552
H. Najmi et al.
Table 3 Total mass flowrate through the outlets and recovered percentage
Configuration Inlet MFR (g/s) Total outlet MFR
(g/s)
Flow through S.O (%) Recovered (%)
1
1.50
1.50
60.26
100.00
2
1.49
1.51
62.08
101.21
3
1.49
1.52
62.61
101.88
4
1.50
1.52
61.93
101.40
5
1.50
1.53
62.33
101.87
6
1.51
1.53
61.92
101.39
7
1.50
1.51
61.00
100.80
These seven different configurations give 14 linear equations in terms of mass
flowrates and solving these equations gives the primary flowrates from the respective
cell outlets.
To validate the above method, a test is performed for an inlet mass flowrate of
1.50 g/s. This inlet flowrate is selected because it is seen that the uncertainty is very
less for the higher mass flowrates. It can be seen from Table 3 that the recovery is
near 100% for all the configurations. Hence, it can be concluded that the fluid flow
inside the porous tube is not affected by this method and recovery is also equal to
100%. It is also important to note that even when the configuration is changed (i.e., 1
to 2 or 3… and so on), the mass flowrate through the secondary outlet does not varies
much. This further suggest that the fluid dynamics inside the tube is not affected as
it is seen in the previous method. Table 4 gives the mass flowrate from each cell after
solving the equations.
The reliability of the developed method is further ensured by the obtained results
presented in Table 5. It can be clearly seen from the table that the recovered flow
obtained standard for the cases 3, 4, and 5 is 100%. Whereas, for the first two cases,
it is 80% and 95%, respectively. This is due to the uncertainty offered by the mass
flow meter in the measurement of the mass flowrate below 0.20 g/s.
The clear advantage of the developed analytical method can also be seen by the
fact that in case of 0.25 g/s (see Table 5), it allows to measure the mass flowrate from
each cell whereas in case of secondary method, even for the inlet mass flowrate of
0.30 g/s, it is difficult to determine the mass flowrate from cell 1 and 3.
Table 4 Mass flowrate along the length of the tube
Cell
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
Length (z) in meters 0.11
0.22
0.33
0.44
0.55
0.66
0.77
0.88
MFR (g/s)
0.059 0.06
0.062 0.061 0.063 0.065 0.062 0.161
H. Najmi et al.
Table 3 Total mass flowrate through the outlets and recovered percentage
Configuration Inlet MFR (g/s) Total outlet MFR
(g/s)
Flow through S.O (%) Recovered (%)
1
1.50
1.50
60.26
100.00
2
1.49
1.51
62.08
101.21
3
1.49
1.52
62.61
101.88
4
1.50
1.52
61.93
101.40
5
1.50
1.53
62.33
101.87
6
1.51
1.53
61.92
101.39
7
1.50
1.51
61.00
100.80
These seven different configurations give 14 linear equations in terms of mass
flowrates and solving these equations gives the primary flowrates from the respective
cell outlets.
To validate the above method, a test is performed for an inlet mass flowrate of
1.50 g/s. This inlet flowrate is selected because it is seen that the uncertainty is very
less for the higher mass flowrates. It can be seen from Table 3 that the recovery is
near 100% for all the configurations. Hence, it can be concluded that the fluid flow
inside the porous tube is not affected by this method and recovery is also equal to
100%. It is also important to note that even when the configuration is changed (i.e., 1
to 2 or 3… and so on), the mass flowrate through the secondary outlet does not varies
much. This further suggest that the fluid dynamics inside the tube is not affected as
it is seen in the previous method. Table 4 gives the mass flowrate from each cell after
solving the equations.
The reliability of the developed method is further ensured by the obtained results
presented in Table 5. It can be clearly seen from the table that the recovered flow
obtained standard for the cases 3, 4, and 5 is 100%. Whereas, for the first two cases,
it is 80% and 95%, respectively. This is due to the uncertainty offered by the mass
flow meter in the measurement of the mass flowrate below 0.20 g/s.
The clear advantage of the developed analytical method can also be seen by the
fact that in case of 0.25 g/s (see Table 5), it allows to measure the mass flowrate from
each cell whereas in case of secondary method, even for the inlet mass flowrate of
0.30 g/s, it is difficult to determine the mass flowrate from cell 1 and 3.
Table 4 Mass flowrate along the length of the tube
Cell
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6 Cell 7 Cell 8
Length (z) in meters 0.11
0.22
0.33
0.44
0.55
0.66
0.77
0.88
MFR (g/s)
0.059 0.06
0.062 0.061 0.063 0.065 0.062 0.161