Gas Flow Meters

CHEN 3401W
Unit Operations Laboratory
Section 16, Group 2
Section Instructor: Aditya Bhan
March 29th, 2013
Planner: Alvaro de la Garza Musi
Experimenter: Reese Weber
Analyzer: Lia Palmore
Consultant: Laurel Dresel

Signature:

Abstract
A client contacted Uni-Minn to design a gas flow meter for a particle removal system
in one of their air filtration operations. The system has an air flow rate of 5,000 lbs/hr
through a 500ft pipe which enters the particle removal system at the specified inlet
conditions of 30 psig and 120F. The client requested a design for the optimal pipe
diameter, pressure drop across the system, compressor size, and type of meter.
Experimental data was gathered in the University of Minnesota pilot plant to perform the
scale up design for the client. Coefficients for the orifice, flow nozzle, and venturi meters
were calculated using the pitot tube as standard. The pressure drop across each meter
was found as a function of the Reynolds number. In the experiment, the meter type and
damper settings were considered to be the independent variables, while the manometer
height, air flow rate, pressure drops, and meter coefficients were taken as dependent.
Different flow rates were attained by changing the blower damper settings. This
resulted in a range of Reynolds numbers from 5,000 to 20,000 creating turbulent flow for
all damper settings. Air was approximated to be incompressible for the experiment, as
the blower did not compress the air by more than 10%.
The experiment was conducted by first centering the pitot tube. This was done by
measuring the fluid velocity at damper settings of 4, 6,7,10, and 12 and representative
points in the airflow of different cross-sectional areas. A maximum pitot velocity was
attained at the center of the pipe when the ruler on the pitot marked 2.70.1in. Centering
the pitot allowed us to calibrate the meters. The hot wire anemometer was the first
device to be calibrated. A calibration curve of the anemometer velocities versus the pitot
velocities yielded a slope of 1.100.06 and an R2 of .99. The slope of the curve validates
the pitot measurement as it is 0.1% away from the theoretical value of 1. Each gas flow
meter pressure drop was then measured. The venturi and flow nozzle meters at the
highest damper setting used, presented a head loss of 10,500300ft and 22,800300ft,
respectively. The circular meter presented a higher head loss of 51,000 300ft. The
head loss was larger than the theoretical value due to leaks and frictional losses in the
system. This behavior was consistent at all damper settings.
The meter coefficients were found by measuring the pressure drop over the meter
and calculating the velocity through the meter. The ratio of this and the velocity from the
continuity equation defined the coefficient. Venturi and circular orifice meter coefficients
were determined to be 0.940.04 and 0.590.02, respectively. The flow nozzle meter
presented a higher than unity coefficient of 1.040.04 which was attributed to air leaks.
After analysis, the venturi meter was recommended for scale up because of its
precision at high Reynolds numbers and low permanent pressure drop. A nominal 8
ANSI 40 schedule pipe was recommended for the design. The total pressure drop
across the system was 30.38psi. To overcome this pressure, a144 hp compressor is
necessary, so a rotary screw 150hp compressor is suggested. The residence time of the
fluid in the compressor is small enough that adiabatic compression can be
approximated, implicating a temperature rise. Air exits the compressor with a
temperature of 280F, which is higher than the one specified by the client. A finned shelland tube heat exchanger with an area of 49ft2 is suggested to lower the temperature.
Initial capital investment for the system was determined to be $43,000.
Signature:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
II.

Introduction
Theory and Technical Background
i. Meter Types
ii. Design Problem Theory
III.
Description of Apparatus/Experimental Procedure
i. Description of apparatus
ii. Experimental Procedure
iii. Shut-down Procedure
iv. Safety and Precautions
v. Process Flow Diagram
IV. Calculated Data Tables
i. Pitot Tube Data
ii. TSI Meter Data
iii. Orifice Meter Data
iv. Venturi Meter Data
v. Flow Nozzle Data
vi. Sound Data
V.
Final Results
i. Pitot Tube Traverse
ii. Hot Wire Anemometer Calibration
iii. Meter Coefficients and Reynolds Numbers
iv. Permanent Pressure Loss and Head Loss
v. Sound Data Contour Plot
VI. Discussion of Results
i. Hot Wire Anemometer Calibration
ii. Meter Coefficients
iii. Permanent Pressure Loss and Head Loss
iv. Sound Data
VII. Conclusion and Recommendation
VIII. Design Problem
IX. Nomenclature
X.
References
XI. Appendices
A. Original Data Sheets
B. Sample Calculations
C. Design Problem Calculations
D. Error (Uncertainty) Analysis
E. Consultants Special Topics Report
F. Data Transfer Sheet

Signature:

4
4
5
7
10
10
12
14
14
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
22
23
24
25
26
26
26
27
27
27
28
30
31
32
55
68
78
95
103

I.

Introduction

The Gas Flow Meters Calibration experiment had the purpose of developing a feasible
scale up of an energy-efficient gas flow meter to satisfy the clients needs. The Special
Task Group asked for a gas flow meter designed to accurately measure air flow rate in a
particle removal process. This process will compress 5,000lbs/hr from ambient
conditions to a required inlet temperature and pressure of 120F and 30psig for an
installation located 500ft from the compressor. Three different types of gas flow meters
were calibrated in the laboratory: the orifice meter, the venturi meter, and the flow
nozzle meter. Calibrations were done in a fixed 6in. diameter pipe and different flow
rates were attained by changing the damper settings in a 5hp blower. Independent
variables were the meter type and damper settings, responses were the manometer
height, air flow rate, permanent pressure drops, and meter coefficients. For purposes of
this experiment air was approximated to be incompressible as the blower did not induce
a pressure ratio larger than 10%. Results from the experiment included the
dimensionless coefficient of each gas flow meter calibrated along with the different
pressure drops across the system. It is important to note the behavior of the
dimensionless coefficient with changing Reynolds numbers, as it is different for every
gas flow meter. The results of the experiment were sufficient to effectively design a gas
flow meter system fulfilling the requirements asked.
II.

Theory and Technical Background

Quantification of gas flow is important in residential, commercial and industrial

facilities.(1) The most inexpensive way to do this is using a gas flow meter. A gas flow
meter consists of a device with a sudden diameter change in the pipe. The meter is
directly inserted in the pipe and contracts the gas flow to produce a pressure drop
across two points one before and one after the gas flow meter. Two pressure tabs and a
manometer are used to measure this pressure drop. The high pressure tab displaces the
fluid in the manometer inducing a measurable change in height which is translated to
pressure drop using equation 1-1.(2)
(
)
(
)
(1-1)
Where P2 and P1 are the pressures across the gas flow meter, h is the change in
height, m is the manometer fluid density, and is the density of the working fluid.
The pressure drop measured with the manometer, along with a mechanical energy
balance across the system and the continuity equation, were used to determine the
velocity of the gas across the meter.
Mechanical energy balance:(2)

(1-2)

Where V1 and V2 are velocities at point 1 and 2, and P1 and P2 are the pressures at the
same points as velocity.
Continuity Equation:(2)

(1-3)

Where D1 and D2 are the pipe diameters at the point where velocity was recorded.
Signature:

The velocity of the constricted flow was then obtained,(2)

(1-4)

Where Ax is a generic cross-sectional area, Cx is a generic dimensionless coefficient

specific for each one of the gas flow meters used, and is defined as D2/D1. It is
important to mention that the equation used for the experimental data analysis
approximates air as an incompressible liquid because the pressure the fluid is submitted
is relatively low.
A detailed description of each one of the meters used, along with the theory applied to
analyze the experiment results is presented below.
i.

Meter Types

Pitot Tube
The Pitot tube is used to measure local velocity in a particular conduit. It consists of a
tube pointing directly towards the fluid flow and a manometer connected to measure
pressure drop. At point 2, the air flow creates a pressure build up which results in a
velocity of approximately zero; this point is called the stagnation point. Figure 2-1 is a
schematic diagram of the pitot tube.

Figure 2-1. A simplified

diagram of the pitot tube

Since the velocity at the stagnation point is zero equation 1-2 can be rearranged to solve
for velocity at point 1,(2)

(1-5)

Deviations from the mechanical energy balance occur due to friction losses in the pitot
tube, therefore a dimensionless coefficient Cp is added to the equation to take in account
this change. Literature values of Cp range from 0.98 to 1 (1) suggesting minimal friction
losses. For the purposes of this experiment the Cp value was determined to be 0.99.
Accuracy in the measurements was improved using the simple traverse method with the
pitot tube. This method consists of dividing the duct into a number of equidistant crosssectional areas according to equation 1-5. A mean velocity for the fluid is attained by the
simple traverse method.(1)

(1-6)

Where L is the spacing between each measurement, r is the radius of the pipe, and N is
the total number of measurements.

Signature:

Hot Wire Anemometer

When a pitot tube is not available, or it is impractical to install, a hot wire anemometer
can be used. The anemometer, just as the pitot tube, provides a measurement of the
local velocity of a flow. Measurements from the hot wire anemometer are to be plotted
against the pitot tube velocities to validate the use of the pitot as a standard.(3)
[

(1-7)

2.5 Orifice Meter

A 2.5 orifice meter provides an inexpensive and simple way of measuring flow at a price
of a very high permanent pressure loss. It consists of a drilled plate with a 2.5 diameter
hole, the orifice meter is mounted between two flanges in the pipe as shown below.

