00 vote positif00 vote négatif

2 vues6 pagesStudy of the Syphoning effect

Aug 28, 2019

The Siphon

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

Study of the Syphoning effect

© All Rights Reserved

2 vues

00 vote positif00 vote négatif

The Siphon

Study of the Syphoning effect

© All Rights Reserved

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Related content

- Tensile failure of liquids under dynamic

The siphon stressing

D C F Couzens and D H Trevena

To cite this article: A Potter and F H Barnes 1971 Phys. Educ. 6 362 - Critical tensions in a liquid-metal system

under dynamic conditions

E P Rees and D H Trevena

Boltzmann method study of the

View the article online for updates and enhancements. electroviscous effect for liquid flow

G H Tang, Zhuo Li, Y L He et al.

Recent citations

- An improved siphon drainage method for

slope stabilization

Hong-yue Sun et al

draining process in drainback solar

thermal systems

P. Carbajo Jiménez et al

of air in gravity-fed water pipelines

Yujian Fang et al

The siphon Referring to figure 1, p s equals pa, where p,, is the

pressure of the surrounding atmosphere and p B is the

pressure at point B in the liquid. Since B and E lie on

the same horizontal level (strictly, on the same gravi-

tational equipotential), p e equals p E . The pressure pF

+

of the liquid at F equals p E pgh and therefore also

+

equals pa pgh where p is the density of the liquid.

Thus p Fis greater than the external pressure, and the

liquid flows out of the tube. In order to prevent a

vacuum forming in the tube moreliquid, pushed in by

the atmospheric pressure, enters at A. Another com-

mon account begins by saying that p e equals po and

A Potter and F H Barnes p F equal pa. Then, by consideration of heights of

Department of Natural Philosophy liquid, itis argued that the pressure at C must be

The University greater thanthe pressure at D, and this pressure

Edinburgh difference causes the liquid to flow. This account is

incorrect. If the liquid is stationary p c must always

equalp,. If the liquid flows and we apply the principles

The siphonhas been known since early times as a of fluid dynamics, we still find that the pressures at

simple and effectivedevice for transferring liquid points on the same horizontal level are equal if the

from a higher to a lower level and is still widely used, pipe is of uniform bore and we neglect viscous losses.

Despite this, considerable confusion exists as to how The first account given above is correct when no

the siphon worksand asurveyof elementary textbooks flow occurs but its limitations as a theory for a work-

(here ‘elementary’ refers to GCE 0 and A level ing siphon are obvious since it describes a staticcondi-

standard) yields a number of conflicting accounts. tion. The siphon is essentially a device involving fluid

Many are in terms of hydrostatic principles which flow and it is desirable that our theory should allow

cannot apply and, in addition, atmospheric pressure us to make some quantitative predictions such as, for

is postulated as an essential agency in most accounts, example, the dependence of the rate of flow of liquid

including those given by thestandard dictionaries, on the height h.

Few books point out that it is the cohesion of the

liquid rather than the pressure of an external atmos- Dynamic theory

phere which is crucial to the working of a siphon. The discussion below considers the flow of fluids in

Some American college texts discuss the siphon and

give a correct theory although generally in terms of

non-viscous fluids. It is unusual for more advanced

texts to discuss the siphon, for it is only a particular

case of the general problem of pipe flow which has

been the subject of thorough investigation. We have - ’ E

1

written this article because we are concerned that

misleading interpretations of the siphon are still

current even though much is known about thephysics

of pipe flow and theproperties of liquids. h

We begin with a survey of the ‘hydrostatic’ theories,

following this with the dynamic theory for an ‘ideal’

nonviscous liquid. We modify our ‘ideal’ theory to

l

F 1

take account of the viscous nature of liquids and then

give some experimental results. Finally we attempt to

analyse the factors underlying the working of the

siphon and suggest a possible theory.

Hydrostatic theories

A typical account of the siphon given in elementary

text books might read as follows. Figure 1 Diagram of a siphon.

362

tubes. Provided there are no leaks the mass of fluid situation are less than those in the static situation by

crossing each section of a tube per unit time must be anamount +p@; in particular, forthe static case,

the same. Conservation of mass is expressed by the there is a pressure head of pgh acting while for the

equation of continuity dynamic case the effective pressure head is pgh - +pv2.

p AV = constant (1)

where A is the areaof a cross section of the tube and p (ii) For a real liquid

and z’ are the values of the density and the velocity of When we consider the flow of a real fluid we im-

the fluid flowing normal to the cross section. For an mediately find complications because there are two

incompressible fluid p is constant and the equation of major types of flow possible: a smooth laminar flow

continuity reduces to and a turbulent one. Osborne Reynolds distinguished

AV = constant. (2) between these two types of flow in his experiments on

the flow of water through pipes and he established a

(i) For an ideal fluid criterion, the non-dimensional Reynolds Number, in

Because all real fluids exhibit viscosity there is an terms of which the flow might be described.

