Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews
The overall flow profile of a fluid depends on
Flow Oscillation
Simulation
Author: Mackenzie Andrews
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Viscosity is an intrinsic property of a fluid that
describes that fluid's resistance to flow. Fluids
resist the relative motion of objects that have a
different velocity to them. When a fluid flows
through a pipe, the pipe has a velocity of zero
which creates a negative relative motion to the
fluid flow. The fluid will resist this relative
motion by developing a velocity gradient. The
velocity of a fluid next to the pipe will equal
zero and gradually increase to maximum at the
center of the flow profile. The viscosity
essentially determines how much the fluid will
resist the relative motion. If a fluid has high
viscosity, the resistance to flow will be high.
Viscosity (​µ)​ is defined as the sheer stress (​τ​)
required to drag one layer of fluid with unit
velocity (​dv​) past another layer a unit distance
away (​dy)​.
µ= τ
dv
( dy )
Viscosity is one of two major components that
affect fluid flow. The viscous effect happens at
the molecular scale and describes the
movement of molecules against one another.
This molecular movement causes momentum
diffusion through a fluid. The other major
component is the bulk flow effect. Bulk flow
happens on the macroscopic scale and
describes how the bulk of the fluid is moving as
a result of an external driving force. Bulk flow
causes a momentum convection through a fluid.
the ratio between the viscous effect and bulk
flow effect. This ratio is described by the
Reynold’s number (R​e​). The Reynold’s number is
directly proportionate to fluid density (​ρ​),
velocity (​v​), and tube diameter (​d​), and
inversely proportionate to viscosity (​µ​).
ρvd
Re = µ
When the Reynold’s number is low (< 2000), the
flow is viscous effect dominant which is called
laminar flow. Laminar flow is also called parallel
flow and is characterized by a streamline
motion. When the Reynold’s number is high (>
4000), the flow is bulk motion dominated which
is called turbulent flow. Turbulent flow is
characterized by chaotic flow with large scale
mixing. When the Reynold’s number is
intermediate (2000 < R​e <​ 4000), the flow is
classified as transitional or a mix between
laminar and turbulent properties.
SIMULATION THEORY
When fluid flows through a non-horizontal pipe,
both bulk motion and viscous effects are at
play. The bulk motion is caused by the driving
force of gravity. The gravitational driving force
is equal to the mass of the fluid multiplied by its
acceleration (​g​). The fluid mass is equal to the
fluid density (​ρ​) multiplied by the h​ eight of the
fluid (​h​) and the cross sectional area of the fluid
(​A​).
F g = ρhAg
In the case of laminar flow, the viscous effect
translates into a pressure drop which is
characterized by the Hagen-Poiseuille equation
where L is fluid length and Q is fluid flow rate.
8μLQ
ΔP = πr4
1
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews

The pressure drop multiplied by the cross
sectional area of the pipe is representative of
the drag force on the fluid. Drag is the force
that resists (or slows) fluid motion.
8μLQA
Fg = πr4
To experimentally model fluid flow in a U-tube,
a long tube was mounted as a vertical U and
filled with enough water so the level, at
equilibrium, is about halfway between the
curve and the top of the tube. Figure 1 shows a
diagram of the experimental setup.

In the case of turbulent flow, the viscous effect

is negligible (according to the Reynold’s ratio).
Instead, a frictional coefficient is used to
describe the drag force. The derivation of this
drag force is shown fully in Appendix A,
Turbulent Flow Derivations.

When a fluid flows through a U-tube, the

gravitational force acts in the same direction
(downwards) in both sides of the tube. The net Figure 1: U-tube arrangement for flow oscillation
experiments. The tube is filled up to the dashed line, then
gravitational force acts on the side of the tube the water is pulled up to h1(0) on the left side, and
with more fluid. As the fluid flows from one side released.
of the tube to the other, gravity is working to
Food coloring and a ruler/meter stick were used
reverse the velocity of the fluid, creating an
to enable video data collection. Using a syringe,
oscillatory flow pattern. The drag force always
water was lifted into one arm of the U, and the
opposes the direction of velocity and is
water was released and allowed to come to
therefore acting as a damping factor on the
equilibrium. Image 1 shows the experimental
oscillatory flow.
set up for the 3/16” tube at the moment before
water was released. The event was captured on
PURPOSE
video, and the water height h(t) was extracted
from the video. The experiment was repeated
In this lab, we explored the flow characteristics
for 1/16, 1/8, 3/16, 1/2, and 1-inch diameter
of water in a U-tube. The purpose of this lab
tubing.
was to develop an understanding of laminar vs.
turbulent drag force characteristics in different
SIMULATION
sizes of tubing.
IMPLEMENTATION
Computational and analytical equations were
To computationally
derived and modeled. Those models were
model fluid flow in a U-tube, MATLAB was used
compared to experimental results to show the
to functionalize the derived differential
difference between laminar and turbulent flow
equations of laminar and turbulent flow.
in different sizes of tubing.
A second-order differential equation takes the
METHODS form of

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP Ax" + Bx' + Cx = q(t),

2
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews

and an array, ​y​ containing the heights in the

with initial conditions of
x(0) = h1 , x'(0)=0.
Since MATLAB’s ODE solvers can only take
first-order differential equations, the
second-order differential equation was reduced
to a system of first-order differential equations
using the vector y:
y = |x x′ |
The second-order ODE above was then
reorganized as a system of first-order ODEs:
first column and the velocities in the second
column.
In the case of turbulent flow, the drag term
(Bx’) is no longer linear so that term is raised to
a power, ​beta​:
- B/A*(y(2))^beta
Since the raised power in not a multiple of 2,
the term will produce imaginary components
when velocity is negative. This can be handled
by sending in the absolute value of velocity and
multiplying by the sign of velocity:

d sign(y(2))*B/A*abs(y(2))^beta
dt |x x′ | = |0 1 − C /A − B /A ||x x′ | + |0 q(t)/A |

A MATLAB function that calculates x and x’ for In the case of a constriction, a 4​th​ term is
single time steps was implemented as the introduced to model the pressure drop due to
following: the constriction:

function dy = secondODE(t,y) - D/A*(y(2))^2

A=?;
B=?;
Since the pressure drop acts against the flow
C=?;
dy = zeros(2,1); direction, taking the absolute value of one of
dy(1) = y(2); the velocity terms will factor in the
dy(2) = -C/A*y(1)- B/A*y(2) + directionality of the force:
q(t)/A;
- D/A*(y(2))*abs(y(2))
That function was saved in a separate file. The
execute file contained the initial conditions and All of the MATLAB code including the variables
time span, and functions for each condition is contained in
Appendix B.
y0 = [h1; 0];
tspan = [0 t​end​]; RESULTS
which were then passed into MATLAB’s ​ode45 EXPERIMENTAL DATA
function along with a call to the ​secondODE
function: Using the data collected from the experimental
trials, height versus time plots were graphed to
[t, y] = ode45(@secondODE, observe damping characteristics across tubing
tspan, y0); sizes.

The output of this function is a time vector, ​t One trial from each tubing size was graphed in

3
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews

MATLAB and categorized as under, over, or

critically damped. Figure 2 shows the height Table 1: Damping characteristics, Reynold's number
versus time plot for the experimental data of estimations and flow classifications for 5 tubing sizes
based on experimental data.
the 1/16” tube. No oscillations occurred to the
damping behavior was classified as
Diameter Damping Max R​e Laminar vs.
over-damped.
(inches) Turbulent

.0625 Over 100 Laminar

.125 Under 800 Laminar

.1875 Under 1500 Laminar

.5 Under 5000 Turbulent

1 Under 15000 Turbulent

The plots were then used to estimate the

Figure 2: Height versus time plot showing the experimental
data collected from the 1/16" U-tube.
Figure 3 shows the height versus time plot for
the experimental data of the 1” tube. Since the
water height oscillated around the equilibrium
height, the damping behavior was classified as
under-damped.
location of maximum velocity. The slope of the
position graphs corresponds to the velocity of
the fluid. Using the 2 points corresponding to
the steepest slope, a velocity value was
calculated. This value was plugged into the
Reynold’s number formula. The density of
water (1000 kg·m​-3​) was also plugged into the
formula along with an estimated viscosity of
8.9x10​-4 ​kg·s​-1​·m​-1​. The diameter of the tube was
converted from inches to meters and inserted
into the formula to calculate the maximum
Reynold’s numbers of each tubing size (Table 1,
Column 3). Those Reynold’s numbers were then
used to classify each flow is laminar or turbulent
(Table 1, Column 4).

SIMULATION RESULTS

Laminar Flow

A differential equation to describe laminar flow

Figure 3: Height versus time plot showing the experimental
data collected from the 1" U-tube.
The rest of the tubing sizes were also graphed
and categorized. Table 1, Column 2 shows the
characterizations for the 5 tubing sizes tested.
through a U-tube was derived using a force
balance method. The full derivation for the
linear second-order differential equation
describing laminar flow can be found in
Appendix A, Laminar Flow Derivations. This
equation was used in the MATLAB ODE solver
function described in the Method’s section.

4
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews
The derived ODE was then solved analytically
using the initial conditions of the experimental
set up. Derivation of the analytical solution can
be found in Appendix A, Laminar Flow
Derivations.
The computational and analytical models of
laminar flow were then plotted in MATLAB and
compared to an experimental laminar flow
condition. Figure 4 shows a height versus time
comparison between the computational,
analytical and experimental models of flow
through the 1/16” U-tube.
Figure 4: Height versus time comparison of the
experimental model (red), analytical model (blue) and
computational model (yellow) of laminar flow through a
1/16" U-tube.
Turbulent Flow
The relationship between the Fanning Friction
Factor and Reynold’s number was derived using
points extracted from a Moody diagram. The
derivation of this relationship can be found in
Appendix A, Turbulent Flow Derivations.
This relationship was in the force balance
method to derive a differential equation
describing turbulent flow in a U-tube. The full
derivation for the non-linear second-order
differential equation can be found in Appendix
A, Turbulent Flow Derivations.
The computational model of turbulent flow was
plotted in MATLAB and compared to the
laminar flow model and an experimental
turbulent flow condition. Figure 5 shows a
height versus time comparison between the
computational models of turbulent and laminar
to the experimental model of flow through the
1” U-tube.
Figure 5: Height versus time comparison of the
experimental model (red), computational model of
turbulent flow (blue) and computational model of laminar
flow (yellow) of flow through a 1" U-tube.
Constricted Flow
An equation describing the drag force caused by
a constriction in the bottom of the U-tube was
derived using the Venturi tube pressure drop
model. A full derivation of the constrictive drag
force can be found in Appendix A, Constricted
Flow Derivations.
This drag force term was added to the
differential equations describing laminar and
turbulent flow. The logic behind this addition
can be found in Appendix A, Constricted Flow
Derivations.
The differential equations describing laminar
and turbulent flow through a constricted U-tube
were plotted in MATLAB. Figure 6 shows the
height versus time plot for turbulent and
laminar flow simulations through a 1/16”
U-tube with a 1/32” constriction (the
5
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews
constriction has half the diameter of the main
tube).
Figure 6: Height versus time comparison of a laminar flow
model (yellow) to a turbulent flow model (blue) of flow
through a 1/16" U-tube with a 1/32” constriction.
Figure 7 shows the height versus time plot for
turbulent and laminar flow simulations through
a 1” U-tube with a 1/2” constriction and Figure
8 shows the height versus time plot for
turbulent and laminar flow simulations through
a 1” U-tube with a 7/8” constriction.
Figure 7: Height versus time comparison of a laminar flow
model (yellow) to a turbulent flow model (blue) of flow
through a 1" U-tube with a 1/2” constriction.
Figure 8: Height versus time comparison of a laminar flow
model (yellow) to a turbulent flow model (blue) of flow
through a 1" U-tube with a 1/2” constriction.
DISCUSSION
TRENDS ACROSS TUBING SIZES
Damping Trends
Trends relating to the damping characteristics
and flow classification develop as tubing size is
increased. As the diameter of the tube
increases, the damping factor decreases. As
shown in Figure 2, at a small diameter (1/16”),
the fluid flow is over-damped causing no
oscillations across the equilibrium height to
occur. As the tubing size is increased, the
damping factor decreases and the flow
becomes increasingly under-damped. As
observed in Figure 3, fluid in a large diameter
(1”) tube oscillates multiple times before
reaching equilibrium.​1
The specific trend observed can be explained by
the relationship between the radius of the tube
and damping force. For simplicity, if we look at
the laminar flow ODE model (Appendix A,
Laminar Flow Derivations), we see that the
damping force is inversely proportionate to the
square of the radius. That means that as the
radius increases, the damping force decreases
by an exponential factor of 2. While the
6
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews
turbulent flow model is more complicated to
quantify, we see a similar inverse relationship