Figure 2-2. A schematic

diagram of the orifice meter.
The fluid is constricted suddenly when flowing through the orifice plate, and it then goes
through a sudden expansion right after the plate. These diameter changes create eddies
in the flow which translate to a permanent loss in fluid velocity and therefore pressure.
Equation 1-4 was used to find the mass flow rate using the specific value of the
dimensionless coefficient for the orifice meter C0, which according to Geankoplis was
0.61 (1). As stated above, the fluid does experience a permanent pressure drop after
crossing the orifice meter. The equation used is,(1)
(

)(

(1-8.a)

Where p1 and p2, are the pressures measured, p4 is the pressure several diameters from
the orifice, and is the diameter ratio.
Venturi Meter
The venturi meter is inserted directly into the pipeline and introduces a gradual
constriction to the flow, then the fluid tapers back slowly to the original pipe diameter. A
pressure drop is experienced across the flow constriction which is measured using
pressure taps. The mass flow rate is found with equation 1-4. The values of the
dimensionless coefficient in the venturi meter Cv are around 0.98.
Figure 2-3. A
schematic diagram of
the venutri meter.

Signature:

Due to the gradual contraction and expansion of the flow in the venturi meter the
permanent pressure loss experienced is rather small. Literature values suggest a
permanent pressure loss of 15% of the measured pressure, therefore,(1)
(

(1-8.b)

Flow-Nozzle Meter
A typical flow-nozzle meter has characteristics similar to those of the venturi meter but is
shorter and much less expensive. (1) The flow is constricted by a short cylinder of about
one-half the diameter of the pipe, with an elliptical approach. The mass flow rate is again
determined with equation 1-4 using dimensionless coefficient values of 0.98.

Figure 2-4. A simplified

diagram of the flow nozzle
meter.
The permanent pressure loss is as follows,(1)
(

(
(

)
(
)

(1-8.c)

This head loss is expected to be much larger than the one incurred by the venturi meter,
but still smaller than the permanent pressure loss in the orifice meter.
Dimensionless Coefficient Determination
Even though literature values for the each meters dimensionless coefficient was found,
these need to be verified experimentally for the meters used in the pilot plant. The first
step for the coefficient calculation is solving for V2 the velocity at the point where the fluid
is at maximum constriction. V1, the initial flow velocity, measured with the pitot tube and
the continuity equation yield to equation 1-10.(1)
(1-9)
Equation (1-4) is rearranged and using the V2 value obtained the dimensionless
coefficient is determined.
ii.

Design Problem Theory

After the experiments data analysis was done, dimensionless coefficients and
permanent pressure losses were calculated for each gas flow meter; a scale-up design
to industrial settings was possible. The client required a gas flow meter that will measure
a 5,000lbs/hr flow which after passing through a 500ft pipe is fed to an air filtration
system. Inlet conditions to the air filtration system were 30psig and 120F as specified by
the client. A cost-effective pipe diameter was determined to meet flow rate
specifications, and a meter type which maximized accuracy in the readings while
Signature:

keeping a low pressure drop was chosen. To meet inlet conditions a compressor was
sized, as well as a heat exchanger.
The theory behind the design problem calculations is presented below,
Fluid Compressibility
The experiment done in lab used a blower which created a low pressure drop. For cases
where the outlet pressure is more than 10% higher than that of the inlet, compressibility
of the fluid has to be accounted for. Adding an expansion factor Y to equation (1-4) takes
in account compression of the fluid. Figure 2.5 below shows the relation of the
expansion factor with the pressure ratio for the different meters used.

Figure 2-5. Graph of

Expansion factor vs.
p2/p1

(1-10)

Optimal Pipe Diameter

The optimal pipe diameter was determined using equation 1-11 from Timmerhous (4),
where Di,opt is the optimal pipe inner diameter in inches, Qd is the desired volumetric flow
rate in ft3/s, and is the fluid density in lb/ft3.
(1-11)
It is important to remark that this function is obtained by taking the derivative of a
complex cost function with several other parameters; this is the reason for the
inconsistency in the units.
Optimal gas flow meter type
The determination of the optimal gas flow meter was done by plotting the Reynolds
number, given by equation 1-12, against the dimensionless coefficient and the
permanent pressure drop.(1)
(1-12)
Where D is the pipe diameter in ft, v is the fluid velocity in ft/s, is the density in lb/ft 3,
is the fluid viscosity.

Signature:

Pressure Losses
The pressure losses across the system were added to the required inlet pressure, so
that the required compressor horse power calculation is possible. The power loss across
the meter is measured during the experiment. Pressure loss of turbulent flow across a
pipe of length L is represented by equation (1-14), where is the dimensionless friction
factor, M is the fluids molar mass, and G is the mass flow rate over the pipes crosssectional area.(1)
(

(1-14)

Compressor
The short residence time of the air in the compressor allows very little heat dissipation
from the fluid to the environment therefore adiabatic compression was approximated.
The equation for shaft work used for adiabatic compression is presented below,(1)
(

[( )

(1-15)

Where is the ratio of specific heat capacities Cp/Cv, and T1 is the inlet temperature. The
compressor shaft work is then turned into brake horsepower using the following
equation,(1)

(1-15.a)

Where m is the mass flow rate and is the compressor efficiency.

The gas is adiabatically compressed; therefore the relationship between the inlet and
outlet conditions can be equated according to the following,(1)
( )

( )

(1-16)

Heat Exchanger
The gas compression causes a temperature rise, therefore a heat exchanger needs to
be sized to meet the inlet temperature of 120F. The heat exchangers area required is
given by equation 1-17,(1)
(1-17)
Where U is the overall heat transfer coefficient, Q is the total heat loss or gained during
the transfer, and(1)
(

) (
(
(
(

)
)
)
)

Signature:

(1-18)

III. Description of Apparatus/Experimental Procedure

i.
Description of Apparatus
In this particular experiment, Uni-Minn was asked to investigate five gas flow meters at
various air flow rates to determine which meter to scale-up for the design problem. The
orifice plate meter, venturi meter, flow nozzle meter, triangle orifice plate meter, and
square orifice plate meter were calibrated against the pitot tube to determine pressure
drop across the meter and permanent pressure drop. Analysis of the square and triangle
meters is included in Appendix F, Consultants Special Topics Report (page #95).
The apparatus consisted of an insulated blower connected to an insulated air intake filter
through several feet of piping. This pipe had an inner diameter of 6.00 0.06 inches,
and the intake side could be horizontally adjusted to accommodate meters of different
lengths. Between the blower and intake filter were: a pitot tube, a temperature gauge, a
TSI meter port, several pressure ports, and a space for a gas flow meter, as illustrated in
Figure 3-1. The pressure ports were connected through two pressure taps that led to a
manometer board which read the resulting pressure drops.
Blower
The blower, manufactured by N. American MFG, Co., was of size 320-D2-7-2, and had a
volume cfm of 825. As the blower was insulated, a cooling fan was used to dissipate the
heat generated from the blower. The cooling fan was required to be on for the duration
of the blower use so the blower motor did not overheat. The blower also had a pipe that
extended through the window for extra ventilation. Connected to the blower was a
damper. Specific air flow rates could be sent through the pipe by selecting preset
damper settings between 1 and 14.
Pitot Tube
The primary standard of the experiment was the pitot tube, attached just downstream of
the insulated filter. Its height in the tube could be varied. Two pressure ports were
attached to the pitot tube, one horizontal and one vertical. The stagnant flow of the pitot
tube corresponded to the horizontal pressure port. Therefore, the higher pressure in the
vertical port could be measured with respect to the stagnant flow. In order to find the
average fluid velocity, the pressure drop across the pitot tube was measured at four
separate traverse points and at the center of the pipe. The four separate traverse points
split the tube into four equal cross-sectional areas. Attached to the outside of the pitot
tube was a ruler, which was used to position the height of the pitot tube for each
measurement. See appendix C for calculation of the traverse points.
Meters
Each gas flow meter was attached to the detachable portion of pipe upstream of the
blower. All orifice meters and the flow nozzle meter were attached between two rubber
gaskets placed between the movable portion of pipe and a section of straight pipe. Both
sides were attached with 4 steel carriage bolts, 4 washers, and 4 wing nuts, tightened as
securely as possible.

Signature:

10

Orifice Plate Meter

The orifice plate meter had an orifice diameter of 2.50 0.06 inches, and was attached
to the more upstream side of the straight pipe insert. The high pressure reading was
taken one pipe diameter upstream of the meter, at pressure port 6. Low pressure was
taken one pipe diameter downstream of the meter. Permanent pressure drop was taken
four pipe diameters downstream of the meter, at pressure port 11. See figure 3-2 for a
pictorial representation of the flow meter and the location of the pressure tap placement.
Venturi Meter
The venturi meter converged at a diameter of 3.00 0.06 inches at the vena contracta,
and then expanded back to pipe diameter. High pressure was taken one pipe diameter
upstream of the meter, at pressure port 6. Low pressure was taken at the vena
contracta. However, the vena contracta had two pressure ports, so pressure
measurements were taken at both ports. See figure 3-3 for a pictorial representation of
the venturi meter and location of the pressure tap placements.
Flow Nozzle Meter
The flow nozzle meter had an air flow entrance at 6.00 0.06 inches, which then
tapered off (over 4.50 0.06 inches) to decrease the diameter to 3.00 0.06 inches at
the outlet of the nozzle. High pressure was again taken one pipe diameter upstream of
the meter, at pressure port 6. Low pressure was read one half diameter downstream of
the air flow entrance. See figure 3-4 for a pictorial representation of the flow nozzle
meter and location of the pressure tap placement.
Manometers
Experimental pressure drop measurements were read from a manometer board, which
contained four manometers of varying precision. 0-40 in. water and 0-200 in. water
digital manometers (manufactured by Dwyer Instruments) measured the higher pressure
drops, while lower pressure drops were measured by 0-1 in. water and 0-3 in. water
inclined tube manometers (manufactured by the Meriam Instruments Co.). One side of
each manometer was connected to a high pressure tap, while the other side was
connected to a low pressure tap. The entrance to each manometer was sealed by a
valve, so the manometers would only take measurements if the valve was opened,
allowing the air to flow from high to low pressure.
TSI Hot Wire Anemometer
A port for the Model 8330 Velocicheck Air Velocity Meter was located three inches
downstream of the pitot tube.(4) The meter was a hot wire anemometer that functioned by
running a current through the wire. Water flowing across the velocity sensor cooled the
sensor, which decreased the resistance. In order to maintain a constant voltage across
the wire, more power was supplied. The amount of power supplied was proportional to
velocity of the air. The velocity returned to the anemometers display was based off of a
standard reference. Therefore, the velocity given needed to be related to the standard
temperature and pressure of 70 oF and 14.7 psia.