inevitable dissipation of energy in fluid flow but let us Below a certain critical Reynolds Number of about

for a moment consider an ‘ideal’ non-viscous and in- 2000, the flow in the pipe remained laminar along its

compressible fluid. We assume that its flow through a whole length. Above that number there was a transi-

tube is steady and irrotational (which excludes the tion to turbulent flow at some point along the pipe.

possibility of a vortical motion) and that there is no The Reynolds Number is given by

possibility of heat exchange between the fluid and its

surroundings.Then the energy of the fluid flowing

along the tube will be conserved. This is expressed where z’ and d a r e respectively a velocity and a length

mathematically by the Bernoulli equation representative of the flow, is the coefficient ofvis-

+ +

p Bpv2 pgh = constant. (3) cosity and p is the density of the fluid. For the case of

The parameters are again average values for the pipe flow 2: is taken as the volume rate of flow divided

cross section, p representing the pressure in the fluid by the cross sectional area of the pipe, and d is the

and h the elevation of the tube relative to some fixed diameter of the pipe.

level. The working siphon is an example of flow in a U

Suppose that liquid is siphoned from avessel with a shapedpipe and fora given liquid and pipe there is the

cross sectional area which is large compared with that possibility of either laminar or turbulent flow depend-

of the siphon tube. Then the downward velocity of ing on thevelocity. In both cases energy will be lost by

the surface of the liquid in the vesseliseffectively the liquid because of its viscosity and the Bernoulli

zero (by equation (2)). If the siphon tube isof uni- equation, which is a statement of the conservation of

form bore, (again by equation (2)), the velocity of energy of a non-viscous liquid, cannot be applied. If

flow z’ will be the same throughout the tube. We can we wish to calculate the average velocity of a viscous

apply equation (3) anywhere inside the vessel-siphon liquid in a siphon and yet maintain the form of the

system. Thus Bernoulli equation, we may do so by introducing aloss

Po = P B + 8 P C 2 of head h, which corresponds to the energy losses

where the left hand side of the equationhas been suffered by the liquid. The average velocity instead of

evaluated at thesurface of the liquid in the vessel and being given by

the right hand side has been evaluated at B. v? = 2gh

+

PB *

Energy conservation between B and F implies that

PV* = p p+ * P E * - pgh.

At F the tube is open to theexternal pressure so that

is now given by

V 2 = 2g ( h - h, ).

The loss of head in larninarflow is due solely to skin

(6)

Combining these three equationswe have losses associated with the pipe ‘fittings’. In this case

z’* = 2gh (4) the ‘fittings’are the entranceand bends.

that is the fluid emerges from the siphon with just the For both types of flow, the loss of head due to skin

velocity it would acquire by falling through a height h. friction is given by Darcy’s equation

It is of interest to note that the pressures at points

inside the tube are all less than the external pressure,

with the exception of the pressure at F,which is equal where f is a dimensionless friction factor and I the

to theexternal pressure. The pressures in the dynamic length of pipe. The friction factor is a function of the

363

Reynolds Number and, in the case of turbulent flow, suggests it is a slowly varying function of Reynolds

also dependson theroughness of the inside of the pipe. number. However, for this latter case no consistent

(a) Laminar flow. The average velocity for laminar experimental results have been found for the value of

flow in a pipe of circular cross section is given by the the inlet length, but it would appear reasonable to

Poiseuille equation, here expressed in the form take itas 50d.

d2 A value for A taking into account the entrance

v = - x (pressure gradient along the pipe)

327 length in laminarflow, has been calculated by Atkinson

and Goldstein (see Goldstein Vol 1, 1938) and is given

by

After multiplying through by and somerearrange- 64 d

ment we may write

V

+

f = 2 1.41 -

I‘

A description of a different approach to the prob-

lem of corrections to the Poiseuille equation is given

Because the losses in laminar flow are solely due to by Newman and Searle (1957).

skin friction, h, = hJ. Hence, using equations (6) and

(71, Experimental results

flv2 In our experiments we used siphon tubes of diameters

v 2 = 2gh - -

d ranging from approximately 0.15 cm up to2.0 cm and

giving we were able to obtain both laminar and turbulent

flow. The basic technique was to siphon water out of

a vessel of large cross sectional area compared with

By comparison of equations (8) and (9) we see that that of the siphon tube. The rate of flow of water

f=z.

