4∙105.
3.6) Error analysis

The experimental data acquired in these experience are affected by random errors even if we adopted a
systematic approach to limit them. In order to have an estimation of the entity of these errors, we analyzed
the fundamental parameters discussed in the previous paragraphs (𝛿 ∗ , 𝜃) and evaluated the error
committed in the calculations with the following reasoning:
91
In general, when the variable of interest q is a function of a measurable physical quantity 𝑥: 𝑞 = 𝑞(𝑥)
It is always possible to measure 𝑥 = 𝑥𝑏 ± 𝛿𝑥 (where 𝑥𝑏 stands for best value) and calculate 𝑞 = 𝑞(𝑥𝑏 ) with
the function relationship, but we need to calculate also 𝛿𝑞. If 𝛿𝑥 is small and due only to random errors,
qmin and qmax are almost equidistant from qb of a distance 𝛿𝑞, regardless of the function type.
In this hypothesis we can write: 𝛿𝑞 = 𝑞(𝑥𝑏 + 𝛿𝑥) − 𝑞(𝑥𝑏 )

𝛿𝑞 𝑞(𝑥𝑏 +𝛿𝑥)−𝑞(𝑥𝑏 ) 𝑑𝑞
which for a small 𝛿𝑥, it can also be rewritten as: lim = lim =
𝛿𝑥→0 𝛿𝑥 𝛿𝑥→0 𝛿𝑥 𝑑𝑥
i.e. the derivative of the function 𝑞(𝑥) calculated in 𝑥𝑏 .

𝑑𝑞
So we expressed the errors of the fundamental parameters with this expression 𝛿𝑞 = |𝑑𝑥| ∙ 𝛿𝑥, considering
the absolute value of the derivative in order to include also the cases where the function is decreasing and
has a negative gradient in the point 𝑥𝑏 . In the following tables, it is summarized the errors committed in
every single measurement of the velocity and how this propagates also in the 𝛿 ∗ , 𝜃 calculations.
Convergent
[mm] 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
𝑚 0.2500 0.3000 0.4500 0.2500 0.3000 0.3500 0.3000 0.2000 0.2000 0.1500 0.0500 0.1000 0.0500 0.0500 0.0500
𝜀𝑢−𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑜𝑡ℎ [ ]
𝑠
𝜀𝛿−𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑜𝑡ℎ (∙ 10−5 ) 0.4873 0.5848 0.8772 0.4873 0.5848 0.6823 0.5848 0.3899 0.3899 0.2924 0.0975 0.1949 0.0975 0.0975 0.0975
𝜀𝜃−𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑜𝑡ℎ (∙ 10−4 ) 0.1567 0.2588 0.6857 0.4189 0.5278 0.6397 0.5597 0.3777 0.3792 0.2867 0.0959 0.1927 0.0967 0.0967 0.0975
𝑚 0.3000 0.1500 0.4000 0.2500 0.3000 0.4000 0.3000 0.4000 0.4500 0.4000 0.2000 0.2500 0.1000 0.2000 _
𝜀𝑢−𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ [ ]
𝑠
𝜀𝛿−𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ (∙ 10−5 ) 0.5948 0.2974 0.7930 0.4956 0.5948 0.7930 0.5948 0.7930 0.8921 0.7930 0.3965 0.4956 0.1983 0.3965 _
92
𝜀𝜃−𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ (∙ 10−5 ) 0.0231 0.0127 0.1440 0.1627 0.2731 0.4396 0.3816 0.5591 0.6891 0.6534 0.7100 0.9229 0.3864 0.7930 _
Divergent
[mm] 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
𝑚 0.3500 0.3500 0.3500 0.4000 0.4000 0.3000 0.4500 0.3500 0.2000 0.4000 0.4000 0.3000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000
𝜀𝑢−𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑜𝑡ℎ [ ]
𝑠
𝜀𝛿−𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑜𝑡ℎ (∙ 10−5 ) 0.4873 0.5848 0.8772 0.4873 0.5848 0.6823 0.5848 0.3899 0.3899 0.2924 0.0975 0.1949 0.0975 0.0975 0.0975
𝜀𝜃−𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑜𝑡ℎ (∙ 10−4 ) 0.1104 0.1944 0.2925 0.4104 0.4905 0.4159 0.6914 0.5938 0.3573 0.7547 0.7707 0.1927 0.0967 0.0967 0.0975
𝑚 0.3500 0.5000 0.3000 0.4000 0.4500 0.4000 0.3500 0.3500 0.4500 0.5000 0.2000 0.2500 0.2500 0.2000 _
𝜀𝑢−𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ [ ]
𝑠
𝜀𝛿−𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ (∙ 10−4 ) 0.0956 0.1366 0.0820 0.1093 0.1230 0.1093 0.0956 0.0956 0.1230 0.1366 0.0546 0.0683 0.0683 0.0546 _
𝜀𝜃−𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ (∙ 10−4 ) 0.0251 0.0336 0.0094 0.0006 0.0121 0.0221 0.0261 0.0324 0.0457 0.0664 0.0675 0.1030 0.1209 0.1093 _
3.7) Appendix: Matlab codes

%% Velocità flusso e distanza dal piano %%
T_1 = 29.5;
T_2 = 27.5;
Y=0.2:0.5:9.2;
93
YG =
[0,0.200000000000000,0.700000000000000,1.20000000000000,1.700
00000000000,2.20000000000000,2.70000000000000,3.2000000000000
0,3.70000000000000,4.20000000000000,4.70000000000000,5.200000
00000000,5.70000000000000,6.20000000000000,6.70000000000000,7
.20000000000000,7.70000000000000,8.20000000000000,8.700000000
00000,9.20000000000000]
U0_1=10;
ThetComp2G =
[0,0.226743750000000,0.194775000000000,0.170193750000000,0.13
8777750000000,0.120400000000000,0.0917949375000001,0.07360000
00000001,0.0627274374999999,0.0519750000000000,0.036093750000
0000,0.0243750000000000,0.0219937500000000,0.0099000000000000
1,0.00744374999999995,0.00744374999999995,0.00249375000000006
,0.00249375000000006,0,0]
Rapporto2G =
[0,0.652500000000000,0.735000000000000,0.782500000000000,0.83
3500000000000,0.860000000000000,0.897750000000000,0.920000000
000000,0.932750000000000,0.945000000000000,0.962500000000000,
0.975000000000000,0.977500000000000,0.990000000000000,0.99250
0000000000,0.992500000000000,0.997500000000000,0.997500000000
000,1,1]
U0_2=20;
U0_3=30;
U_1=[5.2,7.19,8.2,8.5,9.025,9.175,9.65,9.74,10,10,10,9.95,9.9
,9.95,10,10,10,10,10];
epsilonU_1=[0.4,0.41,0.4,0.4,0.4,0.325,0.315,0.3,0.3,0.185,0.
145,0.05,0,0,0,0,0,0,0];
errorbar(Y,U_1 / U0_1, epsilonU_1 / U0_1)
hold on
U_2 =
[13.05,14.7,15.65,16.67,17.2,17.955,18.4,18.655,18.9,19.25,19
.5,19.55,19.8,19.85,19.85,19.95,19.95,20,20];
epsilonU_2 =
[0.45,0.4,0.45,0.33,0.4,0.375,0.5,0.345,0.4,0.35,0.3,0.25,0.1
,0.1,0.15,0.15,0.05,0.05,0.04];
errorbar(Y,U_2 / U0_2, epsilonU_2 / U0_2)
U_3 =
[20.65,23.75,25.8,26.95,27.85,28.6,29.25,29.5,29.65,29.8,29.8
5,29.85,29.85,29.9,29.9,29.9,29.9,29.95,29.95];
94
epsilonU_3 =
[0.45,0.55,0.6,0.45,0.45,0.3,0.15,0.2,0.15,0.1,0.05,0.05,0.05
,0.05,0.1,0.1,0.1,0.1,0.1];
errorbar(Y, U_3 / U0_3, epsilonU_3 / U0_3)
Y_Rough = 0.5:0.5:9;
U_2_Rough =
[10.15,10.75,12.1,13.15,14.1,14.75,15.65,16.05,16.35,17.25,18
.15,18.15,19.05,19.05,19.7,19.7,20,20];
epsilonU_2_R =
[0.35,0.35,0.4,0.25,0.4,0.65,0.85,0.65,0.55,0.55,0.45,0.45,0.
35,0.35,0.4,0.4,0.2,0.2];
legend("U1","U2","U3")
%% spessori strato limite1
delta1 = 0;
for i = 1:19
delta1 = delta1 + ((1 - (U_1(i) / U0_1)) * 0.0005);
end
theta1 = 0;
for j = 1:19
theta1 = theta1 + ((U_1(j) / U0_1) * (1 - (U_1(j) /

U0_1)) * 0.0005)
end
H1 = delta1 / theta1
delta2 = 0;
for i = 1:19
delta2 = delta2 + ((1 - (U_2(i) / U0_2)) * 0.0005);

end
theta2 = 0;
for j = 1:19
theta2 = theta2 + ((U_2(j) / U0_2) * (1-(U_2(j) / U0_2))

