338
FLUID FLOW IN PERFORATED PIPES
B. J. Bailey
Values of the discharge coefficient for air flow through single holcs in a pipe wall, and for thc angle of cfflux arc
reported. The variation of static prcssurc along tubular polycthylene air ducts with a maximum length-to-diameter
ratio of 250 containing pairs of diametrically opposcd holes has been mcasured. This information was used with data
on friction loss to determinc values for the coefficient of static pressure regain. I1 was possible Lo predict variations
in static pressure and air dischargc along uniformly perforated ducts which were in good agreement with thosc
obscrved experimentally.
1 1NTRODUCTION
Thc design of perforated pipes for fluid distribution is a
problem encountered in many fields. Such distributors
arc used in reaction vessels in chemical engineering,
spray and irrigation lines in agriculture, and heating and
cooling ducts in environmental control. In some cases it
is required to provide uniform distribution of fluid, as in
irrigation ; while in others thc distribution must vary
along tlic pipe in some prescribed way, as with an un-
insulated hot-air duci where uniform heat output is
required.
Thc amount of fluid discharging from any opcning in a
pipe is dependent on the discharge coefficient for the
hole and thc static pressure difference which exists across
it. If both ofthesc quantities remain constant along the
distributor then uniform discharge will rcsult. To
achievc this, thc cross-sectional area of the pipe has to bc
so large that it acts as a plenum chamber In practical
situations, however, smaller pipes must be used and the
static pressure is then ;ound to vary. This variation has
two causes. the first is friction of the fluid with thc pipe
wall. which causes a decrease of pressure in the direction
of flow and is characterized by the friction factor; the
second is associated with the reduction of fluid momen-
tum in the pipe as fluid is discharged at the openings, and
results in an increase of pressure in the pipe across each
hole. It has been variously termed the ‘diffusion’.
‘inertia’ and ‘static regain’ effect, and is characterized by
the stxtic regain coefficient. The relative magnitudes of
thehe two phenomena determine whether over any
section of pipe there is a net increase or decrease in the
static pressure.
Keller (111 predicted the variation of velocity along
uniformly perforated pipes, assuming both constant
friction factor and static regain coefficient. He also
calculated the variation in width o f a longitudinal slot in
a pipe which would provide uniform outflow. In addition,
he determined the required change in cross-sectional area
of a pipe necessary to provide uniform outflow through
a slot of constant width. The lattcr aspect was also
studied by Dow (2) who did consider the variation of the
friclion factor with Reynolds number for both laminar
and turbulent flow. Experimental verification of his
analysis was provided by photographs of flame heights
from gas burners before and after modification. Both
7‘111, MS. o/ this p p e r was received at the Institurion on 22nd Ocioh(v.
1974 and accepted f o r [JUh/icUtiOn on 12th .June 107.5.
Nationul Institute qf Agricultural Enqineeriny, Silsor, Hedfbrclshire.
‘1 K&rencto we given in the Appendix.
Journal Mechanicdl Engineering Science QIMcchE I975
Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
these investigations were applied to gas burners and
were restricted to relatively short pipes
Howland (3) recognized that the discharge coefficient
was not constant but varied with flow conditions in a
pipe. He assumed a regain coefficient of upity and a
friction factor based on pipe inlet conditions. Good
agreement was reported betwecn his predictions and
experimental observations, although the static pressures
used were much larger than the dynamic pressures, thus
changes in friction and static regain were of reduced
importance.
Hacrter (4),in a study of ducts for air distribution,
assumed a constant friction factor and, although he
showed that there is experimental evidence of a linear
variation of the static regain coefficient along a duct. he
assumed it to be constant in his analysis. Static pressure
profiles were calculated for both uniform and tapered
ducts, each with uniform outflow. Solutions for the
variation in outflow were given for short ducts only, in
which friction was neglected and the pressures were
based on the solution for uniform outflow. No expen-
mental confirmation of the predictions was given.
The theoretical approach commonly used involves
differential equations whose coefficients include the
friction factor and static regain coefficient. and to render
the equations tractable these are normally assumed to
be constant. An alternative approach is to analyse a
distributor hole-by-hole, applying appropriate relation-
ships at the holes and sections of unperfordted pipe in
turn. This method does enable the friction factor and
regain coefficient to be varied in any chosen manner.
The behaviour of the friction factor in pipe flow is well
established, but this is not the case for the coefficient of
static regain. Experimental data have been obtained by
Ashley et ul. (5)and Jackson (6) using a single outlet from
the main flow. The data show considerable scatter which
precludes their use in the case of long pipes with large
numbers of holes.
The distributors considered in the present paper
consist of circular tubes with a maximum length-to-
diameter ratio of 250 containing oairs of diametrically
opposed holes. The work described was undertaken with
the aim of providing the data necessary to enable fluid
distributors with any prescribed variation of outflow to
be designed. To achieve this, measurements were made of
the discharge coefficient applicable to holes in the wall
of a perforated pipe, data for the coefficient of static
regain were obtained for a range of flow conditions and
distributor geometries, and the angles of emergence of
the discharging jets were determined. Information on thc
Vol 17 No 6 1975
 FLUID FLOW IN PERFORATED PIPES 339

