CH4510: CRE &TDC Lab

Dynamic response of a U tube manometer

In many applications the pressure difference to be measured may vary with time. The response time
of the measuring instrument and the connecting tubes decide the response time. We make below a
simple analysis of a U-tube manometer subject to a step change in input.

Fig.1. Nomenclature for transient analysis

Because the manometer liquid is assumed to be incompressible the total length remains fixed at L. We
assume that the manometer is initially in the equilibrium position and the pressure difference p is
applied across it. The liquid column will move and will be as shown in Figure 1 at time t > 0. The
forces that are acting on the length L of the manometer liquid are:
1. Force due to acceleration of the liquid given by
F =m AL (d2h/dt2)

2. Force supporting the change in h

Fs= Ap
3. Forces opposing the change:
a. Weight of column of liquid
W = mAh g
b. Fluid friction due to viscosity of the liquid.

The viscous force opposing the motion is calculated based on the assumption of fully developed
Hagen-Poiseuelle flow. The velocity of the liquid column is expected to be small and the laminar
assumption is thus valid. We know fromFluid Mechanics that the pressure gradient and the mean
velocity are related
As:

wherepfis the pressure drop due to friction. We define fluid resistance R as the ratio of frictional
(viscous) pressure drop (potential difference) to the mass flow rate (current). We note that the mass
flow rate is given by

Hence the fluid resistance due to friction is given by

Note that the resistance involves only the geometric parameters and the liquid properties. The
frictional force opposing the motion is thus given by
Note that the mass flow rate is itself given by

Hence the frictional force opposingthe motion is

We may now apply Newtons law as

Introducing the expressions given above for the various terms, we get

We may rearrange this equation as

This is a second order ordinary differential equation that resembles the equation governing a spring
mass dashpot system that is familiar to us from mechanics. The system is thus inherently a second
order system.

We get

The above equation may easily be solved by standard methods. The response of the system is shown
in Figure 67 for three different cases. The system is under-damped if<1, critically damped if =1 and
over-damped. If>1. When the system is under-damped the output shows oscillatory behaviour, the
output shows an overshoot (a value more than the input) and the output settles down slowly. In the
other two cases the response is monotonic, as shown in the figure. In the over-damped case the
response grows slowly to eventually reach the full value.
 Fig.2. Response of U tube manometer to step input

PROCEDURE

1. We start by noting down the initial height of water level in the manometer
2. Air is now blown into one of the arms of the manometer, held for a second and then
released. We also note the extent to which water raises in the other arm.
3. The water level starts oscillating. We trace a water-level (vs) time graph by marking the
extremes highs and lows in the graph.
4. As the water level reaches its first low start the stopwatch is started to measure the
time taken from then to reach the second low.
5. This experiment is repeated twice for both the coiled and uncoiled state of the
manometer.
6. Using the system model values for and can be calculated given values for L and D
7. The experimental values of and are calculated using the model equations.
8. The values of and obtained theoretically and experimentally are now compared.

Observations:

1. Coiled manometer

Initial (mm) Peak 1 Valley 1 Peak 2 Valley 2 Time

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Period (s)
357 578 215 430 300 4
357 595 205 436 295 4

2. Uncoiled manometer

Initial (mm) Peak 1 Valley 1 Peak 2 Valley 2 Time

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Period (s)
353 590 185 440 283 4
353 583 187 440 283 4
GRAPHS
Calculations:
Theoretically estimated parameters:
Length of the water column in the uncoiled manometer= 7.31 m= L
Acceleration due to gravity, g=9.81 m/s2
= (L/2g)0.5 = 0.61 sec
Angular frequency= 1.639 s-1
Diameter, D=12 mm
Viscosity of water=8.9 x 10-4 SI units
Density =1000 kg/m3

Estimated value of,

16 x 7.31 x 8.9 x 10-4 = 2 x 0.61 x
1000 x 9.81 x 144 x 10-6
= 0.059

Experimentally estimated parameters:

From the data for the uncoiled manometer, we see that
b/a = exp(-3.14/(1-2)0.5)
i) b= 237 mm
a= 168 mm
Calculating, we get = 0.109
ii) b= 230 mm
a= 166 mm
Calculating, we get = 0.103

Average value of = 0.106

Now, = (4 + 4)/(2 x 2 x 3.14) = 0.637 s
Angular frequency, = 1/0.637 = 1.57
RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Uncoiled Tube
Parameter
Theoretical Experimental
0.059 0.106
n (rad/s) 1.639 1.57
(s) 0.610 0.637

The parameters calculated theoretically deviate from the parameters obtained by

experiments. This can be explained by the fact that while modelling the response we assume
it to be Hagen-Poiseulle flow in straight pipe, which is clearly not the case here.

The damping coefficient is larger for the coiled tube. While the tube is coiled there is more
resistance to the flow and hence a greater which deviates further from our model.

PRECAUTIONS

1. Ensuring that the coil remains undisturbed during the course of one set of experiments is
of paramount importance
2. The manometer tube should be checked to ensure that there are no air bubbles while
performing the experiment

SUGGESTIONS

1. Multiple iterations of the experiment must be performed to get a better fit curve to the
system
2. The damping coefficient and natural frequency of the system can be estimated in as
many ways as possible using the given data to get a better idea about the parameter
values
3. It is advisable to use a stopwatch with better precision/sensitivity to get a more accurate
value for