* 0.0005)
end
delta3 = 0;
for i = 1:19
95
delta3 = delta3 + ((1 - (U_3(i) / U0_3)) * 0.0005);
end
theta3 = 0;
for j = 1:19
theta3 = theta3 + ((U_3(j) / U0_3) * (1-(U_3(j) /

U0_3))*0.0005)
end
errorbar(Y,U_3 / U0_3,epsilonU_3 / U0_3)

%% spessori strato limite2_Rough
delta2_Rough = 0;
for i = 1:18
delta2_Rough = delta2_Rough + ((1 - (U_2_Rough(i) /

U0_2)) * 0.0005);
end
theta2_Rough = 0;
for j = 1:18
theta2_Rough = theta2_Rough + ((U_2_Rough(j) / U0_2) * (1

- (U_2_Rough(j) / U0_2))*0.0005)
end
H2_Rough = delta2_Rough / theta2_Rough
%% roh %%
roh = 1.165 ;
roh_2 = 1.174 ;
%% Lunghezza piastra %%
L= 0.274
%% CF %%
CF1 = 2 * theta1 / L
CF2R = 2 * theta2_Rough / L
%% Mu in [kg/ms] %%
Mu = 18.72 * ( 10^(-6));
Mu_2 = 18.35 * ( 10^(-6));
%% Re per le diverse velocità lastra piana %%
Re1 = (U0_1 * L * roh) / (Mu)
Re2 = (U0_2 * L * roh) / (Mu)
Re3 = (U0_3 * L * roh) / (Mu)
Re2_R = (U0_2 * L * roh) / (Mu)
" Abbiamo Re1, Re2, Re2_R in Transition , Re3 in Tourbulent "
%% Rapporto 1 uy/U per grafici %%
Rapporto1 = 0 ;
96
for i = 1:19
Rapporto1(i) = (U_1(i) / U0_1);
end
Rapporto2 = 0 ;
for i = 1:19
Rapporto2(i) = (U_2(i) / U0_2);
end
Rapporto3 = 0 ;
for i = 1:19
Rapporto3(i) = (U_3(i) / U0_3);
end
%% Rapporto 2 Rough uy/U per grafici %%
for i = 1:18
Rapporto2_R(i) = (U_2_Rough(i) / U0_2);
end
%% Prova rapporto velocità in funzione della distanza y dalla
lastra 1 %%
plot(Rapporto1,Y)
hold on
%% Prova confronti rapporto velocità in funzione di distanza
dalla lastra tra 2 e 2 Rough %%
plot(Rapporto2 , Y, 'x')
hold on
plot(Rapporto2_R , Y_Rough, 'x')
legend('Smooth','Rough')
%% Prova rapporto velocità in funzione di distanza dalla

lastra 3 %%
plot(U_3,Y)
hold on
%% Momenthum Thickness 1, graph %%
ThetComp1 = 0;
for j = 1:19
ThetComp1(j) = ((U_1(j) / U0_1) * (1 - (U_1(j) / U0_1)))

end
ThetComp2 = 0;
for j = 1:19
ThetComp2(j) = ((U_2(j) / U0_2) * (1 - (U_2(j) / U0_2)))

end
ThetComp3 = 0;
for j = 1:19
97
ThetComp3(j) = ((U_3(j) / U0_3)*(1-(U_3(j)/U0_3)))
end
%% Momenthum Thickness 2R, comp %%
ThetComp2_R = 0;
for j = 1:18
ThetComp2_R(j) = ((U_2_Rough(j)/U0_2)*(1-
(U_2_Rough(j)/U0_2)))
end
%% Comparazione Momenthum thickness in funzione della
distanza, tra 2 e 2Rough %%
plot(ThetComp2_R,Y_Rough,'x-')
hold on
plot(ThetComp2G,YG,'o-')
plot(Rapporto2G,YG)
plot(Rapporto2_R,Y_Rough)
legend('Theta Rough','Theta Smooth', ' Delta smooth ', 'Delta
Rough' )
%% Convergente %%
" R = Rough, S = Smooth "
YL = [0,0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5,
6, 7, 8, 9 ]
Y_R_C_D = 0.7:0.5:7.7;
U0_C_S = 25.65;
U0_C_R = 25.22;
U_C_S = [ 16.95, 18.5, 22.85, 23.85, 24.4, 24.85, 25.1,

25.25, 25.3, 25.4, 25.45, 25.5, 25.55, 25.55, 25.65 ]
epsilonU_C_S = [ 0.25, 0.3, 0.45, 0.25, 0.3, 0.35, 0.3, 0.2,
0.2, 0.15, 0.05, 0.1, 0.05, 0.05, 0.05 ]
U_C_R = [ 13.1, 13.15 , 14.9, 16.75, 18.4, 19.6, 20.7, 21.5,

22.35, 23, 23.9, 24.35, 24.9, 25.22 ]
epsilonU_C_R = [ 0.3, 0.15, 0.4, 0.25, 0.3, 0.4, 0.3, 0.4,
0.45, 0.4, 0.2, 0.25, 0.1, 0.2 ]
%% Divergente %%
U0_D_S = 22.35;
U0_D_R = 18.3;
U_D_S = [ 12.75, 13.95, 15.35, 16.3, 17.3, 18.1, 18.85,

19.65, 20.1, 20.6, 20.8, 21.7, 22.2, 22.22, 22.35]
epsilonU_D_S = [ 0.35, 0.35, 0.35, 0.4, 0.4, 0.3, 0.45, 0.35,
0.2, 0.4, 0.4, 0.3, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1 ]
U_D_R = [ 6.75, 6.9, 8.1, 9.2, 10.05, 11, 11.65, 12.25,

12.55, 13.6, 14.8, 16.05, 17.25, 18.3 ]
98
epsilonU_D_R = [ 0.35, 0.5, 0.3, 0.4, 0.45, 0.4, 0.35, 0.35,
0.45, 0.5, 0.2, 0.25, 0.25, 0.2 ]
%% Re per convergente e divergente %%
Re_C_S = (U0_C_S * L * roh_2) / (Mu_2);
Re_C_R = (U0_C_R * L * roh_2) / (Mu_2);
Re_D_S = (U0_D_S * L * roh_2) / (Mu_2);
Re_D_R = (U0_D_R * L * roh_2) / (Mu_2);
%% delta convergente %%
delta_C_S_1 = 0;
for i = 1:11
delta_C_S_1 = delta_C_S_1 + ((1 - (U_C_S(i) / U0_C_S)) *
0.0005);
end
delta_C_S_2 = 0;
for i = 12:15
delta_C_S_2 = delta_C_S_2 + ((1 - (U_C_S(i) / U0_C_S)) *
0.001);
end
delta_C_S = delta_C_S_2 + delta_C_S_1 ;

delta_C_R_1 = 0;
for i = 1:10
delta_C_R_1 = delta_C_R_1 + ((1 - (U_C_R(i) / U0_C_R)) *
0.0005);
end
delta_C_R_2 = 0;
for i = 11:14
delta_C_R_2 = delta_C_R_2 + ((1 - (U_C_R(i) / U0_C_R)) *
0.001);
end
delta_C_R = delta_C_R_2 + delta_C_R_1 ;
%% Theta convergente %%
theta_C_S1 = 0;
for j = 1:11
theta_C_S1 = theta_C_S1 + ((U_C_S(j) / U0_C_S) * (1 -
(U_C_S(j) / U0_C_S)) * 0.0005)
end
theta_C_S2 = 0;
for j = 12:15
theta_C_S2 = theta_C_S2 + ((U_C_S(j) / U0_C_S) * (1-
(U_C_S(j) / U0_C_S)) * 0.001)
end
theta_C_S = theta_C_S1 + theta_C_S2;
theta_C_R1 = 0;
for j = 1:10
99
theta_C_R1 = theta_C_R1 + ((U_C_R(j) / U0_C_R) * (1 -
(U_C_R(j) / U0_C_R)) * 0.0005)
end
theta_C_R2 = 0;
for j = 11:14
theta_C_R2 = theta_C_R2 + ((U_C_R(j) / U0_C_R) * (1-
(U_C_R(j) / U0_C_R)) * 0.001)
end
theta_C_R = theta_C_R1 + theta_C_R2;
%% delta divergente %%
delta_D_S_1 = 0;
for i = 1:11
delta_D_S_1 = delta_D_S_1 + ((1 - (U_D_S(i) / U0_D_S)) *
0.0005);
end
delta_D_S_2 = 0;
for i = 12:15
delta_D_S_2 = delta_D_S_2 + ((1 - (U_D_S(i) / U0_D_S)) *
0.001);
end
delta_D_S = delta_D_S_2 + delta_D_S_1 ;
delta_D_R_1 = 0;
for i = 1:10
delta_D_R_1 = delta_D_R_1 + ((1 - (U_D_R(i) / U0_D_R)) *
0.0005);
end
delta_D_R_2 = 0;
for i = 11:14
delta_D_R_2 = delta_D_R_2 + ((1 - (U_D_R(i) / U0_D_R)) *
0.001);
end
delta_D_R = delta_D_R_2 + delta_D_R_1 ;
%% Theta divergente %%
theta_D_S1 = 0;
for j = 1:11
theta_D_S1 = theta_D_S1 + ((U_D_S(j) / U0_D_S) * (1-
(U_D_S(j) / U0_D_S)) * 0.0005)
end
theta_D_S2 = 0;
for j = 12:15
theta_D_S2 = theta_D_S2 + ((U_D_S(j) / U0_D_S) * (1 -
(U_D_S(j) / U0_D_S)) * 0.001)
end
100
theta_D_S = theta_D_S1 + theta_D_S2;
theta_D_R1 = 0;
for j = 1:10
theta_D_R1 = theta_D_R1 + ((U_D_R(j) / U0_D_R) * (1-
(U_D_R(j) / U0_D_R)) * 0.0005)
end
theta_D_R2 = 0;
for j = 11:14
theta_D_R2 = theta_D_R2 + ((U_D_R(j) / U0_D_R) * (1-
(U_D_R(j) / U0_D_R)) * 0.001)
end
theta_D_R = theta_D_R1 + theta_D_R2;
%% H convergente e divergente %%
H_C_S = delta_C_S / theta_C_S;
H_C_R = delta_C_R / theta_C_R;
H_D_S = delta_D_S / theta_D_S;
H_D_R = delta_D_R / theta_D_R;
%% CF Convergente e Divergente %%
CF_C_S = 2 * theta_C_S / L
CF_C_R = 2 * theta_C_R / L
CF_D_S = 2 * theta_D_S / L
CF_D_R = 2 * theta_D_R / L
%% Rapporto U(y)/U0 %%
Rapporto_C_S = 0 ;
for i = 1:15
Rapporto_C_S(i) = (U_C_S(i) / U0_C_S);
end
Rapporto_C_R = 0 ;
for i = 1:14
Rapporto_C_R(i) = (U_C_R(i) / U0_C_R);
end
Rapporto_D_S = 0 ;
for i = 1:15
Rapporto_D_S(i) = (U_D_S(i)/U0_D_S);
end
Rapporto_D_R = 0 ;
for i = 1:14
Rapporto_D_R(i) = (U_D_R(i) / U0_D_R);
end
%% ThetaComp Convergente Divergente %%
ThetComp_C_S = 0;
for j = 1:15
101
ThetComp_C_S(j) = ((U_C_S(j) / U0_C_S) * (1 - (U_C_S(j) /
U0_C_S)))
end
ThetComp_C_R = 0;
for j = 1:14
ThetComp_C_R(j) = ((U_C_R(j) / U0_C_R) * (1 - (U_C_R(j) /
U0_C_R)))
end
ThetComp_D_S = 0;
for j = 1:15
ThetComp_D_S(j) = ((U_D_S(j) / U0_D_S) * (1 - (U_D_S(j) /
U0_D_S)))
end
ThetComp_D_R = 0;
for j = 1:14
ThetComp_D_R(j) = ((U_D_R(j) / U0_D_R) * (1 - (U_D_R(j) /
U0_D_R)))
end
%% Dati Grafico Divergente Smooth per confronto con handbook

%%
ThetCompProva_D_S = [0, 0.245034007477141, 0.234584027746498,
0.215105425681526, 0.197418534700639, 0.174897026660461,
0.153997067199175, 0.132076132706735, 0.106211431917481,
0.0905364623215170, 0.0721689213198604, 0.0645416372635868,
0.0282369663028193, 0.00666636637989290, 0.00578272249998764,
0]
RapportoProva_D_S = [0, 0.570469798657718, 0.624161073825503,
0.686800894854586, 0.729306487695750, 0.774049217002237,
0.809843400447427, 0.843400447427293, 0.879194630872483,
0.899328859060403, 0.921700223713647, 0.930648769574944,
0.970917225950783, 0.993288590604027, 0.994183445190156, 1]
%% Prova confronti rapporto velocità in funzione di distanza
dalla lastra tra 2 e 2 Rough %%
plot(ThetCompProva_D_S,YL,'o-')
hold on
plot(RapportoProva_D_S,YL,'o-')
plot(Rapporto2 , Y, 'x-')
%% Y per plottare i D e C Rough %%
YP = [0.500000000000000, 1, 1.50000000000000, 2,
2.50000000000000, 3, 3.50000000000000, 4, 4.50000000000000,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9]
%% Grafici velocità Locale %%
plot (U_1, Y) ;
102
hold on
plot (U_2, Y) ;
plot (U_3,Y) ;
plot (U_2_Rough, Y_Rough) ;
plot (U_C_R, YP) ;
plot (U_C_S, Y_R_C_D ) ;
plot (U_D_R, YP ) ;
plot (U_D_S, Y_R_C_D) ;
legend ("U1","U2","U3","U2R","UCR","UCS","UDR","UDS")
%% Grafici rapporto velocità locali e del flusso indisturbato
%
plot ( Y, U_1 / U0_1, "x-") ;
hold on
plot ( Y, U_2 / U0_2, "x-" ) ;
plot ( Y, U_3 / U0_3, "x-" ) ;
plot ( Y_Rough, U_2_Rough / U0_2, "o-") ;
plot ( YP, U_C_R / U0_C_R, "o-" ) ;
plot ( Y_R_C_D, U_C_S / U0_C_S, "x-" ) ;
plot ( YP, U_D_R / U0_D_R, "o-" ) ;
plot ( Y_R_C_D, U_D_S / U0_D_S, "x-" ) ;
legend ("U1","U2","U3","U2R","UCR","UCS","UDR","UDS")
%% Grafici confronto Rogh e Smooth %%
plot ( Y, U_2 / U0_2, "x-" ) ;
hold on
plot ( Y_Rough, U_2_Rough / U0_2, "o-") ;
plot ( YP, U_C_R / U0_C_R, "o-" ) ;
plot ( Y_R_C_D, U_C_S / U0_C_S, "x-" ) ;
plot ( YP, U_D_R / U0_D_R, "o-" ) ;
plot ( Y_R_C_D, U_D_S / U0_D_S, "x-" ) ;
legend ("U2","U2R","UCR","UCS","UDR","UDS")
%% Confronto con leggi empiriche %%
" Laminar flow Re < 5 * 10 ^5 "
deltaEmp1 = 1.721 * L / ((Re1) ^( 0.5)) ;
ThetaEmp1 = 0.664 * L / ((Re1) ^( 0.5)) ;
CFEmp1 = 1.328 / (Re1 ^ (1/2)) ;
Hemp1 = deltaEmp1 / ThetaEmp1
"-------"
deltaEmp2 = 1.721 * L / ((Re2) ^( 0.5)) ;
ThetaEmp2 = 0.664 * L / ((Re2) ^( 0.5)) ;
CFEmp2 = 1.328 / (Re2 ^ (1/2)) ;
Hemp2 = deltaEmp2 / ThetaEmp2 ;
" ------------------ "
ThetaEmp2_R = 0.664 * L / ((Re2_R) ^( 0.5)) ;
deltaEmp2_R = 1.721 * L / ((Re2_R) ^( 0.5)) ;
" Turbolent flow Re > 5 * 10 ^ 5 "
deltaEmp3 = 0.046 * L / ((Re3) ^ (1/5)) ;
ThetaEmp3 = 0.036 * L / ((Re3 ^ (1/5))) ;
CFEmp3 = 0.072 / (Re3 ^ (1/5)) ;
103
Hemp3 = deltaEmp3 / ThetaEmp3 ;
%% propagation errors for delta %%