latter is of value in predicting flow patterns in the space decelerated, and consequently the static pressure will
surrounding a perforated pipe distributor. increase in the downstream direction. If it is assumed
that the emerging fluid has lost all its axial momentum,
i s . u, = 0, then a momentum balance parallel to the pipe
Notation axis at a given hole can be expressed as
Discharge coefficient for flow through orifice in
distributor wall pz - p , = p(uf - UZ) . . . . . . . (2)

Coefficient of static regain

Diameter of distributor
Diameter of orifice
(P2 - P1)
+p(u? - u;) 1 However, the fluid will usually retain some of its axial
momentum, i.e. u, f 0, and the jet will emerge at an
angle of less than 9 0 to the pipe axis; the pressure
regain will then be less than the maximum value. Thus
Darcy friction factor equation (2) can be modified to
Roughness of distributor surface "
Distance between successive surfaces p2 - p1 = --pp(u, 2 - u ; ) .
Ll . . . . . . (3)
Static pressure 2
Reynolds number where C,, the coefficient of static regain defined as
Rate of discharge from orifice
Mean fluid velocity in distributor (4)
Component of velocity of discharging jet parallel to
distributor axis
Component of velocity of discharging jet perpendi- is the ratio of the difference in static pressure between the
cular to distributor axis flow upstream and downstream of the hole to the
Variable defined by equation (12) difference in dynamic pressures. The angle that the
Variable defined by equation (1 3) emerging fluid jet makes with the normal to the plane of
Variable used in equation (14) the hole can be expressed as
Angle of discharge measured from normal to
distributor axis
Fluid density
Variable defined by equation (15) assuming that the hole is small and in a thin-walled pipe
so that u, -cc u l . The flow rate of the fluid issuing from the
Subscripts hole can be obtained from the continuity equation :
0 Value downstream of preceding orifice
I Value upstream of orifice
2 Value downstream of orifice
The discharge of fluid through an orifice can be described
2 ANA1,YSTS OF FLOW by
A one-dimensional model is used in which the flow along
a pipe with uniform cross-section and equally spaced
openings of equal area is considered to be both iso-
thermal and incompressible. A sketch of the control Combining the latter two equations gives
surfaces used to establish momentum and continuity
relations is shown in Fig. 1. Fluid is transported through
a hole in the pipe wall by the normal component of
velocity u,, which is derived from the excess static The wall shear stress in the sections of pipe between
pressure in the pipe : holes can be described by the Darcy--Weissbach equa-
tion

