Laboratory Report

Mechanical Measurements

Name of Instructor Dr. Bettig

Name of Student Brian Tucker

Class MECE 333 Dep’t. or Section 01

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Title Measurement of Air Velocity Using a Pitot Tube

Date of Experiment 19 October 2006 No. of Experiment 9

Partner’s Name

Date Received Date Returned for Date Accepted

Revision

Instructor’s Initials
 Table of Contents

Table of contents page i

Purpose/background theory page 1

Procedure page 2

Equipment Description page 2

Sample Calculations page 3

Data/Calculations page 4

Graph page 5-8

Results/Conclusions page 9-10

i
 Purpose

The purpose of this laboratory exercise is measure air velocity distribution in a

duct using a pitot tube.

Background Theory

A pitot tube is an instrument used to measure velocity in a stream of fluid. The

device has both static and stagnation holes, which are connected to either end of a

differential manometer.

Figure 1

In the figure 1, point a is the location of the stagnation hole, while point b if the

location of the static hole. The value h is the manometer fluid height.

1
 Procedure

1) The specific gravity of the manometer fluid was determined.

2) Next, the pitot tube was aligned in the center of the duct, and the fan was

adjusted to its’ maximum speed. Data was recorded at predetermined

distances from the duct wall.

3) Step two was then repeated using approximately half of the fan speed.

4) Barometric pressure as well as temperature was also recorded.

Equipment Description

Figure 1

Figure 1 shows a pitot tube arrangement that was very similar to the type used in the

experiment. The pitot tube was attached to a manometer. The pitot tube was housed in a

round duct, and was moved from one wall of the duct to the other. The position of the

pitot tube was recorded with a scale that was rigidly attached to the outside of the duct. A

fan on one end provided the air flow for this experiment.

2
 Sample Calculations

u = (2*g*h*ρm/ρ).5 g = gravity
u=
(2*32.2*.0028(62.4*.862/.0715))^.5 h = manometer fluid height
u = 25.62 ft/s ρm = manometer fluid density
ρ = air density

*flow rate was determined by integrating the equations of figure 2 and 3

u = Q/(π*R^2) u = average velocity (ft/s)

u = 10.17/(π*.521^2) Q = air flow rate through duct (ft^3/s)
11.93 ft/s R = duct radius (ft)

*data calculated from 808 RPM

3
 Data/Calculations

1390 rpm 3
r h u-
r*u
No. Static Velocity r/R u/U
in ft in ft (ft2/sec)
(ft/sec)
0 0 0.000 0 0.000 1.36 0 0 0 0
1 0.33 0.028 0.17 0.014 1.36 25.65 0.71 0.05 0.71
2 1.04 0.087 0.26 0.022 1.36 31.72 2.75 0.17 0.88
3 1.86 0.155 0.31 0.026 1.36 34.63 5.37 0.30 0.96
4 2.88 0.240 0.33 0.028 1.36 35.73 8.58 0.46 0.99
5 4.85 0.404 0.33 0.028 1.36 35.73 14.44 0.78 0.99
6 6.25 0.521 0.32 0.027 1.36 35.18 18.33 1.00 0.98
7 7.65 0.638 0.31 0.026 1.36 34.63 22.08 1.22 0.96
8 9.62 0.802 0.34 0.028 1.36 36.27 29.07 1.54 1.01
9 10.64 0.887 0.35 0.029 1.34 36.80 32.63 1.70 1.02
10 11.46 0.955 0.3 0.025 1.34 34.07 32.53 1.83 0.95
11 12.15 1.013 0.26 0.022 1.34 31.72 32.11 1.94 0.88
12 12.5 1.042 0 0.000 1.34 0 0 2 0

Specific Gravity 0.826 808 RPM 1390 RPM

Barometric U=36
Pressure 28.92 U=20 ft/s ft/s
Duct Radius (ft) 6.25 u=11.93ft/s u=21.64ft/s
Room Temp 75 Q=10.17CFS Q=18.45cfs

808 rpm 2
r h u-
r*u
No. Static Velocity r/R u/U
in ft in ft (ft2/sec)
(ft/sec)
0 0 0.000 0 0.000 0.42 0 0 0 0
1 0.33 0.028 0.05 0.004 0.42 13.91 0.38 0.05 0.70
2 1.04 0.087 0.07 0.006 0.42 16.46 1.43 0.17 0.82
3 1.86 0.155 0.09 0.008 0.42 18.66 2.89 0.30 0.93
4 2.88 0.240 0.1 0.008 0.42 19.67 4.72 0.46 0.98
5 4.85 0.404 0.1 0.008 0.42 19.67 7.95 0.78 0.98
6 6.25 0.521 0.1 0.008 0.42 19.67 10.24 1.00 0.98
7 7.65 0.638 0.1 0.008 0.42 19.67 12.54 1.22 0.98
8 9.62 0.802 0.11 0.009 0.42 20.63 16.54 1.54 1.03
9 10.64 0.887 0.11 0.009 0.42 20.63 18.29 1.70 1.03
10 11.46 0.955 0.09 0.008 0.42 18.66 17.82 1.83 0.93
11 12.15 1.013 0.06 0.005 0.42 15.24 15.43 1.94 0.76
12 12.5 1.042 0 0.000 0.42 0 0 2 0

4
Figure 2

5
Figure 3

6
Figure 4

7
Figure 5

8
 Results/Conclusion

The velocity profiles of figure 4 and 5 were not perfectly parabolic, but they did

follow a parabolic form. There is a strange deviation that occurs on both plots at the same

place that has the same discrepancy (between 1.5 and 2 r/R). This suggests to me some

sort of systematic error in the experiment. There is a slight dip in the center of the

velocity profile (see conclusion for discussion). The overall profile, steep slope giving

way to zero slope, then back to a steep negative slope indicates that the fluid has a very

low viscosity, since the center section has virtually the same velocity profile.

The accuracy of the measurements is assumed to be very good, as the manometer

is the basis of other measurement devices, such as the electronic type.

There are a few area that could have imparted error into this experiment. The pitot

tube may not have been perfectly perpendicular to the duct and thus the flow direction.

The pitot tube may not have been exactly in the position indicated, due to human error.

Ways to improve the above stated would be to have an indicator that would show

the direction in which the pitot tube was pointed, also to be careful when taking

measurements.

The purpose of this laboratory exercise was fulfilled. We successfully measured

the velocity profile in a circular duct. I was surprised that the profile was not more

parabolic. Perhaps if the duct was smaller in diameter, of the fluid was more viscous, then

the result would have been a more parabolic shape. Another way to improve the

measurements would be to use a lower specific gravity fluid in the manometer. That

would allow for a larger height of fluid for the same pressure differential, and thus a more

accurately read reading.

9
 I feel that there may be some systematic error in this experiment, dealing with

figure 4 and 5. The pitot tube is attached to an arm; this arm may be disrupting the air

flow when the pitot tube is all of the way in the air duct. This could be the reason why

there was a strange dip in figures 4 and 5. This could also explain the behavior of the

graphs as r/R approaches 2.

Overall, the results obtained with the current procedures and measurement deices

are sufficient to fulfill the experiments learning objective.

10