×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Relationship between irregular shape and stardard oriifice size.

Relationship between irregular shape and stardard oriifice size.

Relationship between irregular shape and stardard oriifice size.

(OP)
Hi,

I need information on how to generate the relationship between irregular shape to standard orifice size. I want to use in calculating the flow of fluid through the orifice.

I would appreciate urgent responce.

Thanks

RE: Relationship between irregular shape and stardard oriifice size.

We use a circular area in orifice because it is repeatable and simple.  Then we used emperical results to generate the equations for metering.  If you read Miller and Spinks along with AGA3, there was some work done on putting a "weep hole" at the bottom of the orifice to allow liquids to drain from time to time.  The resulting data inducated that if the area of the weep hole is added to the area of the orifice and a new pseudo diameter is entered into the equations you can get resonable results.  I don't recall error analysis results but +/-3% from base isn't bad.

NOW, could this idea be expanded to say a square hole, I believe it will get a resonable result.  It might make for an interesting comparison.

RE: Relationship between irregular shape and stardard oriifice size.

A significant portion of the AGA-3 arithmetic is empirical.  A key feature of empirical equations is that they are rarely very scaleable.  This particular equation is very sensitive to plate thickness for example.  I would guess that any non-circular hole in a plate of random thickness would give you numbers that don't relate in any predictable way to measurement.

It all depends on what you are trying to do.  If you are replacing a +/-50% guess on a vent flow, you'll probably get better numbers.  If you are doing custody-transfer measurement, you'll probably get sued.  I don't think that I'd rely on an irregular orifice for a plant material balance, but then I've spent too much time on that sort of exercise where a +/-10% device generally results in too much uncertainty.

David

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources