1 / 24

F. Stern, M. Muste, M-L Beninati, W.E. Eichinger

Experimental Uncertainty Assessment Methodology: Example for Measurement of Density and Kinematic Viscosity. F. Stern, M. Muste, M-L Beninati, W.E. Eichinger. Table of contents. Introduction Test Design Measurement Systems and Procedures Test Results

cain
Download Presentation

F. Stern, M. Muste, M-L Beninati, W.E. Eichinger

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Experimental Uncertainty Assessment Methodology: Example for Measurement of Density and Kinematic Viscosity F. Stern, M. Muste, M-L Beninati, W.E. Eichinger

  2. Table of contents • Introduction • Test Design • Measurement Systems and Procedures • Test Results • Uncertainty Assessment for Multiple Tests • Uncertainty Assessment for Single Test • Discussion of Results • Comparison with Benchmark Data

  3. Introduction • Purpose of experiment: to provide a relatively simple, yet comprehensive, tabletop measurement system for demonstrating fluid mechanics concepts, experimental procedures, and uncertainty analysis • More commonly, density is determined from specific weight measurements using hydrometers and viscosity is determined using capillary viscometers

  4. Test Design A sphere of diameter D falls a distance l at terminal velocity V (fall time t) through a cylinder filled with 99.7% aqueous glycerin solution of density r, viscositym, and kinematic viscosityn (= m/r). Flow regimes: - Re = VD/n <<1 (Stokes law) - Re > 1 (asymmetric wake) - Re > 20 (flow separates)

  5. Test Design • Assumption: Re = VD/n <<1 • Forces acting on the sphere: • Apparent weight • Drag force (Stokes law)

  6. Test Design • Terminal velocity: • Solving for n and substituting l/t for V (1) • Evaluating n for two different spheres (e.g., teflon and steel) and solving for r (2) • Equations (1) and (2): data reduction equations forn andrin terms of measurements of the individual variables: Dt, Ds, tt, ts, l

  7. Measurement Systems

  8. Measurement Systems and Procedures • Individual measurement systems: • Dtand Ds – micrometer; resolution 0.01mm • l – scale; resolution 1/16 inch • ttand ts - stopwatch; last significant digit 0.01 sec. • T (temperature) – digital thermometer; last significant digit 0.1F • Data acquisition procedure: • Measure T and l • Measure diameters Dt,and fall times tt for 10 teflon spheres • Measure diameters Ds and fall times ts for 10 steel spheres • Data reduction is done at steps (2) and (3) by substituting the measurements for each test into the data reduction equation (2) for evaluation of r and then along with this result into the data reduction equation (1) for evaluation of n

  9. Test Results

  10. UA multiple tests - density • Data reduction equation for density r : • Total uncertainty for the average density:

  11. UA multiple tests - density • Bias limit Br Sensitivity coefficients

  12. UA multiple tests - density • Precision limit (Table 2)

  13. UA multiple tests - density

  14. UA single test - density

  15. UA multiple tests - viscosity • Data reduction equation for density n : • Total uncertainty for the average viscosity (teflon sphere):

  16. UA multiple tests - viscosity • Bias limit Bnt(teflon sphere) Sensitivity coefficients:

  17. UA multiple tests - viscosity • Precision limit (teflon sphere) (Table 2)

  18. UA multiple tests - viscosity Teflon spheres

  19. UA single test - viscosity Teflon spheres

  20. Discussion of the results • Values and trends for randn in reasonable agreement with textbook values (e.g., Roberson and Crowe, 1997, pg. A-23): r = 1260 kg/m3 ; n = 0.00051 m2/s • Uncertainties for r and n are relatively small (< 2% for multiple tests)

  21. Discussion of the results • EFD result: A ±UA • Benchmark data: B ±UB E = B-A UE2 = UA2+UB2 • Data calibrated at Ue level if: |E| UE • Unaccounted for bias and precision limits if: |E| >UE • Calibration against benchmark

  22. Comparison with benchmark data • Density r (multiple tests) E = 4.9% (benchmark data) E = 5.4% (ErTco hydrometer) Neglecting correlated bias errors: r is not validated against benchmark data (Proctor & Gamble) and alternative measurement methods (ErTco hydrometer because E~constant suggests unaccounted for bias errors

  23. Comparison with benchmark data • Viscosity n (multiple tests) E = 3.95% (benchmark data) E = 40.6% (Cannon viscometer) Neglecting correlated bias errors: n is not validated against benchmark data (Proctor & Gamble) and alternative measurement methods (Cannon capillary viscometer) because E~constant suggests unaccounted for bias errors

  24. References • Granger, R.A., 1988, Experiments in Fluid Mechanics, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New York, NY. • Proctor&Gamble, 1995, private communication. • Roberson, J.A. and Crowe, C.T., 1997, Engineering Fluid Mechanics, 6th Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. • Small Part Inc., 1998, Product Catalog, Miami Lakes, FL. • Stern, F., Muste, M., M-L. Beninati, and Eichinger, W.E., 1999, “Summary of Experimental Uncertainty Assessment Methodology with Example,” IIHR Technical Report No. 406. • White, F.M., 1994, Fluid Mechanics, 3rd edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY.

More Related