Signature:

11

Sound Meter
In order to comply with OSHA standards, sound levels were to be obtained and
analyzed. To ensure sound levels did not rise above the OSHA limits, a Sper Scientific
Sound Meter 840005 was used. A microphone inside the meter measured the sound (in
decibels) and displayed the reading at either a low or high setting.
ii.
Experimental Procedure
To begin both labs, all manometers were leveled and zeroed. Then, the straight pipe
was attached so the ruler on the pitot tube could be calibrated for accurate centering.
Pressure drop across the pitot tube was measured for damper settings 4, 6, 8, 10, and
12 at different heights between 1.7 and 3.3 inches read on the ruler. The center of the
pipe was determined to be where the pressure drop was highest, as maximum velocity
occurs at the center of a pipe. As the air flow was turbulent (as shown in later
calculations), the velocity profile was relatively flat. Therefore, only damper settings 10
and 12 showed a significant difference in pressure drop at small increments. From the
data, it was determined that the pitot tube was at the center of the pipe when the ruler
was positioned at 2.7 0.1 inches.
As data were taken at 2.6, 2.7, and 2.8 inches for each of the five damper settings, pitot
tube error could be determined. The largest fluctuation of pressure drop between the
three points was 0.04 in. water. As this was 0.1 inch in each direction from the calibrated
center, the error for each pressure drop reading thereafter was estimated as 0.02 in.
water.
The gas flow system reached steady state relatively quickly. In order to make sure the
air flow was as steady as possible, each manometer valve was opened at least ten
seconds after the velocity was changed. The pressure reading was then only taken
when the measurement was steady for five seconds. This was not always possible for
the digital manometers, as they had some fluctuation. In that case, the reading was
taken when the fluctuation was at a minimum. Pressure was zeroed after every reading
by removing the pressure taps from the ports and opening the manometer valve while
the taps were exposed to atmospheric pressure. Each pressure drop measurement read
from the inclined tube manometers was read at the tip of the meniscus of the manometer
fluid.
Note: Each time the blower was turned on, it was made sure that the damper setting was
at the start position. The cooling fan was run for the duration of both labs.
Pitot Tube
Five pitot tube data points were taken per damper setting per meter. The pressure drop
readings were taken in order, from 5.3 inches, to 4.2 inches, 2.7 inches, 1.2 inches, and
0.1 inches. Pressure was zeroed in between each reading.
TSI Hot Wire Anemometer
The pitot tube was used as the primary standard for the calibration of the anemometer.
Pressure drop measurements were taken while the pitot tube was centered for damper
settings 3 through 12. Then the pitot tube was moved to the top of the pipe so it would
not hinder the anemometer measurement. The hot wire was placed into the anemometer
Signature:

12

port and centered best as possible, making sure the wire was not obstructed and
completely parallel to air flow. As the anemometer could only take accurate data
measurements up to 20 m/s (65.6 ft/s), there were only a limited number of damper
settings that could be used to calibrate the TSI meter. Velocity data were recorded for
damper settings 2 through 6, so the only damper settings where accurate measurements
of velocity could be taken for both meters were damper setting 3 through 6. In order to
minimize error, the velocity was taken when the reading had been steady for ten
seconds.
Meters
Pressure drops for all five gas flow meters was taken at damper settings 4, 5, 7, 10, and
12. During the first week of lab, damper settings of 4, 7, 10, and 12 were chosen as to
measure a wide variety of air flow velocity. When these data were analyzed to see the
quality of data and meter coefficient, it could be seen that the air flow velocities of 7, 10,
and 12 were very close together. Therefore, it was decided that another damper setting
between 4 and 7 needed to be measured for all subsequent meters. At the end of the
second lab period, the meters measured in the first week of lab were re-installed and
damper setting 5 was measured so all meters had similar runs.
Orifice Plate Meter and Flow Nozzle Meter
The 2.5 inch orifice meter was placed between two rubber gaskets and put between the
pipe and the piece of detachable straight pipe. Pressure drop across the meter was
taken using the pressure tap placements mentioned above. Permanent pressure loss
was then recorded. Then all five pressure drops from the pitot tube were recorded,
followed by replicated measurements of pressure drop across the meter and permanent
pressure loss. The same procedure was followed for the flow nozzle meter, except with
different pressure tap placement, as noted above.
Venturi Meter
The venturi meter was attached likewise to the straight pipe, with the half of the meter
containing the vena contracta located further upstream. Pressure drop across the meter,
permanent pressure loss, and the pitot traverse were measured the same way as the
orifice plate and flow nozzle meters, except two pressure ports were located on the vena
contracta. Therefore data were taken for both meters (as readings were significantly
different), to be analyzed later which port was correct.
Sound
In order to make a contour plot of the sound levels around the blower, data needed to be
taken at many different points around the blower. Sound levels of 90 db, 85 db, 82 db,
78 db, and 75 db were taken for 7 different radial positions from the blower and the
distance away from the blower motor was recorded. These measurements were done at
damper setting 12 because that was the maximum operating damper setting in use for
the experiment and would produce the most noise. This data could then be put on a plot
for a contour of the blowers sound effects.

Signature:

13

iii.

Shut-down Procedure

To shut down the gas flow system, the blower was first turned off, followed by the
cooling fan. The damper setting was returned to the start position, and the detachable
portion of the pipe was removed. All the bolts, nuts, and washers were put away in the
container connected to the apparatus, and the pressure taps were hung on the
manometer board.

iv.
Safety and Precautions
Although a relatively simple machine to run, the gas flow system still has opportunity for
injury. At least two people must be used to attach each meter and section of piping to
the system. The support for the detachable section of pipe is not reliable, and it is easy
for fingers to get pinched in the attachment process. Minor injuries could also be
obtained by connecting the pressure taps, as the pressure ports were spring-loaded.
Mistakes can easily be made with the gas flow system. During the first week of lab there
were only two rubber gaskets available for use. These needed to be used to secure the
plate meters, leaving the downstream portion of the straight pipe attachment with a less
than ideal seal. Each bolt must be tightened as much as possible in order to obtain the
most accurate velocity and permanent pressure drop measurements, as a leak could
affect calculations.
v.

Process Flow Diagram

Table 3-1
A table showing all symbols and conventions used in figures 3-1 through 3-4.

Symbol

Meaning

Temperature Gauge

P1

First Pressure Port

Pn

Final Pressure Port (along

with Permanent)
TSI Meter

TSI
Meter X
D

Orifice, Venturi, or Flow

Nozzle Meter
One Pipe Diameter
Pressure Port

Signature:

14

Fan
Figure 3-1: A process flow diagram of the gas flow system.
Pn

P1

Damper
Pitot

Meter X
TSI

Intake

Blower

Air Flow
D

Figure 3-2: Orifice Plate Meter

Air Flow
D

Figure 3-3:Venturi Meter

D/2

Air Flow
D

D
Figure 3-4: Flow Nozzle Meter
Signature:

15

IV. Calculated Data Tables

i.

Table 4-1: Calibrating/Centering the Pitot Tube

Height of Pitot
Pitot Pressure
Damper
Tube (in)
Drop (lbf/ft2)
Manometer Used
4
2.3 0.1
1.4 0.1
0-3
4
2.5 0.1
1.4 0.1
0-3
4
2.6 0.1
1.4 0.1
0-3
2.7 0.1
1.5 0.1
4
0-3
4
2.8 0.1
1.4 0.1
0-3
4
3.0 0.1
1.3 0.1
0-3
6
2.3 0.1
3.7 0.1
0-3
6
2.5 0.1
3.6 0.1
0-3
6
2.6 0.1
3.7 0.1
0-3
2.7 0.1
3.6 0.1
6
0-3
6
2.8 0.1
3.6 0.1
0-3
6
3.0 0.1
3.5 0.1
0-3
8
1.7 0.1
8.3 0.1
0-3
8
2.0 0.1
8.2 0.1
0-3
8
2.3 0.1
8.1 0.1
0-3
8
2.5 0.1
8.2 0.1
0-3
8
2.6 0.1
8.1 0.1
0-3
2.7 0.1
8.1 0.1
8
0-3
8
2.8 0.1
8.2 0.1
0-3
8
3.0 0.1
8.1 0.1
0-3
8
3.3 0.1
7.9 0.1
0-3
10
2.0 0.1
10.3 0.1
0-3
10
2.3 0.1
10.2 0.1
0-3
10
2.5 0.1
10.2 0.1
0-3
10
2.6 0.1
10.2 0.1
0-3
2.7 0.1
10.3 0.1
10
0-3
10
2.8 0.1
10.4 0.1
0-3
10
3.0 0.1
10.3 0.1
0-3
10
3.3 0.1
9.9 0.5
0-40
12
2.6 0.1
10.9 0.5
0-40
12
2.6 0.1
11.0 0.1
0-3
2.7 0.1
11.0 0.1
12
0-3
12
2.8 0.1
10.8 0.1
0-3
12
3.0 0.1
10.8 0.1
0-3
A table presenting pressure drops at pitot tube heights near 3 inches. The 2.7-inch mark
corresponded to the greatest pressure drop most consistently.

Signature:

16

For all pressure measurements, the manometer used is listed. Each manometer had a
different amount of error, as an instrument is only as accurate as the smallest unit to
which it can measure. Both digital manometers had fluctuation in their output.
The 0 to 1 inclined tube manometer had an error of 0.01 in. water
The 0 to 3 inclined tube manometer had an error of 0.02 in. water
The 0 to 40 digital manometer had an error of 0.1 in. water
The 0 to 200 digital manometer had an error 0.1 in. water
Table 4-1: Experimental Conditions
Ambient
Ambient
Density
Viscosity (lbm/fts)
Temperature
Pressure
Dryness
(lbm/ft3)
x 10-4
o
2
( F)
(lbf/ft )
Week 1
75.2
2040
19%
0.074
1.61
Week 2
75.2
2070
19%
0.074
1.61
Experimental conditions were approximated to be constants throughout the experiment,
with no error.

Table 4-2: TSI Velocity Meter Calibration vs. Pitot Standard

Pressure Drop
Temperature
Manometer
TSI Anemometer
Damper
across Pitot Tube
(oF)
Used
Velocity (ft/s)
2
(lbf/ft )
25 1
2
0-3
7.9 0.2
25 1
3
0-3
0.4 0.1
18.4 0.2
25 1
4
0-3
1.5 0.1
34.1 0.2
25 1
5
0-3
2.3 0.1
44.9 0.2
25 1
6
0-3
3.7 0.1
58.7 0.2
25 1
7
0-3
5.9 0.1
>65.6
25 1
8
0-3
8.2 0.1
>65.6
25 1
9
0-3
9.4 0.1
>65.6
25 1
10
0-40
9.35 0.05
>65.6
25 1
11
0-40
9.77 0.05
>65.6
25 1
12
0-40
10.03 0.05
>65.6
The TSI meter had an error of 0.05 m/s per reading, which was propagated to ft/s. All
damper settings above 6 could not be measured by the TSI meter.
Tables 4-3 through 4-5 below contain data for the orifice plate, venturi, and flow nozzle
meters. In the run column, the first digit corresponds to the run number, which was
changed for each damper setting. A change in letter corresponds to a change in height
of the pitot tube, and the digit after the hyphen corresponds to which week the data was
taken. For the venturi meter, pressure drop across the meter was taken at a left and right
pressure port on the vena contracta. In Table 4-5, the error for each measurement was
put in the column title, as the error was the same for all readings down each column.

Signature:

17

Run
1a - 1
1b - 1
1c - 1
1d - 1
1e - 1
1f - 1
1g - 1
2a - 2
2b - 2
2c - 2
2d - 2
2e - 2
2f - 2
2g - 2
3a - 1
3b - 1
3c - 1
3d - 1
3e - 1
3f - 1
3g - 1
4a - 1
4b - 1
4c - 1
4d - 1
4e - 1
4f - 1
4g - 1
5a - 1
5b - 1
5c - 1
5d - 1
5e - 1
5f - 1
5g - 1

Table 4-3: 2.5-inch Orifice Plate Meter Calibration vs. Pitot Standard
Ruler
Pitot
Meter
Permanent
Height of
Pressure
Manometer
Damper
Pressure
Pressure
Pitot Tube
Drop
Used
2
2
Drop (lbf/ft ) Loss (lbf/ft )
(in)
(lbf/ft2)
4
5.3 0.1
0.40.1
0-3
4
4.2 0.1
0.60.1
0-3
4
2.7 0.1
0.70.1
0-3
4
1.2 0.1
0.80.1
0-3
4
0.1 0.1
0.50.1
0-3
4
56.40.5
47.10.5
0-40
4
58.10.5
46.50.5
0-40
5
5.3 0.1
0.60.5
0-40
5
4.2 0.1
1.10.5
0-40
5
2.7 0.1
1.30.5
0-40
5
1.2 0.1
1.10.5
0-40
5
0.1 0.1
0.80.5
0-40
5
84.00.5
67.20.5
0-40
5
84.00.5
66.90.5
0-40
7
5.3 0.1
0.60.1
0-3
7
4.2 0.1
1.50.1
0-3
7
2.7 0.1
1.70.1
0-3
7
1.2 0.1
1.70.1
0-3
7
0.1 0.1
1.10.1
0-3
7
129.20.5
103.50.5
0-40
7
128.70.5
103.40.5
0-40
10
5.3 0.1
1.10.1
0-3
10
4.2 0.1
1.90.1
0-3
10
2.7 0.1
1.90.1
0-3
10
1.2 0.1
1.90.1
0-3
10
0.1 0.1
1.40.1
0-3
10
145.30.5
116.50.5
0-40
10
146.20.5
116.80.5
0-40
12
5.3 0.1
1.30.5
0-40
12
4.2 0.1
1.80.5
0-40
12
2.7 0.1
2.00.1
0-3
12
1.2 0.1
2.00.1
0-3
12
0.1 0.1
1.50.1
0-3
12
147.50.5
118.10.5
0-40
12
147.80.5
118.60.5
0-40

Signature:

18

ii.

Table 4-4: Venturi Meter Calibration vs. Pitot Standard

Run

Damper

Ruler
Height
of Pitot
Tube (
0.1 in)

1a - 2
1b - 2
1c - 2
1d - 2
1e - 2
1f - 2
1g - 2
2a - 2
2b - 2
2c - 2
2d - 2
2e - 2
2f - 2
2g - 2
3a - 2
3b - 2
3c - 2
3d - 2
3e - 2
3f - 2
3g - 2
4a - 2
4b - 2
4c - 2
4d - 2
4e - 2
4f - 2
4g - 2
5a - 2
5b - 2
5c - 2
5d - 2
5e - 2
5f - 2
5g - 2

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
12
12
12
12
12
12
12

5.3
4.2
2.7
1.2
0.1
5.3
4.2
2.7
1.2
0.1
5.3
4.2
2.7
1.2
0.1
5.3
4.2
2.7
1.2
0.1
5.3
4.2
2.7
1.2
0.1
-

Pitot
Pressure
Drop
( 0.1
lbf/ft2)

0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8

L. Meter
Pressure
Drop
(0.5
lbf/ft2)

R. Meter
Pressure
Drop
(0.5
lbf/ft2)

Permanent
Pressure
Loss (0.5
lbf/ft2)

22.4
22.3

15.5
15.5

2.9
2.9

40.8
40.8

28.8
29.1

4.8
5.1

107.5
107.0

77.3
77.2

12.8
12.8

177.0
178.6

127.4
128.6

20.7
22.5

190.3
190.5

138.5
137.9

24.4
24.0

1.1
1.7
2.3
2.3
1.7

3.7
4.8
5.9
5.6
3.9

6.1
8.0
8.8
8.6
6.8

5.0
7.9
9.0
8.8
6.7

Signature:

Manometer
Used

0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-40
0-40
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-40
0-40
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-40
0-40
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-40
0-40
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-40
0-40
19

iii.
Run
1a - 2
1b - 2
1c - 2
1d - 2
1e - 2
1f - 2
1g - 2
2a - 2
2b - 2
2c - 2
2d - 2
2e - 2
2f - 2
2g - 2
3a - 2
3b - 2
3c - 2
3d - 2
3e - 2
3f - 2
3g - 2
4a - 2
4b - 2
4c - 2
4d - 2
4e - 2
4f - 2
4g - 2
5a - 2
5b - 2
5c - 2
5d - 2
5e - 2
5f - 2
5g - 2
5h - 2

Table 4-5: Flow Nozzle Meter Calibration vs. Pitot Standard

Ruler
Pitot
Meter
Permanent
Height of
Pressure
Damper
Pressure
Pressure
Pitot Tube
Drop
2
Drop
(lb
/ft
)
Loss
(lbf/ft2)
f
(in)
(lbf/ft2)
4
5.3 0.1
0.90.1
4
4.2 0.1
1.10.1
4
2.7 0.1
1.20.1
4
1.2 0.1
1.00.1
4
0.1 0.1
0.70.1
4
13.60.5
8.30.5
4
13.50.5
8.30.5
5
5.3 0.1
1.80.1
5
4.2 0.1
2.00.1
5
2.7 0.1
2.10.1
5
1.2 0.1
1.80.1
5
0.1 0.1
1.50.1
5
23.60.5
14.60.5
5
23.40.5
14.50.5
7
5.3 0.1
3.90.1
7
4.2 0.1
4.60.1
7
2.7 0.1
4.60.1
7
1.2 0.1
4.40.1
7
0.1 0.1
3.30.1
7
55.30.5
34.20.5
7
55.40.5
34.30.5
10
5.3 0.1
5.30.1
10
4.2 0.1
5.80.1
10
2.7 0.1
6.40.1
10
1.2 0.1
6.10.1
10
0.1 0.1
4.70.1
10
81.40.5
50.20.5
10
81.10.5
50.10.5
12
5.3 0.1
5.80.1
12
4.2 0.1
6.70.1
12
2.7 0.1
6.90.1
12
1.2 0.1
6.50.1
12
0.1 0.1
4.90.1
12
84.90.5
52.60.5
12
84.80.5
52.80.5
12
85.00.5
53.00.5

Signature:

Manometer
Used
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-40
0-40
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-40
0-40
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-40
0-40
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-40
0-40
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-40
0-40
0-40

20

iv.