epsilon_delta_C_R = (0.0005/U0_C_R) * epsilonU_C_R
epsilon_delta_C_S = (0.0005/U0_C_S) * epsilonU_C_S
epsilon_delta_D_R = (0.0005/U0_D_R) * epsilonU_D_R
epsilon_delta_D_S = (0.0005/U0_C_S) * epsilonU_C_S
%% propagation errors for theta %%
for i = 1:14
epsilon_theta_C_R1(i) = abs((0.0005 / U0_C_R) * (1 - 2 *
(U_C_R(i) / U0_C_R))) * epsilonU_C_R(i)
for i = 11:14
epsilon_theta_C_R1(i)=0
end
end
for i = 1:10
epsilon_theta_D_R1(i) = abs((0.0005 / U0_D_R) * (1 - 2 *
(U_D_R(i) / U0_D_R))) * epsilonU_D_R(i)
for i = 11:14
epsilon_theta_D_R1(i) = 0
end
end
for i = 11:14
epsilon_theta_C_R2(i) = abs((0.001 / U0_C_R) * (1 - 2 *
(U_C_R(i) / U0_C_R))) * epsilonU_C_R(i)
end
for i = 11:14
epsilon_theta_D_R2(i) = abs((0.001 / U0_D_R) * (1 - 2 *
(U_D_R(i) / U0_D_R))) * epsilonU_D_R(i)
end
Epsilon_theta_C_R = epsilon_theta_C_R1 + epsilon_theta_C_R2
Epsilon_Theta_D_R = epsilon_theta_D_R1 + epsilon_theta_D_R2
for i = 1:11
epsilon_theta_C_S1(i) = abs((0.005 / U0_C_S) * (1 - 2 *
(U_C_S(i) / U0_C_S))) * epsilonU_C_S(i)
for i = 12:15
epsilon_theta_C_S1(i) = 0
end
end
for i = 1:11
104
epsilon_theta_D_S1(i) = abs((0.005 / U0_D_S) * (1 - 2 *
(U_D_S(i) / U0_D_S))) * epsilonU_D_S(i)
for i = 12:15
epsilon_theta_D_S1(i) = 0
end
end
for i = 12:15
epsilon_theta_C_S2(i) = abs((0.005 / U0_C_S) * (1 - 2 *
end
for i = 12:15
epsilon_theta_D_S2(i) = abs((0.005 / U0_C_S) * (1 - 2 *
end
Epsilon_theta_C_S = epsilon_theta_C_S1 + epsilon_theta_C_S2
Epsilon_theta_D_S = epsilon_theta_D_S1 + epsilon_theta_D_S2
105
4.Major Head Losses
4.1) Introduction
The purpose of this laboratory practice is to determine the relationship between head loss due to fluid friction
and velocity for the flow of water through smooth bore pipes and to confirm the head loss predicted by a
pipe friction equation.
For flow in a circular pipe, an expression for the head loss due to skin friction can be developed by applying
the principles of conservation of energy and linear momentum [1]. The expression that results for pipe-head
loss is:
The total head at point 0 must match with the total head at point 1, adjusted for any increase in the head
due to pumps, losses due to pipe friction and so-called "minor losses" due to entries, exits, fittings, etc. Pump
head developed is generally a function of the flow through the system.
Significant losses, which are associated with frictional energy loss per length of the pipe depends on the flow
velocity, pipe length, pipe diameter, and a friction factor based on the roughness of the pipe, and whether
the flow is laminar or turbulent (i.e., the Reynolds number of the flow).
Although the head loss represents a loss of energy, it does not represent a loss of total energy of the fluid.
The total energy of the fluid conserves as a consequence of the law of conservation of energy. In reality, the
head loss due to friction results in an equivalent increase in the internal energy (increase in temperature) of
the fluid.
By observation, the major head loss is roughly proportional to the square of the flow rate in most
engineering flows (fully developed, turbulent pipe flow).
The most common equation used to calculate major head losses in a tube or duct is the Darcy–Weisbach
equation.
106
The equipment is consisting of a hydraulic pump which pumps the water to a predefined height. The water
stored in the reservoir and flows when the system is running. There are two pairs of pressure traps in the
system. One has been located in the inlet while the other one was located in the outlet of the pipes. Both
traps have been connected to the manometer which is filled with water. Each trap has been equipped with
two taps. Using two taps will improve the certainty of the acquired results. For measuring systems mass flow
rate and consequently stream velocity a container has been foreseen, and a chronometer has used for
measuring the exact time needed for the tank to get filled up and reach to a specific amount.
4.3) Experimental procedure

For undertaking the current experiment, we have used a flow valve as a stream control device. Two
approaches have been taken for conducting the experiment. In the first, the aim of the study was set to move
the stream condition from the laminar to the turbulent. In this respect, we have started to turn the valve
open considering the column of water in the manometer not moving further than 20 mm. Although, in the
beginning, the flow was constant and was able to be fixed at the desired height, after a while by passing from
the laminar to the turbulent condition in a situation which is known as transition, large fluctuation has been
observed. The fluctuations have faced us with unwanted errors in the measurement. The phenomenon could
be related to the hysteresis cycle effect which has been observed and further explained in the conclusion
section.
Furthermore, the same condition has been observed during the practice of the second aim of the experiment
which was moving from turbulent to the laminar condition.
In the following tables are presented the data acquired during the laboratory practices:
107
Case 1: Laminar to Turbolent
Number of Initial Initial Final Final

Samples Internal Tab External Internal External
(m) Tab (m) Tab (m) Tab (m)
1 0.445 0.434 0.41 0.397
2 0.458 0.448 0.39 0.38
3 0.471 0.464 0.37 0.361
4 0.484 0.48 0.35 0.343
5 0.497 0.493 0.33 0.325
6 0.5125 0.51 0.316 0.3035
7 0.571 0.589 0.359 0.375
8 0.586 0.605.5 0.337 0.355.5
9 0.598 0.618 0.324 0.342
10 0.643 0.62 0.318 0.295
11 0.677 0.649 0.285 0.256
12 0.719 0.685 0.243 0.203
13 0.729 0.695 0.233 0.195
14 0.803 0.759 0.154 0.106
15 0.827 0.797 0.115 0.06
Case 2: Turbolent to laminar
Number of Initial Initial Final Final

Samples Internal Tab External Internal External
(m) Tab (m) Tab (m) Tab (m)
1 0.827 0.797 0.115 0.06
2 0.805 0.76 0.155 0.105
3 0.785 0.74 0.18 0.139
4 0.745 0.71 0.212 0.18
5 0.695 0.665 0.265 0.232
6 0.625 0.605 0.332 0.313
7 0.573 0.555 0.389 0.374
8 0.560 0.547 0.401 0.390
9 0.544 0.530 0.422 0.413
10 0.525 0.515 0.442 0.435
11 0.508 0.500 0.462 0.455
108
12 0.492 0.487 0.480 0.475
4.4) Equations and Relations

4.4.1) Theoretical
In fluid dynamics, the Darcy–Weisbach equation is a phenomenological equation, which relates the major
head loss, or pressure loss, due to fluid friction along a given length of pipe to the average velocity. This
equation is valid for fully developed, steady, incompressible single-phase flow.
The Darcy–Weisbach equation can be written in two forms (pressure loss form or head loss form). In the
head loss form can be written as:
∆ℎ 1 𝑉2
=𝜆
𝐿 2𝑔 𝐷
• Δh = the head loss due to friction (m)

• 𝜆 = the Darcy friction factor (unitless)
• L = the pipe length (m)
• D = the hydraulic diameter of the pipe D (m)
• g = the gravitational constant (m/s2)
• V = the mean flow velocity V (m/s)
4.4.2) Empirical
One could write the following relation for calculating the practical quantity of the Darcy friction factor in
laminar streams:
64
𝜆=
𝑅𝑒
Also, for the turbulent streams following experimental relation has been introduced for calculating the
Darcy friction coefficient.
0.316
𝜆=
𝑅𝑒 0.25
109
4.5) Results and Analysis
Streams characteristics and friction coefficients have been reported for two taps at the beginning and the
final section of the tube . It should be noted that in this report the system taps with the similar location
have been named Internal and External.
4.5.1) Laminar to turbulent: Internal

The characteristics and properties of the stream for the Internal tap from the laminar condition to the
turbulent condition have been reported in the following table.
Number of Velocity Delta _P RE 𝜆 𝜆 (Theoretical) State

Samples (Empirical) condition
1 0.198 0.035 637.7 0.100361 1.05E-01 Laminar
2 0.378 0.068 1217.4 0.052571 5.64E-02 Laminar
3 0.558 0.101 1797.2 0.035611 3.80E-02 Laminar
4 0.728 0.134 2344.8 0.027294 2.96E-02 Transition
5 0.845 0.167 2721.6 0.023516 2.74E-02 Transition
6 1.03 0.195 3317.5 0.041637 2.15E-02 Turbulent
7 1.053 0.211 3391.5 0.041408 2.23E-02 Turbulent
8 1.124 0.248 3620.2 0.040738 2.30E-02 Turbulent
9 1.126 0.27 3626.7 0.04072 2.50E-02 Turbulent
10 1.173 0.325 3778 0.040306 2.77E-02 Turbulent
11 1.214 0.392 3910.1 0.039961 3.12E-02 Turbulent
12 1.221 0.47 3932.6 0.039904 3.69E-02 Turbulent
13 1.237 0.494 3984.2 0.039774 3.78E-02 Turbulent
14 1.363 0.649 4390 0.038821 4.09E-02 Turbulent
15 1.444 0.712 4650.9 0.038265 4.00E-02 Turbulent
Following charts have projected a comparison between theoretical and empirical results in the actual and
log-log diagram.
110
111
4.5.2) Laminar to turbulent: External
The characteristics and properties of the stream for the external tap from the laminar condition to the
turbulent condition have been reported in the following table.