between tube radius and damping force.
Reynold’s Number Trends
We also observe a trend between the tube
diameter and Reynold’s number. As shown in
Table 1, as tube diameter increases, so does the
Reynold’s number. The specific relationship
between tube diameter and Reynold’s number
depends on whether the Reynold’s number is
within the laminar or turbulent flow range. In
the laminar range, the Reynold’s number
increases linearly with the tube radius. This can
be explained by the direct proportionality of
tube diameter to Reynold’s number in the
Reynold’s number formula and the fact that the
laminar flow model is linear with respect to
velocity.
In the turbulent range however, the Reynold’s
number increases non-linearly with tube radius.
This can be explained by the non-linear
behavior of velocity to tube radius in the
turbulent flow model.
3 TYPES OF MODELS FOR LAMINAR FLOW
In an attempt to model laminar flow,
experimental data was collected in conjunction
with both computational and analytical
simulations of flow. Figure 4 shows the height
versus time comparison between the
computational, analytical and experimental
models of flow through the 1/16” U-tube. The
analytical and computational models produce
nearly identical results. The small error between
the two simulation curves is resultant of the
fact that they were ploted using different time
steps. The fact that the computational and
analytical models are nearly identical is due to
the fact that they represent two ways of solving
the same differential equation. In comparison
to the actual experimental results, the
simulation models follow the same general
trend but show a higher degree of damping
than the experimental data. Sources of this
error will be discussed in the Approximations
and Simplifications secton.
EFFECT OF TURBULENCE ON DAMPING
As discussed in the Damping Trends section, the
turbulent flow model produces a different
damping relationship than the laminar model.
This difference can be observed in Figure 5
which shows a height versus time comparison
between the computational models of
turbulent and laminar flow to the experimental
model of flow through the 1” U-tube. As shown
in the figure, the turbulent model is more
damped than the laminar model. Since a 1”
tube would be expected to have turbulent flow,
the experimental results show that the
turbulent model is indeed more accurate than
the laminar model.
The difference in damping between turbulent
flow and laminar flow can be explained by the
non-linear damping term in the turbulent flow
ODE model. The non-linearity results from the
relationship between the Fanning friction factor
and Reynold’s number (derivation in Appendix
A, Turbulent Flow Derivations). The turbulent
drag force term is derived from the Darcy flow
equation
dP
dL = f ( 2ρ 2
D )v ,
where ​f​ is the Fanning friction factor equation.
After taking the derivative and multiplying by
the cross sectional area (derivation in Appendix
A, Turbulent Flow Derivations) the drag force
term becomes
F = 0.025πLρ0.8 µ0.2 D0.8 v 1.8 .
Since water is a Newtonian, incompressible
fluid, desity (ρ) and viscosity (µ) are constant.
Therefore, it can be observed that both
Reynold’s number and the drag force are
exclusively dependant on diameter (​D​) and
7
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews
velocity (​v​) and are both increased by increasing
diameter and velocity. That means that at high
Reynold’s numbers, the diameter and velocity
of the fluid will be greater, therefore increasing
the damping force as shown in the turbulent
model of flow.
DAMPING EFFECTS IN CONSTRICTED U-TUBE
Small Diameter Tube
The damping effects observed in a small
diameter constricted U-tube contradict the
aforementioned effect that turbulence
increases damping. As observed in Figure 6, the
turbulent model is actually less damped than
the laminar model for a small diameter
constricted U-tube.
A general explanation for why this is the case is
that in a 1/16” diameter tube, we would expect
laminar flow, therefore, the turbulent model is
already an inaccurate representation of the
flow.
The actual damping effect can be explained by
the quantitative behavior of the turbulent flow
model. In the damping term of the turbulent
flow ODE, velocity is raised to the power of 1.8.
Under laminar flow conditions (such as those in
the 1/16” tube), we would expect low
velocities, specifically velocities under one
meter per second. When a value less than one
is raised to a value greater than one, the
resulting value is less than the original value.
Therefore, at velocities lower than one meter
per second, the turbulent model will actually
show a decreased drag force.
Large Diameter Tube
The damping effects observed in a large
diameter tube initially also appear to contradict
the effect that turbulence increases damping.
As observed in figure 7, the turbulent and
laminar flow models appear to have equal
magnitudes of damping.
This effect can be explained by taking into
consideration the relative magnitudes of
damping due to viscous/frictional effects
compared to pressure loss from the tube
constriction. Even at first observation, it can be
seen that the damping force due to the
constriction is proportionate to the square of
the velocity. Therefore, the damping term
resulting from the constriction will have a
greater effect on the overall damping than the
open flow laminar or turbulent damping terms.
In addition, as the size of the constriction
decreases relative to the size of the tube, the
constrictive damping force is multiplied by an
exponentially increasing number. This effect can
be shown by the derivation of the constrictive
damping force (full derivation in Appendix A,
Constricted Flow Derivations). The resulting
drag force equation is
2 2
A
F = (( AT ) − 1)ρv ,
O
where A​T​ is the cross sectional area of the tube
and A​O ​is the cross sectional area of the orifice.
If the orifice is a factor of ​x​ smaller than the
tube, the ratio between the areas becomes
AT π(xRO )2
AO = ,
π(RO )2
which simplifies to
AT 2
=x .
AO
Therefore, the multiplication factor in the drag
force equation is
x4 − 1
Quantitatively, this means that as the size of the
constriction decreases, the constrictive drag
force increases the size of the decrease to the
power of four (minus 1). So, when the
constriction is half the diameter of the tube, the
constrictive drag force is multiplied by 15 so the
magnitude of its overall effect on total drag is
so much greater than the drag due to viscous or
8
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews
frictional effects that those effects aren’t
visualized on the graph.
In order to visualize the effect of both the
constrictive drag and the difference between
turbulent and laminar flow, the size of the
constriction can be increased (decreasing the
constrictive drag). ​Figure 8 shows the height
versus time plot for turbulent and laminar flow
simulations through a 1” U-tube with a 7/8”
constriction. With a 7/8” constriction, the
multiplication factor on the constrictive drag
force is only 0.7 therefore the effect can be
visualized without overpowering the turbulent
vs laminar drag effects. As can be seen in Figure
8, the overall damping is greater than in Figure
5 (no constriction) due to the constrictive drag
force, but the difference between turbulent and
laminar flow can still be observed.
APPROXIMATIONS AND SIMPLIFICATIONS
Simplification to 2 External Forces
For all of the derivations, we took into account
acceleration by gravity and drag by
visous/friction effects and constrictive pressure
drop. While those are the major factors
affecting drag, other factors include
hydrophobic/hydrophylic interactions with
tubing, surface tension effects, tube roughness,
imperfect curvature of tubing, loss due to
angular velocty component in bend, etc. The
effect of these neglections can be visualized in
figure 4 by the difference between the
experimental and simulated results. The
magnitude of error by these neglections would
be different in every tubing case with the
greatest error percentage likely being in the
smaller diameter tubing.
Fanning Friction Factor Approximations
In the derivation of the Fanning friction factor
vs Reynold’s number formula, two major
approximations were made. First, we
approximated a tube roughness of zero when
extracting points from the Moody diagram.
Since we were interested in Reynolds numbers
on the order of magnitude of 10​3​ to 10​4​ The
approximation of a smooth tube probably had a
small overall effect because the slopes through
the Reynold’s numbers in our range of interest
are roughly the same.
The second approximation resulted from the
linearization of the Moody diagram. This
approximation also probably had minimal effect
on our calculations because the Moody diagram
is very close to linear in the Reynold’s number
range that we were interested in.
The total effect of the Fanning friction factor
approximations and simplification to 2 external
forces can be visualized in Figure 5 by the
difference between the experimental and
turbulent flow model.
Approximation of K-value
In the derivation of the drag force due to the
constriction, we estimated a K value of 2. Since
the K value depends on the geometry of the
orrifice, and we were doing a theoretical
simulation, technically our result has no error
do to the K value we chose as long as we agree
with the geometry that K value respresents. The
range of K values goes from 1.01 (for a smooth
Venturi contraction) to as high as 2.7 (for a
sharp orrifice), so the greatest possible effect of
K value choice would be a multiplication in the
drage force by a factor of 2.67.
ACCOUNTING FOR SIGN ERRORS IN MATLAB
In the case of the turbulent and constrictive
differential equations, the drag force term is
non-linear. Two problems arise when handeling
non-linear terms in MATLAB.
Creation of Imaginary Components
The first problem results from having a
non-integer exponent. When a negative
number is raised to a non-integer exponent,
9
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews

imaginary solutions are produce. This is the case

in the turbulent flow model where velocity is
raised to the 1.8. Whenever the velocity value is
negative, the drag force term will develop
imaginary components. This problem can be
handled by taking the absolute value of the
velocity before raising it to the non-integer
value.

Loss of Directionality

The second problem arises from both taking the

absolute value of velocity and from having an
even valued exponent. Drag forces always act in
the opposite direction to velocity, but when the
absolute value of velocity is taken (as is the case
to the solution of the first problem) or the
velocity value is raised to an even power (as is
the case in the constricted flow drag term) the
sign of velocity gets lost. This problem can be
handled by multiplying the drag term by the
orriginal sign of velocity. MATLAB’s function
sign()​will extract the sign of the value being
passed into it. So by multiplying the drag term
by ​sign(y(2))​the orriginal sign of the
velocity value will be regained and the
directionality of the drag force will be restored.

10
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews

APPENDIX A: DERIVATIONS

LAMINAR FLOW DERIVATIONS

Derivation of Laminar Flow Differential

Equation

TURBULENT FLOW DERIVATIONS

Derivation of Fanning Friction Factor vs

Analytical Solution to Laminar Flow Reynold’s Number Formula
Differential Equation

Derivation of Turbulent Flow Differential

Equation

11
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews

CONSTRICTED FLOW DERIVATIONS

Derivation of Drag Force Due to Constriction

Derivation of Constricted Laminar and
Turbulent Flow Differential Equations

12
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews

APPENDIX B: MATLAB mu = 8.9*10^(-4);

rho = 1000;
LAMINAR FLOW SIMULATION
r = .001588/2;
ODE Solver Function
L = .3;
function dy = secondODE(t,y)
% function to be integrated g = 9.81;

u = 8.9*10^(-4); h0 = .0324979;
p = 1000;
h= @(t)
r = .001588/2;
exp(((-4*mu)/(rho*r^2))*t)*(h0*cos(t
L = .3;
g = 9.81; *sqrt((2*g/L)-(16*mu^2)/((rho^2)*(r^
4))))+((4*mu*h0)/((rho*r^2)*sqrt((2*
A=p*pi*r^2*L; g/L)-(16*mu^2)/((rho^2)*(r^4)))))*si
B=8*u*L*pi; n(t*sqrt((2*g/L)-(16*mu^2)/((rho^2)*
C=2*p*g*pi*r^2; (r^4)))));

dy = zeros(2,1); y_anal = zeros(1,13);

dy(1) = y(2);
for i = 1 : 13
dy(2) = -C/A*y(1)- B/A*y(2);
y_anal(i) = h(t(i));
end
end
Execute
plot(t,y_ex,'r',t,y_anal,'b',t_comp,
%computational y_comp,'y','linewidth', 2)

y0 = [.0324979; 0]; legend('Experimental','Analytical','

