在障碍物下游不同距离处的皮托管导线比较。

S E Guffey, D W Booth
{"title":"在障碍物下游不同距离处的皮托管导线比较。","authors":"S E Guffey,&nbsp;D W Booth","doi":"10.1080/00028899908984431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study determined the deviations between pitot traverses taken under \"ideal\" conditions--at least seven duct diameter's lengths (i.e., distance = 7D) from obstructions, elbows, junction fittings, and other disturbances to flows--with those taken downstream from commonplace disturbances. Two perpendicular 10-point, log-linear velocity pressure traverses were taken at various distances downstream of tested upstream conditions. Upstream conditions included a plain duct opening, a junction fitting, a single 90 degrees elbow, and two elbows rotated 90 degrees from each other into two orthogonal planes. Airflows determined from those values were compared with the values measured more than 40D downstream of the same obstructions under ideal conditions. The ideal measurements were taken on three traverse diameters in the same plane separated by 120 degrees in honed drawn-over-mandrel tubing. In all cases the pitot tubes were held in place by devices that effectively eliminated alignment errors and insertion depth errors. Duct velocities ranged from 1500 to 4500 ft/min. Results were surprisingly good if one employed two perpendicular traverses. When the averages of two perpendicular traverses was taken, deviations from ideal value were 6% or less even for traverses taken as close as 2D distance from the upstream disturbances. At 3D distance, deviations seldom exceeded 5%. With single diameter traverses, errors seldom exceeded 5% at 6D or more downstream from the disturbance. Interestingly, percentage deviations were about the same at high and low velocities. This study demonstrated that two perpendicular pitot traverses can be taken as close as 3D from these disturbances with acceptable (< or = 5%) deviations from measurements taken under ideal conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":7930,"journal":{"name":"American Industrial Hygiene Association journal","volume":"60 2","pages":"165-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00028899908984431","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of pitot traverses taken at varying distances downstream of obstructions.\",\"authors\":\"S E Guffey,&nbsp;D W Booth\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00028899908984431\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study determined the deviations between pitot traverses taken under \\\"ideal\\\" conditions--at least seven duct diameter's lengths (i.e., distance = 7D) from obstructions, elbows, junction fittings, and other disturbances to flows--with those taken downstream from commonplace disturbances. Two perpendicular 10-point, log-linear velocity pressure traverses were taken at various distances downstream of tested upstream conditions. Upstream conditions included a plain duct opening, a junction fitting, a single 90 degrees elbow, and two elbows rotated 90 degrees from each other into two orthogonal planes. Airflows determined from those values were compared with the values measured more than 40D downstream of the same obstructions under ideal conditions. The ideal measurements were taken on three traverse diameters in the same plane separated by 120 degrees in honed drawn-over-mandrel tubing. In all cases the pitot tubes were held in place by devices that effectively eliminated alignment errors and insertion depth errors. Duct velocities ranged from 1500 to 4500 ft/min. Results were surprisingly good if one employed two perpendicular traverses. When the averages of two perpendicular traverses was taken, deviations from ideal value were 6% or less even for traverses taken as close as 2D distance from the upstream disturbances. At 3D distance, deviations seldom exceeded 5%. With single diameter traverses, errors seldom exceeded 5% at 6D or more downstream from the disturbance. Interestingly, percentage deviations were about the same at high and low velocities. This study demonstrated that two perpendicular pitot traverses can be taken as close as 3D from these disturbances with acceptable (< or = 5%) deviations from measurements taken under ideal conditions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7930,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Industrial Hygiene Association journal\",\"volume\":\"60 2\",\"pages\":\"165-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00028899908984431\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Industrial Hygiene Association journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00028899908984431\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Industrial Hygiene Association journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00028899908984431","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

本研究确定了在“理想”条件下——至少7个管道直径的长度(即距离= 7D),从障碍物、弯头、连接件和其他干扰到流动——与那些从常见干扰下游取的皮托管导线之间的偏差。在测试的上游条件下游的不同距离处进行了两个垂直的10点对数线性速度压力遍历。上游条件包括一个普通的管道开口,一个连接件,一个90度弯头,两个弯头相互旋转90度,形成两个正交平面。由这些值确定的气流与理想条件下相同障碍物下游超过40D处的测量值进行了比较。理想的测量是在同一平面上以120度分隔的三个横径上进行的。在所有情况下,皮托管都是由有效消除对准误差和插入深度误差的装置固定的。管道速度范围为1500至4500英尺/分钟。如果使用两个垂直的遍历,结果会非常好。当取两个垂直遍历的平均值时,即使在距离上游扰动2D的距离处进行遍历,与理想值的偏差也在6%或更小。在三维距离上,偏差很少超过5%。对于单直径导线,在扰动下游6D或更大的位置误差很少超过5%。有趣的是,在高速和低速时,百分比偏差大致相同。这项研究表明,在理想条件下,在可接受的(<或= 5%)偏差范围内,可以从这些干扰中获得两个垂直的皮托管导线,距离接近3D。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of pitot traverses taken at varying distances downstream of obstructions.

This study determined the deviations between pitot traverses taken under "ideal" conditions--at least seven duct diameter's lengths (i.e., distance = 7D) from obstructions, elbows, junction fittings, and other disturbances to flows--with those taken downstream from commonplace disturbances. Two perpendicular 10-point, log-linear velocity pressure traverses were taken at various distances downstream of tested upstream conditions. Upstream conditions included a plain duct opening, a junction fitting, a single 90 degrees elbow, and two elbows rotated 90 degrees from each other into two orthogonal planes. Airflows determined from those values were compared with the values measured more than 40D downstream of the same obstructions under ideal conditions. The ideal measurements were taken on three traverse diameters in the same plane separated by 120 degrees in honed drawn-over-mandrel tubing. In all cases the pitot tubes were held in place by devices that effectively eliminated alignment errors and insertion depth errors. Duct velocities ranged from 1500 to 4500 ft/min. Results were surprisingly good if one employed two perpendicular traverses. When the averages of two perpendicular traverses was taken, deviations from ideal value were 6% or less even for traverses taken as close as 2D distance from the upstream disturbances. At 3D distance, deviations seldom exceeded 5%. With single diameter traverses, errors seldom exceeded 5% at 6D or more downstream from the disturbance. Interestingly, percentage deviations were about the same at high and low velocities. This study demonstrated that two perpendicular pitot traverses can be taken as close as 3D from these disturbances with acceptable (< or = 5%) deviations from measurements taken under ideal conditions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信