1 0.198 0.037 637.7 0.100361 1.11E-01 Laminar
2 0.378 0.068 1217.4 0.052571 5.64E-02 Laminar
3 0.558 0.103 1797.2 0.035611 3.88E-02 Laminar
4 0.728 0.137 2344.8 0.027294 3.03E-02 Transition
5 0.845 0.168 2721.6 0.023516 2.76E-02 Transition
6 1.03 0.213 3317.5 0.041637 2.35E-02 Turbulent
7 1.053 0.213 3391.5 0.041408 2.25E-02 Turbulent
8 1.124 0.251 3620.2 0.040738 2.33E-02 Turbulent
9 1.126 0.275 3626.7 0.04072 2.54E-02 Turbulent
10 1.173 0.327 3778 0.040306 2.79E-02 Turbulent
11 1.214 0.394 3910.1 0.039961 3.13E-02 Turbulent
12 1.221 0.484 3932.6 0.039904 3.80E-02 Turbulent
13 1.237 0.5 3984.2 0.039774 3.83E-02 Turbulent
14 1.363 0.65 4390 0.038821 4.13E-02 Turbulent
15 1.444 0.737 4650.9 0.038265 4.14E-02 Turbulent
log-log diagram.
112
4.5.3) Turbulence to laminar: Internal
The characteristics and properties of the stream for the Internal tap from the turbulent condition to the
laminar condition have been reported in the following table.

1 1.44 0.712 4638 0.038292 4.02E-02 Turbulent
2 1.32 0.65 4251.5 0.039134 4.37E-02 Turbulent
3 1.32 0.605 4251.5 0.039134 4.07E-02 Turbulent
4 1.25 0.533 4026 0.039671 4.00E-02 Turbulent
5 1.175 0.43 3784.5 0.040289 3.65E-02 Turbulent
6 1.082 0.29 3484.9 0.041128 2.93E-02 Turbulent
7 0.985 0.186 3172.5 0.042105 2.25E-02 Turbulent
8 0.892 0.159 2873 0.022276 2.34E-02 Transition
9 0.708 0.122 2280.3 0.028066 2.85E-02 Transition
10 0.516 0.083 1661.9 0.03851 3.65E-02 Laminar
11 0.282 0.046 908.28 0.070463 6.78E-02 Laminar
12 0.047 0.012 151.38 0.422777 6.37E-01 Laminar
log-log diagram.
113
114
4.5.4) Turbulence to laminar: External
The characteristics and properties of the stream for the External tap from the turbulent condition to the
laminar condition have been reported in the following table.

1 1.44 0.737 4638 0.038292 4.17E-02 Turbulent
2 1.32 0.655 4251.5 0.039134 4.41E-02 Turbulent
3 1.32 0.601 4251.5 0.039134 4.04E-02 Turbulent
4 1.25 0.53 4026 0.039671 3.98E-02 Turbulent
5 1.175 0.433 3784.5 0.040289 3.68E-02 Turbulent
6 1.082 0.292 3484.9 0.041128 2.92E-02 Turbulent
7 0.985 0.181 3172.5 0.042105 2.19E-02 Turbulent
8 0.892 0.157 2873 0.022276 2.31E-02 Transition
9 0.708 0.117 2280.3 0.028066 2.74E-02 Transition
10 0.516 0.08 1661.9 0.03851 3.52E-02 Laminar
11 0.282 0.45 908.28 0.070463 6.63E-02 Laminar
12 0.047 0.003 151.38 0.422777 1.59E-01 Laminar
log-log diagram.
115
4.6) Error analysis
As it has been discussed in the microfluidics experiment; for assessing the effect of the measurement errors
during experimenting, error analysis needs to be done. Besides, the effect of error propagation in the final
results will be discovered using the error analysis.
𝛥𝑉 𝑑𝑄 𝑑𝑄
𝑄= 𝛥𝑡
𝜀𝑄 = |𝑑𝛥𝑉| × 𝜀𝛥𝑉 + |𝑑𝛥𝑡| × 𝜀𝛥𝑡
𝑄 𝑑𝑈
𝑈=𝐴 𝜀𝑈 = |𝑑𝑄| × 𝜀𝑄
𝑢×𝑑 𝑑𝑅𝑒
𝑅𝑒 = 𝜈
𝜀𝑅𝑒 = | 𝑑𝑢 | × 𝜀𝑈
∆𝑃 1 𝑣2 𝑑𝜆 𝑑𝜆
𝐿
= 𝜆 2𝑔 𝐷
𝜀𝜆 = |𝑑𝛥𝑣| × 𝜀𝛥𝑣 + |𝑑𝛥𝑝| × 𝜀𝛥𝑝
The error in measuring the height of the water column in the manometer (Dh) has been estimated using
the deviation of each measured value from the average of all values. The same procedure has been taken
for the Epsilon Dt which is the error of the measure time for finding the flow rate.
The results of error analysis for the laminar to the turbulent condition of internal tap have been shown in
the table below.
116
Number of Epsilon Dh Epsilon Epsilon Epsilon Epsilon Dv Epsilon Epsilon 𝜆 Calculated
Samples Dt DP Q Re 𝜆
1 0.0005 0.005 4.885 2.10E-08 0.002970894 9.568889584 0.002970894 0.100361
2 0.0006 0.01 5.862 4.20E-08 0.005941787 19.13777917 0.005941787 0.052571
3 0.0003 0.008 2.931 3.36E-08 0.00475343 15.31022334 0.00475343 0.035611
4 0.0008 0.012 7.816 5.04E-08 0.007130145 22.965335 0.007130145 0.027294
5 0.0007 0.011 6.839 4.62E-08 0.006535966 21.05155709 0.006535966 0.023516
6 0.0012 0.009 11.724 3.78E-08 0.005347609 17.22400125 0.005347609 0.041637
7 0.0025 0.008 24.425 3.36E-08 0.00475343 15.31022334 0.00475343 0.041408
8 0.003 0.01 29.31 4.20E-08 0.005941787 19.13777917 0.005941787 0.040738
9 0.004 0.005 39.08 2.10E-08 0.002970894 9.568889584 0.002970894 0.04072
10 0.0035 0.008 34.195 3.36E-08 0.00475343 15.31022334 0.00475343 0.040306
11 0.0037 0.007 36.149 2.94E-08 0.004159251 13.39644542 0.004159251 0.039961
12 0.005 0.006 48.85 2.52E-08 0.003565072 11.4826675 0.003565072 0.039904
13 0.0045 0.0065 43.965 2.73E-08 0.003862162 12.43955646 0.003862162 0.039774
14 0.004 0.012 39.08 5.04E-08 0.007130145 22.965335 0.007130145 0.038821
15 0.0045 0.02 43.965 8.40E-08 0.011883575 38.27555834 0.011883575 0.038265
4.7) Conclusion
In this experiment effect of friction of the pipe on the pressure drop has been studied. Two approaches have
been taken-Laminar to Turbulent and Turbulent to Laminar- for finding the effect of the conditions on the
total major head loss of the stream an in-house code has developed in Matlab. By changing the velocity of
the stream in each approach, stream properties have been calculated for different velocities. Following notes
summarizes the most important outcomes of the study:
• Comparing acquired theoretical and empirical results show great similarity while in some cases
substantial derivations have observed for differences in high Reynolds number.
• The hysteresis cycle could be observed in all the cases. The existence of this phenomenon is due to
the transition from the laminar to the turbulent condition and vice versa.
• Outcomes of the error analysis have indicated the initial errors propagation has minimal effects on
the final calculated quantities, therefore could be neglected in the similar calculations.
• Comparing results from two taps with the same location which we named Internal, External have
projected close similarly. Therefore calculations and the codes have been verified.
117
4.8) Appendix: MATLAB codes
%Laminar To Turbulent:
Landa=-2*((Delta_P/Delta_dx)*d)/(ro*U^2);
Landa_Emperical_Laminar=(64/Re);
Landa_Emperical_turbulant=0.316/(Re^0.25);
Delta_P_1=P_Initial_Internal-P_Final_Internal;
Delta_P_2=P_Initial_External-P_Final_External;
for i=1:2
Landa_i=-2*((Delta_P_i/Delta_dx)*d)/(ro*U_Laminar^2);
end
U_power2=U_Laminar.^2;
Landa_Internal=-
2*((Delta_P_Internal/Delta_dx)*d)./(ro*U_laminar_power2);
Landa_External=-
2*((Delta_P_External/Delta_dx)*d)./(ro*U_laminar_power2);
%%%some abnormality in negative amount%%% the negative sign
could have been
%%%considered in eguations for pressure diferences.
%
%% Turbulent To Laminar:(PRIME)
Landa_PRIME=-2*((Delta_P_PRIME/Delta_dx)*d)/(ro*U_PRIME^2);
Landa_Emperical_Laminar_PRIME=(64/Re_PRIME);
Landa_Emperical_turbulant_PRIME=0.316/(Re_PRIME^0.25);
Delta_P_1_PRIME=P_Initial_Internal_PRIME-
P_Final_Internal_PRIME;
Delta_P_2_PRIME=P_Initial_External_PRIME-
P_Final_External_PRIME;
U_PRIME_power2=U_PRIME.^2;
Landa_Interanl_PRIME=-
2*((Delta_P_1_PRIME/Delta_dx)*d)./(ro*U_PRIME_power2);
Landa_External_PRIME=-
2*((Delta_P_2_PRIME/Delta_dx)*d)./(ro*U_PRIME_power2);
%%Empirical
%%% Re_lam_to_turb
Re_lam_to_turb=(ro*V_lam*d)./M;
%%% Re_turb_to_lam
Re_turb_to_lam=(ro*V_turb*d)./M;
%
%
%Landa_Empirical
118
Landa_emp_Lam=64./Re_lam;
Landa_emp_Turb=0.316./((Re_turb).^0.25)
%% Plots
plot(Landa_Interanl_PRIME,U_PRIME);
hold on
plot
xlabel('Re')
ylabel('a')
title('a')
legend('empirical','theoretical')
grid on
% same could be applied for the loglog
loglog(Re_lam_turb_in,Landa_lam_in_theo,'-s');
Hold on
loglog(Re_lam_turb_in,Landa_lam_in_emp,'-s')
title('Logarithmic comparison between empirical and
theoretical results')
xlabel('Log Re')
ylabel('Log Landa')
plot(Re_lam_turb_in,Landa_lam_in_emp)
hold on
plot(Re_lam_turb_in,Landa_lam_in_theo)
title(' comparison between empirical and theoretical
results')
xlabel('Re')
ylabel('Landa')
hold off
loglog(Re_lam_turb_ex,Landa_lam_ex_emp,'-s');
hold on
loglog(Re_lam_turb_ex,Landa_lam_ex_theo,'-s');
title('Logarithmic comparison between empirical and
theoretical results')
xlabel('Log Re')
ylabel('Log Landa')
Grid on
plot(Re_lam_turb_ex,Landa_lam_ex_emp)
hold on
plot(Re_lam_turb_ex,Landa_lam_ex_theo)
xlabel('Re')
ylabel('Landa')
119
Titel('comparison between empirical and theoretical results')
Undefined function or variable 'Titel'.
title('comparison between empirical and theoretical results')
%%%!!!!NOTE THAT IN THE CALCULATION NEGATIVE SIGN OF LANDA'S