Table 4-6: Sound Data

Position
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Decibel in. from in. from
in. from in. from in. from in. from in. from
(db)
blower
blower
blower
blower
blower
blower
blower
90 3
41
61
21
41
Hi
85 3
12 1
13 1
91
13 1
82 3
25 1
17 1
12 1
18 1
78 3
28 1
18 1
26 1
32 1
20 1
Lo
75 3
28 1
18 1
48 1
46 1
40 1
45 1
60 1
A table showing sound levels taken at varying radial positions and lengths from the
blower. Seven radial positions and five sound levels were chosen. Then each sound
level was found at a certain length away from the blower at each radial position, and that
distance was recorded. A contour plot of the sound data can be found in figure 5-5.
According to OSHA standards, the noise levels could not exceed 95 dB for a span of
four hours. The sound level did not go above 90 dB, so hearing protection was not
necessary.

Signature:

21

V. FINAL RESULTS
i.

Pitot Tube Traverse

As stated in the procedure, a Pitot tube traverse was performed at each of the chosen
damper settings using equation (1-6) for n = 1,2 and N = 4.

The table below demonstrates the calculated results of this traverse.

Table 5-1: Pitot Tube Traverse Results
Position
Inches Diameter
2.6 in above center
5.6 0.1 in
1.5 in above center
4.5 0.1 in
Center at 3.0 in
3.0 0.1 in
1.5 in below center
1.5 0.1 in
2.6 in below center
0.4 0.1 in

Pitot Ruler Height

5.3 0.1 in
4.2 0.1 in
2.7 0.1 in
1.2 0.1 in
0.1 0.1 in

The values reported as the Pitot Ruler Height in Table 5-1 were used as the traverse
points to take all measurements of the pressure drop at the various damper settings.
ii. Hot Wire Anemometer Calibration
Standard velocities were measured from damper settings 3 to12 using the hot wire
anemometer. A correction using equation (1-7) to calculate the actual velocities
measured at each damper setting by the meter.
[

Table 5-2 below reports the actual velocity measured at the damper settings in ft/s using
the correction. The velocity measurements were calculated using the Pitot readings as a
standard at each damper setting as well and are reported alongside the anemometer
readings in ft/s. The velocity of the Pitot tube was calculated using equation (1-5).

Table 5-2: Anemometer and Pitot Tube Velocities at Varying Damper Settings
Damper Setting
Anemometer
Average Pitot Tube Velocity
Actual Velocity (ft/s)
(ft/s)
3
19.3 0.3
18 4
4
35.8 0.5
35 2
5
47.1 0.6
44 2
6
61.6 0.8
56 2
7
>65.6 0.9
70.7 0.9
8
>65.62 0.9
83.2 0.8
9
>65.62 0.9
89.0 0.7
10
>65.62 0.9
88.8 0.7
11
>65.62 0.9
90.8 0.7
12
>65.62 0.9
92.0 0.7
Signature:

22

In Table 5-2 the anemometer velocities are reported at values >65.6 0.9 ft/s from
damper settings 7 to 12 because the instrument does not measure velocities greater
than this value. Figure 5-2 is a plot of the anemometer velocities versus the velocities of
the Pitot tube in ft/s at damper settings 3, 4, 5, and 6. A best fit line is shown on the plot
below and is represented by the equation TSI Velocity = (1.10 0.06)v1 - (1 3) where
v1 is the velocity through the Pitot tube. (See error propagation appendix for the treadline
equation derivation).
Calibration Plot of TSI Meter vs Pitot Meter Velocity (ft/s)
TSI Meter Velocity (ft/s)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

10

20

30
40
Pitot Meter Velocity (ft/s)

50

60

70

Figure 5-2: Calibration plot of the anemometer (TSI) velocity in ft/s versus the calculated
standard Pitot velocity in ft/s at damper settings 3, 4, 5, and 6.

iii.

Meter Coefficients and Reynolds Numbers

The calculations of the meter coefficients involved the manipulation of equations (1-2),
(1-4) and (1-9). The velocities through the Pitot tube were used to find the Reynolds
Number of the fluid using equation (1-12). Next, the velocity through each meter was
calculated separately by manipulation of the mechanical energy balance, resulting in
equation (1-4).

This velocity was used to find the meter coefficient by using the ratio between the meter
velocity and the velocity from the continuity equation, (1-3), as shown in equation (1-9)
The Pitot velocities, corresponding Reynolds number, calculated meter velocity, and
meter coefficients are presented in Tables 5-2a,b,c at damper settings 4, 5, 7, 10, 12.
Table 5-3a: 2.5 Orifice Velocities and Pitot Velocities at Various Damper Settings along
with Corresponding Reynolds Numbers and Calculated Coefficients
Damper Setting
Average Pitot
Reynolds
2.5 Orifice
2.5 Orifice
Velocity (ft/s)
Number
Velocity (ft/s)
Coefficient
4
23 3
5300 700
226 9
0.59 0.08
5
29 2
6600 500
270 20
0.61 0.06
7
33 2
7700 500
340 20
0.57 0.05
10
37 2
8500 400
360 20
0.59 0.05
12
38 2
8700 400
360 20
0.60 0.05
Signature:

23

Table 5-3b: Flow Nozzle Velocities and Pitot Velocities at Various Damper Settings
along with Corresponding Reynolds Numbers and Calculated Coefficients
Damper Setting
Average Pitot
Reynolds
Flow Nozzle
Flow Nozzle
Velocity (ft/s)
Number
Velocity (ft/s)
Coefficient
4
29 3
6800 500
112 5
1.0 0.1
5
39 2
9000 400
148 6
1.06 0.07
7
59 2
13700 300
226 8
1.05 0.06
10
69 1
16000 300
274 9
1.01 0.05
12
72 1
16700 300
280 9
1.03 0.05
Table 5-3c: Venturi Meter Velocities and Pitot Velocities at Various Damper Settings
along with Corresponding Reynolds Numbers and Calculated Coefficients
Damper
Average Pitot
Reynolds
Venturi Meter
Venturi Meter
Velocity (ft/s)
Number
Velocity (ft/s)
Coefficient
4
28 3
6500 500
120. 5
0.94 0.09
5
39 2
9000 400
164 6
0.96 0.06
7
64 1
14700 300
267 9
0.96 0.05
10
80. 1
18600 300
340 20
0.94 0.05
12
80. 1
18400 300
360 20
0.89 0.05
The meter coefficients were then plotted against Reynolds number for the three different
gas flow meters and are displayed in Figure 5-3 below.

Meter Coefficient, C

Gas Flow Meter Coefficient vs Reynold's Number

1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4

2.5" Orifice
Flow Nozzle
Venturi
0

5000

10000
Reynold's Number

15000

20000

Figure 5-3: Plot of the experimentally calculated meter coefficients versus the Reynolds number
at damper settings 4,5, 7, 10, and 12 for the 2.5 Orifice, Flow Nozzle, and the Venturi Meters

iv.

Permanent Pressure Loss and Head Loss

The next part of the analysis will be used to evaluate the effect that the flow meter has
on permanent pressure loss and head loss. Head loss was derived from the mechanical
energy balance and was calculated using equation (1-1).

Theoretical values of this pressure lost were estimated using equations (1-8.a-c) for
each respective meter. The table below reports both the experimental and theoretical
head losses for each meter at the recorded damper settings.
Signature:

24

Table 5-4: Experimental and Theoretical Head Loss

Damper
2.5 Orifice
Flow Nozzle
Setting
Head Loss (ft)
Head Loss (ft)

Venturi Meter
Head Loss (ft)

Experiment
20200 300

Theory
20400 800

Experiment
3600 300

Theory
3500 200

Experiment
1200 300

Theory
1010 50

28900 300

30000 2000

6300 300

6100 300

2100 300

1880 70

44600 300

46000 2000

14800 300

14400 500

5500 300

5000 200

10

50300 300

52000 2000

12700 300

21000 700

9300 300

8300 300

12

51000 300

53000 2000

22800 300

22000 800

10500 300

9000 300

The experimental values in Table 5-4 are presented below in Figure 5-4 for the plot of
experimental head loss versus Reynolds number for the meters.
Experimental Head Loss vs Reynold's Number

Head Loss (ft)

60000
50000
40000
30000

2.5" Orifice

20000

Flow Nozzle

10000

Venturi

0
0

5000

10000
15000
Reynold's Number

20000

Figure 5-4: Plot of the experimentally calculated head loss versus the Reynolds number at
damper settings 4,5, 7, 10, and 12 for the Flow Nozzle, 2.5 Orifice, and the Venturi Meters

v. Sound Data Contour

The sound data from damper setting 12 was plotted on a contour of 90, 85, 82, and 78
decibels versus distance away the blower below in Figure 5-5.
Decibels versus Distance from Blower
(in.)

90 dB
85 dB
82 dB
78 dB

18"
20" 17"
4" 13"
28"
6"
13" 2"
9" 12" 25"
4"
18" 12"
32"
26"

Signature:

Figure 5-5: Sound data

contour plot of decibels
versus measured distance
away from the blower. The
origin is the blower motor,
the source of the sound.
Note that all distances
further away than the points
at 78 dB were recorded at
75 dB and that there were
no sound data recorded
above 90 dB.

25

VI. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

i.

Hot Wire Anemometer Calibration

A linear regression of the plot in Figure 5-2 of the anemometer velocity versus the Pitot
meter velocity was essential for the calibration of the meter. This regression produced a
calibration curve TSI Velocity = (1.10 0.06)v1 - (1 3). The theoretical value of the
slope of the calibration curve is 1.0 (1) so the percent error of the calibration curve from
the theoretical value produced by the experiment is 10%. This error can be attributed to
the experimental error in the measurements taken for both the anemometer and the Pitot
tube readings.
ii. Meter Coefficients
Using the Pitot tube velocities as standards and the incompressibility approximations,
the meter coefficients were calculated at different flow rates. The plot in Figure 5-3
displays a similar, linear trend for the different meters versus Reynolds number. The
coefficients were plotted against Reynolds number to produce a trend that is not only
dependent on the velocity of the fluid, but also the conditions of the fluid that would affect
its density and viscosity at turbulent flow. The calculated Reynolds numbers are
indicative of turbulent flow and underline the validity of the equations used in the
analysis.
The literature values of the meter coefficients for the 2.5 orifice, flow nozzle, and venturi
meters are 0.61, 0.98, and 0.98 respectively. These literature values are reflective of an
average of many different meters used, and are a good representation of what to expect
from the experiment. To determine the precision of the meters, an average was taken
along with a 95% confidence interval. The confidence interval of the averages addresses
the change in the coefficient at different flow rates and is preferred to be kept to a
minimum because the accuracy and precision of the meter is the most important factor
at many different flow rates. The average coefficient of the 2.5 orifice was 0.59 with a
95% confidence interval of 0.02. The literature value of 0.61 falls within this confidence
interval. The average venturi meter coefficient was 0.94 with a 95% confidence interval
of 0.04, also including the literature value of 0.98. The small intervals demonstrate the
precision of the orifice and venturi measurements, and its inclusion of literature values
demonstrates their accuracy. The average coefficient of the flow nozzle was found to be
1.03 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.04. In this case, the flow nozzles precision is
not enough to account for its lack in accuracy where the literature value does not even
fall within the standard deviation. Additionally, a meter coefficient greater than unity is
not a valid meter coefficient and must be addressed. The coefficient calculations are
related to the inverse of calculated velocity across the meter. Leaks through the seal of
the flow nozzle would explain the coefficient calculations, because if the air was leaking,
the pressure readings across the meter would be recorded lower than the actual
pressure loss by the meter. Thus, the corresponding velocities calculated using those
pressure differences would be lower. Therefore, the coefficient was increased to larger
than unity due to the decrease in velocity through the flow nozzle while maintaining
accurate Pitot tube velocity calculations.
iii. Permanent Pressure Loss and Head Loss
The mechanical energy losses of the gas flow meters were compared and summarized
in the plot of Figure 5-4 versus Reynolds number. As expected from the theoretical data
results, the 2.5 orifice meter had the largest increase in head loss as the Reynolds
number increased. The permanent pressure loss can be attributed to the geometry of
Signature:

26

the orifice meter that has an immediate change in cross sectional area in place of a
more gradual change as seen in the flow nozzle and venturi meters. The gradual change
in cross sectional area in the latter two justifies the much smoother slope of the plot of
head loss versus Reynolds number. The meter which had the least effect on head from
increasing the Reynolds number was the venturi meter.
iv. Sound Data
The contour plot of the sound data in Figure 5-5 at operating conditions on damper
setting 12 displays the drop in decibel readings as you move further away from the
blower at several different positions. This effect of distance away from the blower
coincides with expected results. Additionally, it was recommended that the sound be
recorded for safety reasons. The values remained under the OSHA limit of 95 decibels
so hearing protection was not required at any location in the room of the blower.
VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study was conducted to evaluate several different gas flow meters for the scale up
feasibility problem. The results provided an effective calibration of the hot wire
anemometer with an accurate and precise calibration curve with a slope of 1.10, 0.1
away from the theoretical value of 1.0. Additionally, the calibration of the 2.5 orifice
meter and the venturi meter produced significant results for the meter coefficient
dependency on Reynolds with average values of 0.59 0.02 and 0.94 0.04
respectively. Notably, the size of the 95% confidence interval was minimal and included
the theoretical values of 0.61 and 0.98 respectively, providing precise and accurate
results for the scale up. These averages can be considered a reliable representation of
the meters used in the experiment. Furthermore, the accuracy justified the
approximations made for the calculations including incompressibility of the fluid.
Interestingly, the flow nozzle meter produced precise coefficients, however at an
average of 1.04 0.04 the correctness of this value was addressed, as the true
coefficient of gas meters should not exceed unity. Therefore the flow nozzle coefficient
was determined to be an inaccurate representation of the meter, and an inaccurate
result entirely because of leaks in the system when measurements were taken. The
accuracy of the meters at increasing Reynolds numbers was quantified by the standard
95% confidence interval between the different coefficients. The orifice meter coefficient
had a confidence interval of 0.02 while the venturi meter had a slightly larger confidence
interval of 0.04. Although the orifice meter produced slightly more precise results
according to this interval, the venturi meter had a significantly smaller effect on head loss
at increasing Reynolds number and proved to be dependable at higher flow rates.
Conclusively, this study produced meaningful coefficients for the 2.5 circular orifice and
the venturi meter. However, the venturi meter would be a preferred manner of measuring
flow rates due to its minimal effects on changing the head loss, or energy loss of the
system, even at large Reynolds numbers.
The recommendation of this study is to reevaluate the flow nozzle coefficient and head
loss. The study determined leaks to be the main issue analytically; however this should
be verified with a study on the flow nozzle to obtain more reliable results. Additionally,
more data points for the sound contour would be useful in developing a more accurate
portrayal of the decibel dependency on distance away from the blower. The experiment
should include noting the radial angle that the position is at for taking measurements.

Signature:

27

VIII. Design Problem

The Uni-Minn Corporation was contacted by a client to choose a gas flow meter which
would most accurately measure an air flow of 5,000lbs/hr through a 500ft pipe.
Additional specifications from the client include inlet conditions of 120F and 30psig for a
particle removal process. The client required design specifications for optimal pipe
diameter, compressor size, and type of meter. Data obtained from the University of
Minnesota pilot plant was used to create a scale up design which met the clients needs.
Compressibility of the fluid was a primary concern of the scale up design. Calculations
were done using the mechanical energy balance around the whole pipe along the
continuity equation to find the individual pressures before and after the venturi meter.
The ratio of these pressures along with figure 2-5 was translated into a compression
factor of 0.99. Air at the design conditions can therefore be treated as incompressible.
Compression is also adiabatic, which creates an increase in temperature. This change in
temperature further supports the fluids incompressibility following the ideal gas law.
The gas flow meter experiment suggested for the scale up was the venturi meter.
Although data analysis suggested a lower variation in the dimensionless coefficient of
the orifice meter, its R2 value was insignificant, which suggested an unreliable behavior
of the fit line at high Reynolds numbers. On the other hand, the venturi meter presented
the least tradeoff between variation and R2 value. The chosen gas flow meter provides
the most reliable measurement with an average Cv value of 0.94 with a 95% confidence
interval of 0.04 and a cost of $1,065. Figure 9-1 shows a simplified diagram of the
suggested scale-up design.
Air flow

Suction Vent

Venturi Meter

Compressor

Heat Exchanger

Figure 8.1 General Schematic for scale up design

The optimal pipe diameter which met the required mass flow rate specification was
determined to be 7.5 inches (2). This value is not available commercially; but local
provider Discount Steel sells both 8 and 10 ANSI schedule 40 pipes. The 8 inner
diameter pipe was chosen for design scale up due to its proximity to the optimal
diameter value and its lesser price. Five hundred feet of the 8 pipe is offered for
$18,000. (6) Insulation in the pipe is recommended to prevent heat loss.
With this specified pipe diameter, the linear flow rate was calculated to be 19.3ft/sec.
The linear flow rate, along with the airs properties at the specified conditions obtained
from the Engineering Toolbox was used to calculate a Reynolds number of
approximately 208,000. The flow in the scale up design is therefore turbulent. (7)

Signature:

28

To accurately size the compressor for the design, the pressure change across the
system needs to be calculated. Three different pressure drops were determined: the
pressure of 30psig required by the client, the pressure drop across the venturi meter,
and the pressure drop through the 500ft pipe. The pressure drop through the meter was
determined by plotting the permanent pressure loss found experimentally against the
Reynolds number, which resulted in a 0.2psia drop. To calculate the pressure loss
across a pipe with turbulent flow, equation 1-14 was used. The permanent pressure loss
was calculated to be 0.18psia. Adding these three individual pressures gives the final
pressure of 30.38psia or 44.7psig which has to be provided by the compressor.
The residence time of the air in the compressor was very short due to the high fluid
velocity of 19.3ft/sec. Therefore compression was approximated to be adiabatic, and
equation 1-15 was used to obtain a 43,098 ft lbf/lbm shaft work. Literature values suggest
typical compressor efficiencies are around 75% resulting in a brake horsepower of
144hp. Amongst Minnesotan providers of commercial compressors, SULLAIR TS20 Air
Compressor is the final suggestion for the scale up design. The compressor chosen
provides a 150hp and has the retail price of $22,000.(8)
Adiabatic compression induces a temperature increase in the air flow. The compressor
outlet temperature was determined to be 280F which was higher than the outlet
temperature specified by the client. To decrease the air temperature to the specified
value of 120F, a heat exchanger was added to the suggested scale up design. A simple
finned shell-and-tube countercurrent heat exchanger was chosen because of its low cost
and high availability. Following an experiment done previously in the University of
Minnesota pilot plant, the coolant in the heat exchanger was chosen to be the cooling
water flow rate used in a double effect evaporator experiment. The cooling water had a
temperature of 36F and a flow rate of 3.73lbs/sec. Geankopolis estimates overall heat
transfer coefficients for this type of heat exchanger to be around 20 to 40 btu/h ft2 F(1),
which results in a heat exchanger area of 49ft2. Bell and Gossett, a Minneapolis
provider, offers a Shell and Tube 5TNV3 Heat Exchanger for $585.(9)
The venturi meter, compressor, heat exchanger and piping needed for the design
problem add up to an initial capital investment of $43,000. Approximating the particle
removal system will be used at all times in the plant, the plant works for two complete
shifts, and water and energy prices of $0.003/gal and $0.12/kW respectively; the annual
cost of the scale up design is $107,747.
It is important to note that the results presented above were done with a D1/D2 value of
0.5, which represents the value obtained in the pilot plant.
Refer to Appendix C for design sample calculations.