P0 (9)
As a result, the fluid remaining within the pipe will be

k,
1- -I
I I
L ~- __
I

~ u distributor
Fig. 1. F l o in

Journal Mechanical Engineering Science OlMechB 1975 Vol 17 N o 6 1975

Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

C
340
Because the area of any one hole is small compared with
the local surface area of the pipe, the friction loss is
calculated from the centre of the holes. Thus the hydraulic
gradients for both upstream and downstream flows are
extrapolated to the axes of the holes. The friction factor
is a function only of Reynolds number for laminar flow
( R e < 2000) and can be calculated from the Poiseuille
equation for laminar flow :
64
JD = Re . . . . . . . . . .
For turbulent flow, the friction factor is also dependent
on the roughness of the pipe wall and can be evaluated
from the Colebrook--White (7) equation :
The variation of static pressure and fluid discharge along
a perforated pipe can be described by applying equations
(3) and (8) at the perforations and equation (9) to the
inter-hole sections. A prerequisite, however, is that the
coefficients of static pressure regain and discharge should
be known.
3 COEFFICIENT AND ANGLE OF DISCHARGE
The value of discharge coefficient appropriate to
parallel flow, that is when the flow is parallel to the
plane of the orifice, was stated by van der Hegge Zijnen
(8) to be 0.61-0.64. However, Seneca1 (9) states the
coefficient to be a function of orifice size relative to pipe
diameter and wall thickness, upstream pressure, flow
rate from the orifice and flow rate in the pipe across the
orifice. Howland (3) recognized that many of these
factors could affect the discharge coefficient, but found
the predominant one was the velocity within the pipe.
Measurements by Dittrich and Graves (10) indicated
that the effects of orifice size and wall thickness were
small compared with the effects of velocity within the
pipe and static pressure difference across the orifice. The
effects of pipe size, boundary layer thickness and static
pressure in the duct were negligible. Rohde et a / . (11),
after making measurements on orifices in thick plates,
also concluded that the pipe velocity and static pressure
differential across the orifice were the significant factors.
Curvature of the pipe wall produced a small effect and
--.
Test section
I
Test -section
pltot I traverse
4 +
I >
+ S t a t i c pressure t a p p i n g s
Fig. 2. Apparatus for measuring discharge cogficient and angle oj discharge
Journal Mechanical Engineering Science 0 1Mechl. 1975
Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
B. J . BAILEY
longitudinal interference of orifices only became im-
portant when the separation was less than 1.5 orifice
diameters.
Very little information is available concerning the
angle at which the jet leaves the orifice. Koestcl and
Tuve (12) have shown that the angle of discharge varies
along a duct containing a long slot, and Carpenter (13)
has shown that this is also the case for holes along a pipe.
Only in the case of the slot is it possible to calculate the
angle (14).
3.1 Description of apparatus
Measurements of the discharge coefficient were made
using the apparatus shown in Fig. 2. The test section
consisted of two lengths of 0.2 m diameter rigid P.V.C.
tubing, each 1.2 m long, connected by flanges. This
allowed access to the experimental orifice which was
mounted in a 100 mm diameter hole, 0.25 m downstream
of the flange. Each experimental orifice, punched in 0.064
mm thick polyethylene sheet, was mounted beneath the
hole on the inner surface of the tube using adhesive tape.
Surface static pressure tappings were made along one
side of the test section in a plane at right angles to the axis
of the orifice. Trengrouse (15) has shown that the distor-
tion of the axial distribution of static pressure by flow
through the orifice is restricted to angular distances of
< 75" on either side of it. One tapping was placed at the
mid-point of the orifice, and others at distances of 6,13,20,
38, 77, 154, 307 and 612 mm in both directions from it.
Holes for the determination of the dynamic pressure were
situated 0.5 m upstream of the orifice. The test section
was connected to a centrifugal fan by ducting, equivalent
in length to 50 pipe diameters, to enable the flow to be-
come established. Two irises were incorporated to con-
trol the velocity and static pressure of the air at the orifice.
one at the outlet of the fan and the other downstream of
the test section. The air leaving the orifice passed into a
collecting chamber which terminated in a metal tube of
bore 21.4 mm. The dynamic pressure of the air emerging
from this was determined using a pitot probe at the tube
exit; the pitot was traversed by a 25 mm micrometer
adjustment. The collecting chamber contained a pressure
tapping to enable the-static pressure at the orifice exit to
be determined.
All static pressure tappings and the pitot probe used
for the dynamic pressure measurements in the test section
C o l l f c t i n g -chamber
-~ . _ _
I
I1
1
,
n,n 1, ean;lt;;,":t+,J,
o t + tWHttt-+ t t + -
UU
Val 17 No 6 1975
 FLUID FLOW I N PERFORATED PIPES 341