EQUATION
%%%ELIMINATED BUT CONSIDERED IN THE CALCULATIONS
%% error analysis
e_delta_p=ro*g*e_delta_h
e_Landa_Internal=((2.*d./(ro*Delta_dx.*U_laminar_power2)).*e_
delta_p)+
(4*((Delta_P_Internal).*d)./(Delta_dx.*ro.*U_laminar)).*e_U_l
aminar
e_Q=Delta_Volume*e_delta_t
e_U_Laminar=e_Q/7.06858E-06
e_RE=ro.*d.*e_U_Laminar./Mu
120
5.Signal Analysis
5.1) Abstract
The scope of this study is to make a statistic analysis of five different series of data generated by different
sources. To do that for every signal it must be calculated:
• The statistical moment until the fourth grade.

• The autocorrelation and cross correlation coefficient.
• An analysis in the frequency domain.
Moreover, for those data that have presented noise it has been applied a filter to clear the signal.
5.2) Introduction
The data’s that has been provided in the exercitation were composed each one by 10.000 of values, taken
with a modular time of 0,1 seconds and a frequency of acquisition of 10 data per second, for a total
acquisition time of 10 seconds. The five different types of signal of these data are:
• A fluidodynamic signal acquired in the boundary layer

• Pure noise
• A combination of fluidodynamic signal and noise.
• Pure sinusoidal
• A combination of a sinusoidal and noise signal.
For each group of data, it has been request to find: the mean value, the variation, the relative and standard
deviation, skewness and flatness. Then it must be calculated the cross-correlation and autocorrelation
factor and the spectral density of power for every set of data. For signals combined with noise, an
appropriate filter has been selected to improve signal quality.
5.3) Procedures
To analyze the data, we have imported the data sets into Matlab where the different signals were
represented by graphs according to the acquisition time. The observation of the signal graphs is the first
step to have a clear information to understand each type of signal of the various sets analyzed.
121
122
123
Subsequently, different codes have been implemented on Matlab for the calculation of statistical moments
and for calculating the auto-correlation and cross-correlation coefficient.
5.4) Statistical Moments
The first analysis carried out consists in the calculation of the statistical moments up to the fourth order for
each signal, estimating the mean value, variance, skewness and flatness.
The mean value defines which is the most probable value in a set of data.
𝑛
1
𝑥̅ = ∑ 𝑥𝑖
𝑛
𝑖=1
We define the statistical centered moment of order k:
𝑛
1
𝑚𝑘 = ∑(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥̅ )𝑘
𝑛
𝑖=1
If k is even, the value of the centered moment of order k is positive: it is called the dispersion index for k = 2
and the index of form for k = 4. If k is odd, mk is called a symmetry index.
More the order of the statistical moment increases, more its reliability decreases.
The even moments evaluate the widening of the probability density curve around the mean value, while
the odd ones quantify the asymmetry of the curve around the mean.
The second-order moment is called variance, and is calculated as:
124
𝑛
1
𝜎 = ∑(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥̅ )2
2
𝑛
𝑖=1
The variance is defined as the sum of the squared differences between the experimental value and the
mean value normalized on the -n measured values. The necessity of the square of the difference is
necessary because without it we would have a null value of the variance. Moreover, by definition, an
always positive quantity will result.
From the variance it is possible to derive the value of the standard deviation which defines the deviation
from the mean value of the data belonging to a series:
𝑛
1
𝜎 = [ ∑(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥̅ )2 ]1/2
𝑛
𝑖=1
For a Gaussian the standard deviation provides the width of the distribution at half the height of its curve.
The third and fourth order moments are defined as:
1
Skewness: 𝑠 = 𝑛 ∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥̅ )3
1
Flatness: 𝑘 = ∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥̅ )4
𝑛
Unlike the variance which does not present asymmetries respect to the mean, the skewness informs about
the symmetry of the distribution. This moment, through the elevation to the third power, preserves the
sign of the differences (𝑥𝑖 - 𝑥̅) because the contributions given by the experimental values higher than the
average value are positive, while they are negative for the smaller ones.
A symmetrical Gaussian distribution, typical of random data, will have a skewness of 0.
A positive skewness implies, for the variable, low but very probable negative values and high but not very
probable positive values; for the negative skewness the situation is inverted.
125
The maximum value reached in the probability density curve does not coincide with the mean value
excluding the case in which the skewness is null.
The flatness, or kurtosis, indicates the degree of flatness of the distribution, its value is high if the curve has
long tails compared to the standard deviation, while it is low if the tails are restricted.
It can be shown that the value of flatness assumed for a Gaussian distribution is 3, for 0 < k < 3 the
distribution is compact with few distances from the mean value, for k > 3 the distribution is intermittent,
with isolated distances from the average value.
A very concentrated distribution around the average value, which however has queues that indicate a
strong move away from the average, has high k because the contributions close to the average value weigh
little, while the distant ones weigh more thanks to the elevation to the fourth power present in the
formula.
The results of the statistical moments analyzed are in the following Table:
Statistical Moments Signal 1 Signal 2 Signal 3 Signal 4 Signal 5