Signature:

29

IX. NOMENCLATURE
Symbols listed in the order in which they appear.
: Pressure before fluid enters gas flow meter
: Pressure at outlet of gas flow meter
Manometer reading
Density of the manometer fluid
Density of the air
Gravity SI units
Velocity before gas flow meter
Velocity after gas flow meter
Pipe Diameter
Vena Contracta Diameter
Pi
Generic dimensionless coefficient
Diameter one and two ratio
Gravity English units
Pitot tube coefficient
Spacing between each measurement
Radius of the pipe
Total number of measurements
Temperature
Pressure
: Pressure several diameter away from the meter
Expansion Factor
Optimal pipe diameter
Volumetric flow rate
Reynolds number
Dynamic viscosity of air
Friction factor
Pipe Length
Mass flow rate over cross sectional area
Ideal gas constant
Molar mass
Shaft work
Specific heat capacities ratio

Mass flow rate

Compressor efficiency
Heat exchanger area
Total heat
Overall heat transfer coefficient
Logmean temperature
Orifice meter coefficient
Venturi meter coefficient

Signature:

30

X. References
1. Green, Don W.; Perry, Robert H.. Perrys Chemical Engineers Handbook (8th
Edition). Blacklick, OH, USA; McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing, 2007. p
1037.
2. Geankoplis, Christie, Transport Processes and Speration Process Principles,
4th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (2003).
3. University Of Minnesota, CHEN 3401W TSI Velocity Instruction Manual
4. Peters, M.S. and Timmerhous, K., Plant Design and Economics for Chemical
Engineers, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill Companies, NY.
5. Discount Steel Steel Pipes http://www.discountsteel.com/
items/Electric_Welded_ERW_Round_Steel_Tube.cfm (accessed Mar. 23 2013)
6. The Engineering Toolbox. Air Properties
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-properties-d_156.html (accessed Mar. 25
2013)
7. Sullair Compressors, TS20 rotary screw compressor,
http://www.sullair.com/Americas/en/Products/Stationary+Air+Power/Compressor
s/60+-+100+hp/TS-20+TwoStage+Variable+Capacity+Rotary+Screw+Air+Compressor (accessed Mar. 23
2013)
8. Grainger, Bell and Gossett Heat Exchangers
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/BELL-GOSSETT-Heat-Exchanger5TNV3?gclid=CKie3sCUjLYCFYiPAodEGsAJg&cm_mmc=PPC%3AGooglePLA-_-HVAC+and+Refrigeration-_HVAC+Controls- (accessed Mar. 23 2013)

Signature:

31

APPENDIX A: Week One Original Data Sheets

Signature:

32

Signature:

33

Signature:

34

Signature:

35

Signature:

36

Signature:

37

Signature:

38

Signature:

39

Signature:

40

Signature:

41

Signature:

42

APPENDIX A: Week Two Original Data Sheets

Signature:

43

Signature:

44

Signature:

45

Signature:

46

Signature:

47

Signature:

48

Signature:

49

Signature:

50

Signature:

51

Signature:

52

Signature:

53

Signature:

54

APPENDIX B: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

Signature:

55

Signature:

56

Signature:

57

Signature:

58

Signature:

59

Signature:

60

Signature:

61

Signature:

62

Signature:

63

Signature:

64

Signature:

65

Signature:

66

Signature:

67

APPENDIX C: DESIGN PROBLEM CALCULATIONS

Signature:

68

Signature:

69

Signature:

70

Signature:

71

Signature:

72

Signature:

73

Signature:

74

Signature:

75

Signature:

76

Signature:

77

APPENDIX D: ERROR ANALYSIS

Signature:

78

Signature:

79

Signature:

80

Signature:

81

Signature:

82

Signature:

83

Signature:

84

Signature:

85

Signature:

86

Signature:

87

Signature:

88

Signature:

89

Signature:

90

Signature:

91

Signature:

92

Signature:

93

Signature:

94

APPENDIX E: ANALYSIS OF SQUARE AND TRIANGLE ORIFICE METERS

Orifice meters are a common choice of meter, especially in gas metering
applications. They are generally consistent, relatively easy to install, can be less
expensive than venturi or flow nozzles, and can be replaced more efficiently. When
manufactured under the correct specifications, orifice flow meters are a simple and
reliable way of measuring flow. For the sake of practicality, circular orifices are logical
as they are a more simple design to manufacture. See section (V-iii) for analysis of a
2.5 orifice meter.
For this experiment, however, two orifice meters with irregular openings were
analyzed. The same apparatus used to calibrate the venturi meter, flow nozzle, hot wire
anemometer, and 2.5 circular orifice meter was used. The hydraulic radii were
calculated and used for analysis, rather than a traditional diameter. Sample calculations
of the orifice meters are shown in Appendix B. The first analyzed orifice meter had an
equilateral triangle opening with 3 0.1 in. sides. This orifice had an area of 3.9 0.2 in2.
The value was calculated to be 0.29 0.01. The second had a square opening with 3
0.1 in. sides as well. This orifice had an area of 9 0.4 in2, and a value of 0.50
0.01. These meters were placed on the left flange of an opening in the 6 ID pipe
downstream of the pitot tube. At five damper settings (4, 5, 7, 10, and 12), two pressure
difference readings were taken (in inches water). The first was taken directly over the
orifice meters, at a distance of one pipe diameter on each side. This pressure difference
was recorded to determine the meter coefficient. The second was taken one pipe
diameter upstream of the meter and four pipe diameters downstream of the meter. This
pressure difference was essentially a representation of the permanent pressure loss due
to the orifice meters being placed in the way of the airflow. For this experiment, these
data were taken to analyze the meter coefficients of these irregular orifice meters as well
as the effect these meters had on the overall flow of air through the pipe. See Tables
E-4 and E-5 at the end of Appendix E for a summary of the raw data obtained during lab.
The triangle orifice meter was analyzed with Reynolds numbers between 2900
200 and 7300 700, and had meter coefficients that increased from 0.37 0.03 to 0.64
0.03. Permanent pressure losses in the pipe due to the installation of the triangle
orifice meter were between 61.34 0.04 and 129.62 0.04 lbf/ft2. The square orifice
meter had coefficients ranging from 0.61 0.03 to 0.66 0.03 with Reynolds numbers of
6000 100 to 14,000 200. The permanent pressure losses due to the installation of
the square orifice meter were between 12.65 0.04 and 68.43 0.04 lbf/ft2.
The damper settings used in the collection of these data were the same for both
meters. The pitot tube was used to determine an average velocity of the air flow through
the pipe. Note that the type of meter installed did affect the respective velocity
determined upstream of the meter. With the same damper settings, the triangle orifice
meter had lower Reynolds numbers than those of the square orifice meter.
Table E-1 illustrates the volumetric flow rates calculated at each damper setting.
The maximum volumetric flow rate allowed with the blower used in this experiment was
824 cfm. All volumetric flow rates calculated from the air velocities determined from the
pitot tube and the pipe diameter were below this maximum. It should also be observed
that the volumetric flow rates follow the same trend as the Reynolds number, with
respect to the meters. The triangle meter had less of a volumetric flow rate at each
damper setting than the square meter.