were connected to a manifold which allowed the selection
of the tappings in turn. The pressures were measured
using two micromanometers, one connected to the mani-
fold and the other to the pitot probe. The dynamic pres-
sure determinations were made using the six-point log
linear method (16) in which six measurements are made
at prescribed positions on each of two diameters inclined
at right angles, thc positions being 0.032. 0.135, 0.321,
0.679. 0.865 and 0.968 diameters from one wall.
For measurements of the angle at which the air jet
cmerged from the orifice, the collecting chamber was
removed and a 19 mm vane anemometer mounted so that
it could bc rotated in an arc above the orifice as shown in
Fig. 2. The plane of the arc contained the axis of the test
section, and the axis of the vane passed through the centre
of'the orifice. The angles were measured using a pointer
attachcd to thc anemometer which moved over the scale
of a six-inch protractor fixed to the mounting frame. The
angles of efflux were taken as the angles of maximum
velocity obtained from plots of jet velocity profile; the
error in detecting thc maxima was & 1 ".
3.2 Experimental data and correlations
The variation of static pressure along the test section in
the vicinity of the experimental orifice was investigated
using an orifice of 51 mm diameter. A typical pressure
profile is shown in Fig. 3, in which the static pressure is
shown relative to that at one tapping point. The flow
upstream and downstream of the orifice is considered to
be settled when the fall in pressure with distance is linear ;
the slopes of the lines through the experimental points
are in agreement with those derived from equation (9).
The results show that the disturbance due to the orifice
did not extend more than three orifice diameters upstream
or five diameters downstream. Within the limits of
graphical interpolation, it was found that the mean pres-
sure at the centre of the orifice obtained from extrapola-
tion of the upstream and downstream linear pressure
variations agreed with the measured static pressure. In
calculating the discharge coefficient using equation (7),
the static pressure within the collecting chamber was
subtracted from the static pressure on the centreline of
the orifice within the test section to give the static pres-
sure differential across the orifice.
The experimental data obtained with the 25 mm orifice
are plotted as a function of the velocity head ratio,
~ (pl + p,)/pv: (see Fig. 4). The data were correlated by
the equation
C,, = 0.62 + 0.070/3 - 0.088 f12 . . . . (12)
C,, = 0.63 for /i 3 0.394
where
The data for the 51 mm orifice showed no significant
difference from those for the 25 mm orifice.
Measurements of the angles of discharge were made
for orifices with diameters of 13, 25, 38 and 51 mm.
Results for the 25 mm orifice are shown in Fig. 5. For
all orifices, the relationship between the observed angle
and the angle defined by equation ( 5 )was linear but with
varying gradients. All data could be correlated using the
relation
0 = y arctan . ~ . . . . (13)
where
i' = 0.71 + 0.0043 d (see Fig. 9.
3.3 Comparison with theory and other results
From Fig. 4 it can be seen that for large values of the
+
velocity head ratio, i.e. when p1 + p z pv:, the discharge
coefficient tends towards 0.63, which is in agreement with
previously suggested values (8).However, when the ratio
is small, pvf +
p1 + p2. the coefficient decreases towards
zero. This behaviour is consistent with that found by
Dittrich and Graves (10) and Howland (3). A comparison
between equation (12) and the results of Dittrich is
shown in Fig. 7. The data of Dittrich were obtained from
measurements in which high pressures and velocities
were used, and so may not be comparable because of the

7r Upstream Downstream

I7
f' ,,
a
api2

Extent of orifice
1 ~ I_-- .L-
08 06 04 02 0 02 04 06 08
Distance f r o m o r i f i c e a x i s
m
Fig. 3. Variution .Jstatic pressure neur orifice

Journal Mechanical Engineering Science O l M e c h E 1975 Vol 17 N o 6 1975

Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

342 B. J . BAILEY

Fig. 4. Coefficient qf’dischargejbr parallelflow

effects of compressibility. Also shown are data obtained
by Walker et al. (17) for orifice diameters of 3 3 and 25 mm.
These agree well for velocity head ratios greater than five
but do not show any tendency to decrease with lower
values.
A theoretical analysis of dividing flow based on two-
dimensional nonviscous flow carried out by McNown
and Hsu (18) predicts both contraction coefficient and
angle of efflux for flow through a slot in a duct wall. A
comparison of their predictions with the present data is
possible if the assumption is made (as was made by the
authors cited) that the ratio (width of slot)/(width of duct)
used in their work is equivalent to the ratio (area of
hole)/(area of duct) of the present work. The relevant
equations given by McNown and Hsu are reproduced
below.

I
20

Fig. 5. A q l e ojair discharge

Journal Mechanical Enginecrmg Science Q I M e c h h 1975 Vol 17 No 6 1975

Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

 FLUID FLOW IN PERFORATED PIPES 343

from the 25 mm orifice. This comparison between the

predicted and observed values of 6, and C , is shown in
Fig. 8. The differences may be attributable to the fact
that the ducts were circular and not two-dimensional
and that the velocity of the approaching flow was not
uniform over the cross-section.