Mean Value 0,2214 0,0013 0,2227 8,65E-05 0,0012
Variance 0,7910 0,2499 1,0483 0,5041 0,7586
Standard Deviation 0,8894 0,4999 1,0239 0,7100 0,8652
Skewness factor -0,5538 -0,0384 -0,3766 1,84E-04 -0,0072
Flatness factor 3,2012 2,9245 3,1621 1,4938 2,3252
The codes used to compute these results are reported at the end of the report.
126
5.5) Probability density
On the physical system there are different "inputs" of the system, such as noise, which are defined as
random variables. If it is true that the measures are sufficient, it is true that no measure can properly be
defined as "exact". A random variable X is a numeric variable whose value can be repeated in the same
experiment. This variable can be continuous or discrete. The probability is needed to quantify the
possibility that a data is real, such as, for example, a measure is more or less likely to provide a value within
a given range.
The probability density (x) function of a continuous random variable X is necessary to determine the
duration
𝑏
𝑃(𝑎 < 𝑋 < 𝑏) = ∫ 𝑓(𝑥)𝑑𝑥
𝑎
A histogram is an approximation of the probability density function: if the area of each bar represents the
relative frequency (that is, the probability) of the corresponding abscissa interval, the frequency histogram
"looks like" the PDF.
127
For x0 the histogram tends to the continuous curve f (x) which is the probability density function (PDF).
The PDF chart is the most common way of representing the distribution of values, and it can be shown that
the knowledge of the PDF is equivalent to knowing the expected value and all the moments of a
distribution.
The most important probability distribution is the Gaussian (or normal) distribution defined by two
parameters equal to the mean value (𝑥̅) and the standard deviation (σ) and represented by the function:
1 −(𝑥−𝑥̅ )2
𝑓𝐺 (𝑥) = 𝑒 2𝜎2
√2𝜋𝜎
A Gaussian noise is defined as a noise whose probability density function is given by a normal distribution.
For this type of noise the maximum variation of the signal from one moment to the other is linked to the
maximum frequency of its spectrum.
128
In the graphs are compared the probability distribution with the relative Gaussian distribution shown in
red.
129
130
The signals 1 and 3 have a high flatness value, due to this it can be observed an evident and isolated
distance from the mean value and this suggest that these data series contain fluid dynamic signals. The
flatness of the signal 3 is between those of the series 1 and 2, but closer to that of the signal 1. In this case
the mean value of the noise is two orders smaller than the one of the fluid dynamic signal, due to this we
131
can assume that is the fluid dynamic signal which prevails in the average value of the 3 series which can be
recognized as a sum of a noise and a fluid dynamic signal.
The signal 2 can be referred to a pure noise. It can be observed that there is not periodicity in its course and
that the probability density follows the normal distribution: the flatness value is similar to that of a
Gaussian where the K=3. Its trend over time reflect that the maximum variation of the values is limited at
1000 Hz that is the maximum frequency of its spectrum.
The signal 4 is a periodic sinusoidal function and this can be observed because the average value is close to
zero. This value is not null because the number of sample data were taken in a limited time frame and
different from a multiple of its period.
It is also noted that the value of flatness of the signal 4 is the lowest because in a sine wave the distribution
is compact due to the fact that values oscillate all between a maximum and a minimum.
Signal 5 can be considered as a superposition of a sinusoidal signal and a noise.
It possesses a periodic trend equivalent to that of the sinusoidal signal, to which dense fluctuations overlap.
The average value in this case is very close to that calculated for pure noise, since the contribution given to
it by the sine wave is almost nil. The signal 5 also has a reduced skewness value, which is closest to zero
after the sinusoidal signal. The flatness for this series is intermediate between the sinusoidal signal and the
pure noise signal. It can also be noted that the sum of the mean values of signal 1 and signal 2 provides the
mean value of the signal 3 (fluid dynamic signal + noise) and the sum of the average values of the signal 2
and 4 gives the mean value of the signal 5.
5.6) Autocorrelation coefficient
The autocorrelation defines the degree of dependence between the values assumed by a function sampled
in its abscissa domain. If the autocorrelation between two values is demonstrated, changing the
peculiarities of one of them will also change the other.
In our case in the abscissa we have the time so we can understand the relationships between a signal at an
instant and the same signal at a later time and define the degree of dependence between the values
assumed by a function sampled in its abscissa domain.
We can deduce that if a signal changes slowly over time, the value of the x (t) and x (t + τ) instants will be
almost similar (the autocorrelation will have a positive sign), while if it varies rapidly, the value of these
instants will be very different, and autocorrelation assumes a value close to zero.
The autocorrelation function for discrete signals is given by the sum of all the samples i of the product
between the differences of 𝑢i and the mean value for the differences between (𝑢i + 𝑗) at distance j from 𝑢i
and the value average, normalized on (𝑁 – 𝑗).
To obtain the autocorrelation coefficient we divide this function by the variance:
𝑁−𝑗
1
𝜌𝑗 = 2 ̅)(𝑢𝑖+𝑗 − 𝑈
∑(𝑢𝑖 − 𝑈 ̅)
𝜎 (𝑁 − 𝑗)
1
Where: (𝑢i - 𝑈) is the fluctuating part of the data with respect to the mean value, (𝑢i + 𝑗 - 𝑈) is the floating
part of the data at distance j from 𝑢i with respect to the mean value.
The value 𝑢i + 𝑗 is taken after a time interval equal to j * Δt from the datum dove, where, in this case, Δt is
equal to 0.001 seconds.
132
133
134
The graph of ρj for the sinusoidal signal shows a pattern of a cosine type with oscillations between -1and
+1. The periodic signals show a progression of the periodic autocorrelation coefficient, effecting the
product of the translated signal of a period (j = 𝑇0) we obtain ρj = 1, while for j = 𝑇0 / 2 we get gets ρj = -1.
Pure noise by definition is not related to itself from moment to moment, in effecting the values of the
products between the differences 𝑢i- 𝑈 ̅ can be obtained positive or negative indifferently. If the
fluctuations between the positive and negative products are completely correlated are equivalent. By
definition, for j = 0 we always have ρj = 1 but as soon as we move to non-null values, the value of ρj
immediately precipitates and is kept around zero. The fluid-dynamic signal trend of ρj is intermediate
between the sinusoidal and noise. As can be seen in the figure it has a certain oscillation around zero.
5.7) Cross correlation factor
In signal theory, the cross correlation represents the measure of similarity of two signals as a function of a
temporal shift or translation applied to one of them.
𝑁−𝑗
1
𝜌𝑗 𝐴𝐵
= ∑(𝑢𝑖 𝐴 − ̅̅̅̅̅
𝑈𝐴 )(𝑢𝐵 𝑖+𝑗 − ̅̅̅̅
𝑈𝐵 )
𝜎𝐴 𝜎𝐵
1
Cross-correlation can be very useful when the two signals have a common character that is hardly visible a
priori, in this case the output function will not be null, which instead happens if the two signals are
completely independent.
The graphs below show the results for all the cases considered.
135
136
137
138
The most significant cross-correlation are between the signal 1 and signal 3, because reflects the trend of
the pure fluid-dynamic signal, and between signal 4 and signal 5 where the cross-correlation follows the
profile of the sinusoidal signal. Signals 1 and 2 show no correlation providing a fluctuating trend around the
null value. The signals 2 and 3 are correlated solely to the fact that the noise present in the two signals is
the same.
139
5.8) Spectral Analysis
The analysis in the code of a signal indicates its description in terms of the whole spectrum of its
frequencies. A signal is seen as an overlap of complex sinusoids, each representing a certain frequency and
phase. Knowing the amplitude and the phase of each constitutive frequency of a signal it is in principle
possible to "reconstruct" the starting signal in a certain time interval. The representation in terms of pure
frequencies is called the signal spectrum. The mathematical tool that allows to switch from one domain to
another is the Fourier transform which represents a continuous signal over time through the following
relation:
+∞
𝑋(𝑓) = ∫ 𝑥(𝑡)𝑒 −𝑗2𝜋𝑓𝑡 𝑑𝑡
−∞
In the case in question the signal was sampled at intervals dt, for a limited time T. The sampling frequency
is defined as fc = 1 / dt. For discretized signals, the discrete Fourier transform is used in which the sum of all
the points sampled in the interval T is substituted for the integral extended to infinity.
In our case, the transform returns the following relation for the power spectral density:
𝑁−1
−𝑖2𝜋𝑘𝑗
𝑆𝑘 = ∑ 𝜌𝑗 𝑒 𝑁
0
The spectrum was evaluated using the "FFT" command of Matlab applied to each of our signals. Below are
the graphs of the spectra as a function of the frequency for each signal we have examined, subdivided by
the Amplitude and the Phase of the signals.
The graphic of the amplitude are in bi-logarithmic scale to simplify the identification of the main
frequencies.
140
141
142
5.9) Filter
The filtering of the signal is a procedure that allows to dampen the fluctuations contained in the data
making them more interpretable. Generally, the series of data obtained from laboratory experiments are
affected by a noise that overlaps them; the application of a filter allows to obtain the signal "cleaned up" by
the disturbances present in it.
Depending on the frequency band to be treated there are different types of filters: the low pass filter
defines a threshold, called cutting frequency, blocking the upper frequencies and leaving the lower
frequencies unaltered. On the contrary a high pass filter allows the passage of frequencies higher than the
cutoff frequency and eliminates the lower ones. The band pass filter defines a range called the pass band,
allowing the frequencies inside it to pass and the external frequencies to be attenuated. The filter
eliminates band in the opposite way does not allow the passage of frequencies within a range. The filter
passes all passes all frequencies in the same way, not intervening on the amplitude of the frequencies that
cross it but only on their phases.
It was decided to apply a filter only to the two signals that contained the noise inside them (the signal 3 and
the signal 5); by observing the spectra of the signals taken in analysis in the absence or in the presence of
noise, it has been possible to define the appropriate frequency ranges in which to apply the filter: for the
fluid-dynamic signal from the comparison of the two graphs it was noted that the noise was present in the
spectrum from frequencies above 10.4 Hz, while for the sinusoidal signal the noise occurs in the spectrum
from frequencies above 1.7 Hz. Based on what has been said, it has been decided to use a Bandpass filter
for the flow-through signal with a band width included between 0.2 <Hz <10.4. The bandpass filter is a filter
that passes one frequency band and attenuates frequencies above and below that band.
For the sinusoidal signal we have used a Low-pass filter with a cut-off frequency of 1.7 Hz.
The Low-pass is a filter that passes low frequencies and attenuates high frequencies.
It can be seen that the filtered signals have a similar response to the original noise-free signals.
As a demonstration of what has been said, a graphical comparison between the signal 1 (pure fluid
dynamics) and the filtered signal 3 is shown below where it can be observed that the signal are not
perfectly overlapped due to the accepted low oscillation due to the low pass filter. The same is done for the
signal 4 and the filtered signal 5 but in this case it can be noticed that the beginning part of the filtered
signal 5 is delayed, an explaination of this phemonenon can be attributed to the fact that it has been used
143
an high order filter which have caused a higher delay in the response of the reconstructed signal due to it’s
complexity.
144
5.10) Conclusions
Through the Matlab calculation program it was possible to represent the trends of the signals over time
and perform the analysis of the statistical moments by studying the probability density and the
autocorrelation and cross-correlation coefficients. Thanks to this tool it was possible to recognize and
characterize the data provided for the exercitation.
The main results reached in the analysis were:
For the “fluid dynamic” signal a flatness value equal to 3.2012 and a trend of the autocorrelation coefficient
that presents oscillations indicating a certain degree of correlation.
For the “noise” signal a flatness value equal to 2.9245, a trend of probability density that follows with a
good accuracy a Gaussian distribution and a trend of the autocorrelation coefficient that decrease rapidly
to zero.
for the “fluid dynamic + noise” signal it was obtained a high value of flatness and a coefficient of cross-
correlation between series 1 and 3 which indicates the trend of the original fluid-dynamic signal.
For the “sinusoidal signal”, a mean value and an almost null skewness, a small flatness value among all the
data proposed, a symmetrical trend of the probability density and a periodic proceeding of the
autocorrelation coefficient.
For the “sinusoidal + noise” signal an average value close to that of pure noise, a reduced skewness and a
coefficient of cross-correlation between series 4 and 5 with a trend similar to the sinusoidal signal.
A spectral analysis permitted to distinguish the data provided, showing the characteristic trends for the
different types of signal.
Through the application of the filter to the signal it was possible to eliminate the noise from the altered
signals and to obtain a better grade of the data quality.
To do this it has been chosen the best range of frequencies for apply the passband filter to the noise-driven
noise signal which are between 0.2 Hz and 10.4 Hz. For what concern the cleaning of the sinusoidal signal it
was choosen a pass-through filter with a cut-off frequency equal to 1.7 Hz.
145
5.11) Appendix: MatLAB Codes
Below are showed the codes relatives to the first data set.
load DATI1.DAT;
data1 = DATI1;
clear DATI1
N1 = length(data1); % dimensione del vettore data1
t = (0.001 : 0.001 : 10);
%% Valore medio
mean1 = 0;
for i = 1:N1
mean1 = mean1 + data1(i);
end
mean1 = mean1 / N1;
%% Varianza
variance1 = 0;
for i = 1 : N1
variance1 = variance1 + (data1(i) - mean(data1))^2;
end
variance1 = variance1 / N1;
%% Deviazione standard
std1 = 0;
for i = 1 : N1
std1 = (std1 + (data1(i) - mean1).^2);
end
std1 = sqrt(std1 / N1);
%% skewness factor
skewness1 = 0;
for i = 1 : N1
skewness1 = (skewness1 + ((data1(i) - mean1).^3));
end
skewness1 = skewness1 / (N1 * std1^3);
%% flatness factor
flatness1 = 0;
for i = 1 : N1
flatness1 = flatness1 + (data1(i) - mean1)^4;
end
flatness1 = flatness1 / (N1 * std1^4);
146
%% autocorrelation coefficient
for j = 1:(N1)
autocorr1 = 0;
for i = 1: (N1-j)
Cor1 = (data1(i)-mean1) * (data1(i+j-1) - mean1);
autocorr1 = Cor1 + autocorr1;
end
auto1(j) = autocorr1/((std1 .^2)*(N1-j+1));
end
semilogx(auto1)
%% cross-correlation12
for j = 1 : N1
crossCorData12 = 0;
for i = 1 : (N1-j)
Ccorr12 = (data1(i) - mean1) * (data2(i+j-1) -
mean2);
crossCorData12 = crossCorData12 + Ccorr12;
end
crossCorr12(j) = crossCorData12 / ((N1-j+1) * std1
*std2);
end
%% plot segnale 1
plot(t,data1)
xlabel('t [s]')
title('segnale 1')
figure
histfit(data1) %funzione di probabilità
hold on
plot([mean1 mean1],[0 350],'g')
figure
semilogx(auto1) % coefficienti di autocorrelatione
figure
semilogx(crossCorr12)
%% trasformata di fourier
F=fft(data5); %esecuzione della trasformata di Fourier

