This paper deals with the discrepancies between experimental results and the simple theory usually used for an undergraduate laboratory surge tank rig. It has been found that most are due to the ‘annular effect’ which occurs in unsteady laminar pipe flow. The results will also be of interest when interpreting physical model tests of full size surge tank systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
WatsonR., ‘Improvements to the instrumentation of a laboratory demonstration surge tank’, Measurement, 13, 267–271 (1994).
2.
MayersD. F., ‘Methods of Runge—Kutta type’, in FoxL. (Ed.), Numerical Solutions of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, Chapter 2, Pergamon, Oxford, 1962.
3.
JaegerC., Fluid Transients in Hydro-electric Practice, Blackie, Glasgow, 1977, p. 11.
4.
SchlichtingH., Boundary Layer Theory, 4th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1960, pp. 229–231.
5.
RichardsonE. G., and TylerE., ‘The transverse velocity gradient near the mouths of pipes in which an alternating flow is established’, Proc. Phys. Soc. London., 42, 1–15 (1929).
6.
SexlL. T., ‘Über den von E. G. Richardson entdecken “Annulareffekt”’, Z. Phys., 61, 349et seq. (1930).
7.
McLachlanN. W., Bessel Functions for Engineers, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1955.
8.
DwightH. B., Tables of Integrals and Other Mathematical Data, 3rd ed, Macmillan, New York, 1957.
9.
ProudovskyA. M.VardyA.BrownJ., and WashingtonP. A., ‘Discussion on the paper by Shuy, E. B., “Wall shear stress in accelerating and decelerating flows”’, J. Hydraulic Res., 35, 133–142 (1997).