Signature:

95

Table E-1: Volumetric flow rates of the triangle and orifice meter at varying damper
settings, in cfm
Damper Setting
4
5
7
10
12
Triangle
160 10
214 8
288 8
369 8
396 9
Square
329 8
398 9
640 10
580 10
760 20
The average pipe velocity, Reynolds number, meter coefficient, and permanent
pressure losses at the respective damper settings for the triangle and square orifice
meters are summarized in Tables E-2 and 3, respectively. The average pipe velocities
were calculated from the pressure differences over the pitot tube, as it was used as the
standard. With the calculated pipe velocities and measured pipe diameter, the Reynolds
numbers were determined. The coefficient associated with each individual meter was
calculated using equation (1-4) and the pressure drop over the respective meter. The
experimental pressure drop was calculated from equation (1-1) and a pressure
difference between the meter and four pipe diameters downstream of the meter. These
theoretical values of the permanent pressure drop were calculated from the experimental
values of and pressure drops over the meter. That is, the theoretical values arent
general values for any meter, but specific to the meters used in this experiment.
Table E-2: Results of the triangle orifice meter
4

Damper Setting
7

Pipe velocity ft/sec

13.4 0.8

18.2 0.6

24.4 0.4

31 3

33 3

Reynolds #

2900 200

3900 100

5300 100

6800 600

7300 700

Meter coefficient
Experimental
permanent P lbf/ft2

0.37 0.03

0.43 0.02

0.49 0.02

0.60 0.06

0.64 0.07

61.3 0.0.4

84.1 0.4

117.3 0.4

128.5 0.4

129.6 0.4

68.01 0.3

93.0 0.3

129.6 0.3

142.1 0.3

143.8 0.3

Theoretical
permanent P - lbf/ft2

10

12

Table E-3: Results of the square orifice meter

4

Damper Setting
7

Pipe velocity
ft/sec

28 4

34 3

55 2

Reynolds #

6000 800

7300 700

11900 400 10600 500 14000 300

Meter coefficient

0.65 0.09

0.61 0.06

0.66 0.04

0.50 0.03

0.65 0.03

12.6 0.4

21.3 0.4

47.9 0.4

66.0 0.4

68.4 0.4

14.1 0.4

23.4 0.4

52.3 0.8

72 1

75 1

Experimental
permanent P
lbf/ft2
Theoretical
permanent P lbf/ft2

Signature:

10

12

49 2

65 2

96

The meter coefficients are a function of the Reynolds number (5). In the case of
circular orifice meters, the meter coefficients tend to rise sharply with increasing
Reynolds numbers. With values greater than about 0.6, the coefficients then decrease
rather sharply. With values less than that, they decrease less dramatically and level
off. This change from a positive to negative slope occurs around a Reynolds number of
1,000. The coefficients and Reynolds numbers associated with the square orifice meter
were comparable to those of circular orifice meters. This was not the case with the
triangle orifice meter, however. Figure E-1 illustrates these results.
Figure E-1: Meter coefficients as a function of Reynolds number for ideal circular
square-edged orifice (5). The markers denoted with triangles correspond to the data
associated with the triangle orifice meter. The square orifice meter data are represented
by the square markers.

Disregarding the data point associated with the square orifice meter with a
coefficient of 0.50 0.03 and a Reynolds number of 10,600 500, the square orifice
meter has coefficients that align with circular orifice meters. That is, it had coefficients of
0.61 0.06 to 0.66 0.04 at Reynolds numbers between 6000 800 and 14,000 400.
There wasnt a clear positive or negative slope, indicating a relatively constant coefficient
within this range of Reynolds numbers, as opposed to the coefficients of the triangle
orifice meter. The triangle orifice meter was observed to have a very different trend than
circular orifice meters at the same Reynolds numbers. At Reynolds numbers where
circular orifice meters were observed to have decreasing or constant coefficients, the
triangle orifice meter had the opposite trend. With the data collected from this
experiment, the coefficients showed a sharp increase from 0.37 0.03 to 0.64 0.07 in
the range of Reynolds numbers from 2900 200 to 7300 700. A more detailed
depiction of the coefficients for the triangle and square orifice meters are shown in
Figures E-2 and 3, respectively. Note that the error associated with the meter
Signature:

97

coefficients at the two highest Reynolds numbers for the triangle orifice meter are larger
because the 0-40 inch manometer was used to collect the pressure drop over the pitot
tube instead of the 0-1 inch manometer. The pressure drop over the pitot tube were
small compared to the permanent pressure drop and pressure change over the meter,
and the 0.1 in. water error was more obvious.
Figure E-2: Meter coefficient as a function of Reynolds number for the triangle orifice
meter
0.8

Meter Coefficient

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Reynolds #

Figure E-3: Meter coefficient as a function of Reynolds number for the square orifice
meter
1
0.9
Meter Coefficient

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Reynolds #

Signature:

98

The square and triangle orifice meters differed in their effect on permanent
pressure loss, as well. The triangle orifice meter displayed a greater permanent
pressure loss, most likely because of the smaller orifice area available for air to flow
through. At Reynolds numbers between 2900 200 and 7300 700, the permanent
pressure losses were between 61.3 0.4 and 129.6 0.4 lbf/ft2 . These experimental
values were all just under 10% of the theoretical permanent pressure losses of 68.0 0.3
to 143.8 0.3 lbf/ft2 at the same Reynolds numbers. The theoretical values were
calculated using equation (1-8.a). See Figure E-4. The triangle orifice meter had an
overall pressure loss of 80%.
Figure E-4: Experimental and theoretical permanent pressure losses over the triangle
orifice meter as a function of Reynolds number with 10% error bars associated with the
theoretical values of permanent pressure loss
180
160
Permanent pressure loss - lbf/ft2

140
120
100
80

Experimental

60

Theoretical

40
20
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

Reynolds #

At greater Reynolds numbers of 6000 800 to 14000 400, the permanent

pressure losses were between 12.6 0.4 and 68.4 0.4 lbf/ft2 for the square orifice
meter. These experimental values were also 10% less than those of the theoretical
permanent pressure losses of 14.1 0.4 and 75 1 lbf/ft2 at the same Reynolds numbers,
with the exception of the data point associated with the lowest Reynolds number. This
experimental pressure loss was 15% less than the theoretical pressure loss at that same
Reynolds number. See Figure E-5.

Signature:

99

Figure E-5: Experimental and theoretical permanent pressure losses over the square
orifice meter as a function of Reynolds number with 10% error bars associated with the
theoretical values of permanent pressure loss
90
Permanent pressure loss- lbf/ft2

80
70
60
50
40

Theoretical

30

Experimental

20
10
0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

Reynolds #

At less turbulent Reynolds numbers, the triangle orifice meter still had a greater
effect on the reduction of the pressure through the pipe. More data at a wider variety of
Reynolds numbers would need to be obtained to observe the effect of the triangle orifice
meter at higher Reynolds numbers and the effect of the square meter at lower Reynolds
numbers. The 1-2 term from equation (1-8.a) can be thought of as a representation of
the theoretical energy associated with the air flow. As it is equal to the permanent
pressure loss divided by the pressure drop over the orifice meter itself, this ratio was
calculated to relate to this energy term. For both the square and triangl meters, this ratio
was less than the 1-2 term, meaning energy was lost. This is most likely associated
with friction from the air flowing through the pipe and possible small leaks in the pipe
flanges. See section (I-i) for a more detailed discussion of equation (1-8.a).
From the data obtained in this experiment, it was observed that the square orifice
meter had similar coefficients to circular orifice meters at Reynolds numbers between
6000 800 and 14000 400. The coefficients associated with the triangle orifice meters
were as low as 0.37 0.03 at a Reynolds number of 2900 200, but increased rapidly
and at a Reynolds number of 7300 700, the coefficient was comparable to those of the
square and circular orifice meters. For this experiment, the Reynolds numbers
associated with the triangle and square orifice meter didnt overlap. Therefore, a direct
comparison of the square and orifice meter at the same Reynolds numbers isnt
possible. A future experiment would need to address higher Reynolds numbers for the
triangle orifice meter and lower Reynolds numbers for the square orifice meter, to
observe how the meter coefficients relate. As the lower damper settings of the
apparatus used for this experiment were displaying as little as 0.03 0.01 inches of
water, a more precise method of measuring pressure differences would need to be
implemented to measure meter coefficients for the square orifice meter at lower
Reynolds numbers. The highest volumetric flow rate achieved on the 12th damper
setting was 760 20 cfm. While the blower does have damper settings as high as 14, it
is possible that Reynolds numbers as high as those in the case of the square orifice
Signature:

100

meter wont be possible with a maximum volumetric flow rate of 864 cfm. A more
powerful blower and/or more accurate method of measuring small pressure drops would
need to be obtained to observe the meter coefficients of both the square and triangle
orifice meters at a wider range of Reynolds numbers. If one meter were to be chosen for
industrial use, the results of this experiment suggest the square orifice meter be installed
instead of a triangle orifice meter, if both have the same respective values at scale-up.
The square orifice meter had coefficients that werent continuously increasing at more
turbulent flow. While it is unknown from the data what the trend of the triangle orifice
meter coefficients would be at these Reynolds numbers, it is predicted that the
permanent pressure loss continue to increase at increasing Reynolds numbers. The
power of the compressor or blower required would be greater than that necessary for a
square orifice meter. That is, it would be less expensive to measure flow with a square
orifice meter, if both meters had the same relationships as those from this experiment.
Table E-4: Data of the triangle orifice meter collected from lab
Triangle Orifice Meter

Pitot h
in. water
0.01

Pitot
height
in.
5.3
4.2
2.7
1.2
0.1

h over
meter in.
water 0.1
Permanent
h in.
water 0.1
*error of 0.1 in. water

Damper Setting
0.03
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.02

0.05
0.10
0.11
0.08
0.03

0.11
0.17
0.18
0.14
0.06

0.12
0.3*
0.3*
0.3*
0.2*

0.2*
0.3*
0.3*
0.3*
0.2*

14.2

19.5

27.2

29.9

30.2

14.4

19.6

27.2

29.8

30.2

11.8

16.2

22.5

24.8

25.0

11.9

16.2

22.6

24.7

24.9

Table E-5: Data of the square orifice meter collected from lab
Square Orifice Meter

Pitot h
in. water
0.1
h over
meter in.
water 0.1
Permanent
h in.
water 0.1

Pitot
height
in.
5.3
4.2
2.7
1.2
0.1

Damper Setting
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1

0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2

0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6

0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.4

0.8
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.8

3.7

6.0

13.6

18.6

19.3

3.5

6.0

13.3

18.5

19.1

2.5

4.1

9.3

12.8

13.2

2.4

4.1

9.1

12.6

13.1

Signature:

101

APPENDIX F: DATA TRANSFER SHEET

Signature:

102