del vettore V
M=length(data5) %M è la dimensione del vettore colonna

dei dati di V
fz=1000*(0:M-1)/M ; %campo delle frequenze di

campionamento
147
Vmod=abs(F); %modulo del vettore F
Vphase=angle(F); %fase del vettore F
subplot(311)
loglog((fz(1:length(Vmod))),Vmod(1:length(Vmod)))
xlabel('Frequency [Hz]')
ylabel('Amplitude')
title('Spectrum Signal 5')
subplot(312)
plot((fz(1:length(Vmod))),Vphase(1:length(Vmod)))
xlabel('Frequency [Hz]')
ylabel('Phase')
title('Phase Signal 5')
subplot(313)
plot(data5)
xlabel('Data')
ylabel('Signal')
title('Signal 5')
%% Filter signal 3
Passabanda = designfilt('bandpassfir','FilterOrder',40, ...
'CutoffFrequency1',0.2,'CutoffFrequency2',10.4, ...
'SampleRate',1000);
FiltroPassa=filter(Passabanda,data3);
plot(FiltroPassa)
hold on
plot(data1)
%% Filter signal 5
Passabasso = designfilt('lowpassiir','FilterOrder',12, ...
'PassbandFrequency',1.7,
'PassbandRipple',0.000000005,...
'SampleRate',1000);
FiltroBasso=filter(Passabasso,data5);
plot(FiltroBasso)
hold on
plot(data4)
148
View publication stats

Experimental Fluid Mechanics Lab Report: September 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Experimental Fluid Mechanics Lab Report: September 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Experimental Fluid Mechanics lab report

Technical Report · September 2018

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1.2) Experimental equipment

1.4) Data analysis

1.5) Image processing

Figure 1. Average images at 300mbar

1.5.1) First method

Figure 2: lengths calculated with the “image viewer”

Figure 4: average image 300mbar converted in points P(X,Y)

Figure 5: the approximation line that yields the angular coefficient

1.6.1) Error committed calculating Re in the calibration phase

1.6.2) Error on the jet geometry

1.7.1) Core length

Figure 7 :experimental results method 1

Figure 8: graphical comparison between theoretical and experimental angles

Coeff_b_turb = b_fit_turb * 2 * diam_int^3 /( ni^2 * ro);

%% vettori angolo di apertura METODO 2

%% confronto tra angoli

%% confronto angoli con risultati letteratura

2.2) Experimental equipment

Figure 1: Boundary and velocity profiles

On this report the tests will be named as:

- Test 1: speed of the fluid current of 12 m/s, without stall retarder.

2.4) Data Analysis

Table 1: height’s values

The values of the pressure variations in Pa are shown in Table 2.

Table 3. Pressure coefficients

2.5) Comparison with Javafoil

2.6) Error Analysis

This error propagates on the measurements as:

Here are the tables showing the obtained values:

Table 5. Error on CL.

Table 6. Error CD.

2.6.1) Attack Angle Error

Considering this modification as a result we have obtained the following graph:

Table 7: height values of test 2

Table 8: Δp values of test 2

Table 9: pressure coefficients values of test 2

Table 10: height values of test 3

Table 7: Δp values of test 3

Table 8: pressure coefficients of test 3

Table 13: height values of test 4

Table 15: pressure coefficients of test 4

The following comparisons were made:

2.8.1) Comparison between test 1 and 2

2.8.2) Comparison between test 1 and 3

2.8.3) Comparison between test 2 and 4

Also in this case we can notice the anticipation of the stall.

2.8.4) Comparison between test 3 and 4

2.9) Appendix: MatLAB code

Cp_U1(i,j) = Dp_U1(i,j) / press_din;

CL(j) = CL(j) - ((1/S)*(Cp_U1(i,j) .*

meanepsilonCDtot = meanepsilonCD + meanepsilonCDa

CL_corr(j) = CL_corr(j) - ((1/S)*(Cp_U1(i,j) .*

CD_corr(j) = CD_corr(j) - ((1/S) * (Cp_U1(i,j) .*

Figure 2: Boundary layer profile

The total experimental conditions adopted are 8:

Figure 3: displacement thickness

Also in this case, the discretized formula is used:

𝛿 = 1.721 ∙ 𝐿⁄ 0.5 𝛿 = 0.046 ∙ 𝐿⁄ 0.2

3.2) Experimental equipment

CL(j) = CL(j) - ((1/S)(Cp_U1(i,j) .

CL_corr(j) = CL_corr(j) - ((1/S)(Cp_U1(i,j) .