Computational')
tspan = [0 1.188];
title('3 Models of Flow Through a
[t_comp, y] = ode45(@secondODE, 1/16" U-Tube')
tspan, y0);
xlabel('Time from Release (s)')
y_comp = y(1:end,1);
ylabel('Fluid Height in One Arm of
%experimental U-Tube (m)')
t = [0 0.099 0.198 0.297 0.396 set(gcf,'color','white')
0.495...
TURBULENT FLOW SIMULATION
0.594 0.693 0.792 0.891 0.99
1.089 1.188]; Turbulent ODE Solver Function
y_ex = .01.*[3.249792196 3.229922177 function dy = secondODEturb(t,y)
3.209148975 2.908389141 % function to be integrated
2.230500359...
u = 8.9*10^(-4);
1.626271143 1.137247895 p = 1000;
0.8349827567 0.580686654 r = .0254/2;
0.​4459117266​... L = 2;
g = 9.81;
0.3588047743 0.2710957002
beta = 1.8;
0.231355662];

%analytical A=p*pi*r^2*L;
B=.1*pi*u^(.2)*p^(.8)*(2*r)^(.8)*L/4

13
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews

; 2.23 2.30 2.53 2.63 2.80 2.87

C=2*p*g*pi*r^2; 3.03 3.33 3.47 3.73...
3.90 4.20 4.50 4.77 5.00 5.26
dy = zeros(2,1); 5.53 6.00 6.16 6.43...
dy(1) = y(2); 6.73 7.03 7.20 7.33 7.76 8.16
dy(2) = -C/A*y(1)- 8.40 8.96 9.26 9.43...
sign(y(2))*B/A*abs(y(2))^beta; 9.56 10.03 10.33 10.46 10.66
10.90 11.16 11.60 11.80 12.13...
end 12.20 12.60 12.90 13.36 13.76
14.03 14.46 14.83 15.09 15.56...
Laminar ODE Solver Function 15.99 16.33 16.69 16.96 17.29
17.76 18.23 18.59 18.89 19.06...
function dy = secondODELam(t,y) 19.56 19.93 20.33 21.19 21.79
22.16 22.46 22.83];
% function to be integrated
y_exp = .01.*[70.5 63.5 57 51 44 40
u = 8.9*10^(-4); 36.5 42 58 60 64 63.5 60.0...
p = 1000; 57 52 49 45 40 40.5 45 49 57
r = .0254/2; 60.5 57 52 45 43 48 51 57 58.5...
L = 2; 55 51.5 49 44.5 48 51.5 56.5 54
g = 9.81; 51 49 46 48 49.5 52 54.5...
55.5 52 49.5 47 47 49 52 54.5 52
A=p*pi*r^2*L; 49.5 48 49.5 51.5 53.2...
B=8*u*L*pi; 51.5 49.5 48.5 49.5 51 52.5 51
C=2*p*g*pi*r^2; 49.5 49 49.5 51 52 51 49.7...
51 51.5 51 50];
dy = zeros(2,1);
dy(1) = y(2); y_mid = .51.*ones(1,78);
dy(2) = -C/A*y(1)- B/A*y(2);
y_ex = y_exp - y_mid;
end
plot(t,y_ex,'r',t_compTurb,y_compTur
Execute b,'b',t_compLam,y_compLam,'y','linew
idth',1.5)
%computational turbulent legend('Experimental','Computational
y0 = [.705-.51; 0]; Turbulent','Computational Laminar')
tspan = [0 22.83]; title('3 Models of Flow Through a 1"
U-Tube')
[t_compTurb, yTurb] = xlabel('Time from Release (s)')
ode45(@secondODEturb, tspan, y0); ylabel('Fluid Height in One Arm of
U-Tube (m)')
y_compTurb = yTurb(1:end,1); set(gcf,'color','white')

CONSTRICTED FLOW SIMULATION: SMALL

%computational laminar TUBE
y0 = [.705-.51; 0];
tspan = [0 22.83]; Turbulent ODE Solver Function
function dy =
[t_compLam, yLam] =
secondODEconstTurbSmall(t,y)
ode45(@secondODElam, tspan, y0);
% function to be integrated
y_compLam = yLam(1:end,1);
u = 8.9*10^(-4);
p = 1000;
%experimental
r = .001588/2;
t = [0.00 0.33 0.50 0.60 0.77 0.87
L = .3;
1.20 1.47 1.90 2.00...
g = 9.81;