4 COEFFICIENT OF STATIC REGAIN

The data reported previously for this coefficient were
""0 10 20 30 obtained from measurements with a single outlet from
Orifice diameter the main pipe. The diameter of the outlet used by Ashley
mm 4-
et a/. (5) was equal to of the pipe diameter, while in the
Fig. 6. Ejfect of orllfice diameter on angle of discharge work of Jackson (6)the ratio of diameters was 3.In each
case a substantial proportion of the total flow was
directed through the outlet compared with that occurring
( u , - u,) h = C,UV~ in this work. Haerter (4)has suggested that the regain
coefficient for pipes with pairs of diametrically opposed
v1 + v 2 = 2vj cos a holes instead of single outlets could be increased by
15 per cent.
The type of distributor considered in this paper
contains a large number of diametrically opposed pairs
where of perforations, so only a small proportion of the total
flow is lost at each perforation, and measurements of the
changes in velocity would be difficult and subject to
considerable uncertainty. Consequently, it was decided
and to determine the static pressure profile experimentally
and then develop a model for the coefficient of static
n: regain, which when used with friction loss data would
L
enable the observed profile to be obtained. Dimensional
In the original paper, the square brackets in the expres- analysis indicated that the regain coefficient could be
sion for F were omitted. In these equations, alb is the dependent on the variables v2/v1 and (d/D)'. Previous
slot-to-duct width ratio, v l and v, are the upstream and authors have presented the coefficient in terms of vz/vl ;
downstream velocities, v j is the jet velocity, and a and C , however, greater linearity can be obtained if the quantity
are identifiable with (90 - 0) and C , of this work. These Ig [ u l / ( v , - v,)] is used. A linear correlation of the regain
equations were solved for values of a/b and vl/vz which coefficient with this quantity formed the starting-point
enabled a comparison to be made with data obtained for the model.

0I -
x
0 0

c _ _ _ _ - - - - -
cp ,--
bl

u
(i

-E q u a t i o n (12)
/
03 x 1i n

-- % i n D i t t r i c h and Graves (10)

+- 3h1n Howland (3)

L I I I I
O0 05 10 15 20 25 30
@ +(P, +PJP v,z]

Fig. 7. Comparison of discharge coeflicient data with those of other workers

Journal Mechanical Engineering Science OIMechE 1975 Vol 17 No 6 1975

Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

D
344
O'"
u
x /
/
01-
---- x-----
x
x
X X / /
/-p'-L-I
x
. x
0
0
/
Fig. 8. Comparison of experimental dala with the predictions of McNown and Hsu
4.1 Experimental investigation
The static pressure profiles were obtained by measure-
ments on polyethylene film ducts which had pairs of
diametrically opposed holes punched at intervals along
them. The outlet of a centrifugal fan was connected to a
1.5 m length of 0.2 m diameter rigid P.V.C. tubing and the
test ducts extended from this rigid section ; each had an
initial 5.5 m length unperforated and all were closed at
their far ends. Each duct contained small holes along its
length through which a pitot probe could be inserted to
determine the static pressure; when not in use these
holes were covered with adhesive tape. The static pres-
sures were obtained from one measurement with the
pitot positioned along the duct axis. It was found that
fluctuations occurred if the pressure in the duct was
measured directly against that existing outside it ; this
was overcome by measuring the pressure along the duct
relative l o the closed end, and then measuring the static
prcssure only at the end. From these observations the
static pressure at all measuring points along the duct
could be obtained. The dynamic pressure at the entrance
to each duct was obtained using the six-point log-linear
method (16).
Measurements were made on six ducts, each with
diameter 0.198 m and length 49.5 m, but with differing
numbers of holes. The hole sizes were chosen so that the
total area of holes for each duct was the same. Several
measurements were made of the inlet dynamic pressure
and static pressure variation for each duct.
4.2 Evaluation of static regain coefficient
The form assumed for the regain coefficient of a duct
with a given configuration of perforations was
from which 6 and 4 were determined. The pressure de-
Journal Mechanical Engineering Science OIMechE 1975
Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
B. J. BAILEY
1'0
/Angle of
efflux
I A0
3.0
crease due to friction was calculated using equation (9)
with equation (10) or (11) for the friction factor. Com-
parison with measurements by Walker et al. (17)showed
that the best agreement with observed pressure losses in
polyethylene ducts was obtained by using equation (11)
with k, = 0. A computer programme was used to
evaluate the model which required as input parameters
values for the static and dynamic pressures at the duct
entrance, air temperature and physical dimensions of the
duct and perforations. With an initial assumption for 6,
a value of 4 was computed which resulted in the air flow
at the end of the duct being zero. The calculated pressure
profile was then compared with the measured one. An
increment was made in the value of 6, and a new value
for # obtained and a new pressure profile calculated. If
the agreement between the new profile and the old one
showed improvement this process was repeated ; if the
agreement had deteriorated the value of 6 was decreased.
This process of iteration resulted in values for 6 and 4
which gave optimal agreement between the calculated
and observed pressure profiles for the chosen model. It
was found that equation (14) gave a satisfactory repre-
sentation of the data when 6 had a constant value of 0.78
and #was dependent on the hole-to-duct area ratio. The
data for 4 from the six ducts were correlated as a function
of (d/D)2,as suggested by dimensional analysis, by the
equation
4 = 0.284 + 0.098 lg [i] . . . . . . (15)
Thus, the coefficient of static regain could be represented
as
. (16)
where 4 is defined by equation (15).
Equation (16) was fitted to the data of Ashley et al. (5)
Vol 17 No 6 1975
 FLUID FLOW IN PERFORATED PIPES 345

0 001 0.01 0.1 10

Hole area /duct cross-section

Fig. 9. Ejject ofarea ratio on static regain

and Jackson (6), and the resulting values for 4 are plotted
in Fig. 9 together with the experimental data of this work
and equation (15). A comparison between the observed
static pressures along each duct and those calculated
using equation (16) is shown in Fig. 10a.
To test further the validity of this model for the static
regain coefficient, measurements were made on reduced
lengths of the duct with an area ratio of 0.0166; these
ducts were perforated with pairs of 25 mm diameter holes
at 0.61 m intervals. A comparison between the observed
and predicted static pressures is given in Fig. l o b ; the
differences are similar to those shown in Fig. 10a and are
reduced for the shorter ducts which have a smaller
number of holes. The differences are all negative in this
case. However, as the errors do not exceed those shown
in Fig. 10a, no real significance can be attached to this.
Had a duct with an area ratio of 0.00186 been selected
for this comparison, the errors could well have all been
positive. There is no correlation between the sign of the
deviation and the area ratio for the data given in Fig. 10a.

r-
Hole a r e a / d u c t cross-section . . . . . . . . . 0.0311 -- 0-00812
- _ 0,00637 -0.01 6 6
- 0.00186 - - - - - 0.00431

,,'..\ .
I .

5- ,___---
.*'
'. ..._-- - .. ,-...--._
_
--._
.___.
f'\,
-.