14
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews

tspan, y0);
A=p*pi*r^2*L;
B=.1*pi*u^(.2)*p^(.8)*(2*r)^(.8)*L/4 y_compLam = yLam(1:end,1);
;
C=2*p*g*pi*r^2; plot(t_compTurb,y_compTurb,'b',t_com
D=15*pi*r^2*p; pLam,y_compLam,'y','linewidth',1.5)
legend('Constricted
dy = zeros(2,1); Turbulent','Constricted Laminar')
dy(1) = y(2); title('2 Models of Flow Through a
dy(2) = -C/A*y(1)- 1/16" U-Tube With 1/32"
sign(y(2))*B/A*abs(y(2))^1.8 - Constriction')
D/A*abs(y(2))*y(2); xlabel('Time from Release (s)')
ylabel('Fluid Height in One Arm of
end U-Tube (m)')
set(gcf,'color','white')
Laminar ODE Solver Function
CONSTRICTED FLOW SIMULATION: LARGE
function dy = TUBE
secondODEconstLamSmall(t,y)
% function to be integrated Turbulent ODE Solver Function
u = 8.9*10^(-4); function dy =
p = 1000; secondODEconstTurbLarge(t,y)
r = .001588/2; % function to be integrated
L = .3;
g = 9.81; u = 8.9*10^(-4);
p = 1000;
A=p*pi*r^2*L; r = .0254/2;
B=8*u*L*pi; L = 2;
C=2*p*g*pi*r^2; g = 9.81;
D=15*pi*r^2*p;
A=p*pi*r^2*L;
dy = zeros(2,1); B=.1*pi*u^(.2)*p^(.8)*(2*r)^(.8)*L/4
dy(1) = y(2); ;
dy(2) = -C/A*y(1)- B/A*y(2)- C=2*p*g*pi*r^2;
D/A*abs(y(2))*y(2); D=15*pi*r^2*p;

end dy = zeros(2,1);
dy(1) = y(2);
Execute dy(2) = -C/A*y(1)-
sign(y(2))*B/A*abs(y(2))^1.8 -
%computational turbulent large D/A*abs(y(2))*y(2);
y0 = [.0324979; 0];
tspan = [0 1.88]; Laminar ODE Solver Function
[t_compTurb, yTurb] = function dy =
ode45(@secondODEconstTurbSmall, secondODEconstLamLarge(t,y)
tspan, y0); % function to be integrated

y_compTurb = yTurb(1:end,1); u = 8.9*10^(-4);

p = 1000;
%computational laminar large r = .0254/2;
y0 = [.0324979; 0]; L = 2;
tspan = [0 1.88]; g = 9.81;

[t_compLam, yLam] = A=p*pi*r^2*L;

ode45(@secondODEconstLamSmall, B=8*u*L*pi;

15
Flow Oscillation Simulation Andrews

C=2*p*g*pi*r^2;
D=15*pi*r^2*p;

dy = zeros(2,1);
dy(1) = y(2);
dy(2) = -C/A*y(1)- B/A*y(2) -
D/A*abs(y(2))*y(2);

Execute
%computational turbulent large
y0 = [.705-.51; 0];
tspan = [0 22.83];

[t_compTurb, yTurb] =
ode45(@secondODEconstTurbLarge,
tspan, y0);

y_compTurb = yTurb(1:end,1);

%computational laminar large

y0 = [.705-.51; 0];
tspan = [0 22.83];

[t_compLam, yLam] =
ode45(@secondODEconstLamLarge,
tspan, y0);

y_compLam = yLam(1:end,1);

plot(t_compTurb,y_compTurb,'b',t_com
pLam,y_compLam,'y','linewidth',1.5)
legend('Constricted
Turbulent','Constricted Laminar')
title('2 Models of Flow Through a 1"
U-Tube With 1/2" Constriction')
xlabel('Time from Release (s)')
ylabel('Fluid Height in One Arm of
U-Tube (m)')
set(gcf,'color','white')

16