-
x
a
<p
/ --.
-~
a
%..I
i>
J
-
\/ \ / '/" '
---LA/- /

a" z
X L
\/ ----..-. . - ..
-
e
a
so-10-
_ _ _ . _.......
71 198

..........
-10- b
__ I I I I _1

Journal Mcchanical Engineering Science OIMechE 1975 VOI 17 NO 6 1975

Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016

346
5 VARIATION OF DISCHARGE FROM A
DISTRIBUTOR
The ultimate aim of this work is to enable distributors to
be designed which have a known variation of the rate of
discharge along their length. Using the information
given previously, for any particular distributor, it is
possible to predict the variation in static pressure and at
the same time calculate the variation of discharge. To
verify that the observed variation in discharge rate was
in agreement with that calculated, measurements were
made of the static and dynamic pressures along one duct.
This duct was 49.5 m long and 0.198 m in diameter, with
pairs of 25 mm diameter perforations spaced at 0.61 m
intervals. The predicted static pressure profile was
obtained using equation (16) for the regain coefficient.
The calculations also gave values for the air discharge
from each pair of perforations. From measured dynamic
pressures along the duct, the air flow rates were calculated
and from the changes in these, the air discharged over 2.44
m sections of the duct was obtained. Comparisons be-
tween the measured and calculated static pressures and
discharge rates are shown in Fig. 11.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The magnitude of the discharge coefficient for steady
flow through single orifices in a distributor has been
correlated with the ratio of static pressure difference
across the orifice to the upstream fluid dynamic pressure
within the distributor. When the ratio is greater than 10
the coefficient takes the value 0.63; for lower ratios it
decreases towards zero.
The angles at which the fluid leaves the orifices have
been correlated with the ratio of static pressure differential
to upstream dynamic pressure and also with orifice size.
The coefficient of static pressure regain has been
correlated with the ratio of orifice to distributor area and
with the fractional decrease in fluid velocity at an orifice.
These correlations for the coefficients of discharge and
static regain enable predictions to be made of the varia-
tions in static pressure and fluid discharge along uniformly
0 02
F r a c t i o n a l distance along d u c t
Fig. 11. Measured and predicted variations of static pressure and discharge
rate for one duct
Journal Mechanical Engineering Science OIMechE 1975
Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016
B. J. BAILEY
perforated distributors. Such predictions agree with
experimental observations.
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of J. R.
Dawson, R. G. Garwood and F. G. Smith in the experi-
mental work.
APPENDIX
REFERENCES
(1) KELLER, J. D. ‘The manifold problem’, J . appl. Mech. 1949 16.
77--85.
(2) DOW, W. M. ‘The uniform distribution of a fluid flowing through
a perforated pipe’, J. appl. Mech. 1950 17, 431-438.
(3) HOWLAND, W . E. ‘Design of perforated pipe for uniformity of
discharge’, Proc. 3rd Midwestern CunJ on Fluid Mechanics 1953,
687-70 1.
(4) HAERTER, A. A. ‘Flow distribution and pressure changes
along slotted or branched ducts’, A S H R A E JI 1963 5, 47 -59.
(5) ASHLEY, C. M., GILMAN, S. F. and CHURCH, R. A. ‘Branch
fitting performance at high velocity’, Trans. Am. Sue. Heat. Vent.
Engrs 1956 62, 279--294.
(6) JACKSON, K. R. ‘Branch losses in high-velocity duct systems’,
J . Instn Heat. Vent. Engrs 1969 37, 208-214.
(7) COLEBROOK, C. F. ‘Turbulent flow in pipes, with particular
reference to the transition region between smooth and rough pipe
laws’, J . Instn civ. Engrs 1938-39 4, 133-156.
(8) VAN DER HEGGE ZIJNEN, B. G. ‘Flow through uniformly
tapped pipes’, Appl. Sci.Res. 1951 A3, 144-162.
(9) SENECAL, V. E. ‘Fluid distribution in process equipment’, Ind.
Engng Chem. 1957 49, 993-997.
(10) DITTRICH, R. T. and GRAVES, C. C. ‘Discharge coefficients
for combustor-liner air-entry holes: I. Circular holes with
parallel flow’, NACA T N 3663 1956.
(11) ROHDE, J. E., RICHARDS, H. T. and METGER, G. W.
‘Discharge coefficients for thick plate orifices with approach flow
perpendicular and inclined to the orifice axis’, N A S A T N 0-5467
1969.
(12) KOESTEL, A. and TUVE, G. L. ‘The discharge of air from a
long slot’, Trans. Am. Soc. Heat. Vent. Engrs 1948 54, 87-100.
(13) CARPENTER, G . A. ‘The design of permeable ducts and their
application to ventilation of livestock buildings’, J . agric. Engng
Res. 1972 17, 219-230.
(14) KOESTEL, A. and YOUNG, C. Y. ’The control of air streams
x Measured
-Predicted
04 06 08 10
Vol 17 N o 6 1975
 FLUID FLOW I N PERFORATED PIPES 347

from a long slot’, Trans. A m . Soc. Heat. Vent. Engrs 1951 57,
407-41 8.
(15) TRENGROUSE, G. H. ‘Steady compressible flow through a
single row of radial holes in the wall of a pipeline’, J . mech. Engng
SCZ.1970 12, 248--258.
(16) BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION B.S. 1042 Method f o r
the measurement of fluid Jlow in p i p s . Part 1 . OrGce plates,
nozzles and uenturi tubes (London) 1964.
(17) WALKER, J. N., WOLFE, J. S. and WINSPEAR, K. W. Air
discharge from injatable polyethylene ducts Note 56/2101,
National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, 1972.
(18) McNOWN, J. S. and HSU, E. Y. ‘Application of conformal
mapping to divided flow’, Proc. Isl Midwestern Con$ on Fluid
Dynamics 1951, 143-155.

Journal Mechanical Engineering Science @IMecliE 1975 Vol 17 No 6 1975

Downloaded from jms.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 10, 2016