64 through the siphon for a given head h was found by

collecting water in a calibrated vessel for a known

(b) Turbulent flow. We shall consider only smooth period of time. The head h was varied by raising or

pipes in which the friction factor is sufficiently accu- lowering the siphon tube.

rately given by Blasius’ empirical equation (valid for Narrowsiphontubes, of diameter 0.173 cm and

3000 < R < lo6) 0.312 cm, were made from glass tubing bent through

f = 0.3164 R-*. (1 1) two right angles to form U tubes with equal arms of

The additional loss in head due to the pipe fittings, lengths of approximately 50 cm. Water was siphoned

which occurs only for turbulent flow, has been found from a plastic bin of diameter 40 cm and was collected

to vary approximately as v2/2g. The net loss of head in standard measuring cylinders.

caused by fittings is given by The wider siphons, of approximate diameters 1.4cm

and 2.0 cm, were made from straight lengths of copper

hF=(kl+kZ+kn+ ...)-V2g2 (12) tubingjoined by standard ‘Yorkshire’ right-angle

where k , is the loss coefficient of an individual fitting. fittings. The siphonshadequalarms of lengths of

Empirical values of k , can be found in tables. approximately 90 cm. A large roof storage tank

For turbulent flow, therefore, the total loss of head (approximate areal dimensions 2 m by 14 m) acted as a

is given by reservoir and we measured the amount of water

+

h, = h, h,. (13) collected in a calibrated plastic bin.

(c) Inlet length. The formulae for head losses due to All distances were measured with a metre rule

friction given in the two previous sections are valid except for the tube diameters which were measured

only for fully developed laminar or turbulent flow. with a travelling microscope.

Close to theentrance the presence of the pipe walls has The results for the friction factor for flow through

a negligible effect on the central core of the fluid but, the twoglass tubes are shown in figure 2 together

further down the pipe the walls affect the viscosity more with the relevant theoretical curves. It may be seen

and more of the fluid until eventually the final fully that our experimental values are consistently higher

developed flow is achieved. than theory would indicate. For R<2000 incon-

The inlet length is defined asthe length beyond sistencies in the tube bore, for example narrowing at

which the flow has become fully developed. For the bends, is a possible explanation for thisdivergence

laminar flow it is, according to Langhaar, 0.057 Rd and for R > 2000 it is likely that our flowwas no

(see Massey 1968). For turbulent flow the inlet length longer laminar.

depends on the conditions at the entrance and theory In thecopper tubes Reynolds numbers ranging from

364

1 x lo4to 3 x lo4were obtained. The expected losses working of a siphon depends on an external pressure

arising from turbulent flow through the siphon were appear to be two popular misconceptions.

obtained asfollows. Trevena (1967) has written “It is not generally ap-

By substituting equations (7) and (12) into (13) we preciated that liquids can, under appropriate condi-

obtain tions, sustain very considerable tensions”. This state

ment shouldnot surprise us unduly, for we accept that

the cohesive forces between molecules account for the

Therefore, by equation (6) existence of, for example, the liquid phase and the

surface properties of liquids. Since the liquid in a

siphon can withstand tension, the barometric height

giving should not place a limit on the ‘uptake height’ (ie the

height BC) for which a siphonwill work. Nokes (1948),

@

V2 = l + f $ + > , .

for example, has reported the successful operation of

In ourcase 2 kn = 2.2 (k for each bend being taken as a mercury siphon with an uptake height of 80to 84 cm

0.6, k for the entry as 1.0). f was calculated using in air at atmospheric pressure and Ashhurst (1966)

equation (1 1). states that such a siphon has been made to work with

The experimental values of 2gh/02 were lower than an uptake of 150cm.

expected, by 20% for the narrower tube and by 10% Several questions immediately come to mind. Is there

for the wider tube. Since the entry lengths occupy a a limit on the uptake height ? Why is it a useful rule of

considerable proportion of the totallength of the tube thumb not to attempt to operate a siphon with an

and the point in the tube at which the flow becomes uptake height of the order of or exceeding the baro-

turbulent is uncertain, these results are perhaps not metric height?Doesthe pressure of the external

surprising. atmosphere play anypart in the working of the

siphon ?

Conditions for a working siphon The amount of tension that a liquid flowing in a

That a liquid cannot sustain a tension and that the pipe can sustain, without forming cavities that will

grow and disrupt the flow depends on a number of

factors. Temperley and Chambers (1946) for example

found that tap water flowing through a constriction

cavitated at a critical tension of 0.05 atm. However,

the critical tension increased to 0.22 atm if the tap

water had already been passed through the apparatus

once and further increased to 0.27 atm if the water

had passed through the apparatus three times. Batche-

lor (1967) gives a possible explanation of how cavita-

tion occurs in situations similar to those of the above

experiment. He assumes that there are tiny air bub-

bles present in the water which grow continuously

when the pressure falls sufficiently belowthe saturated

vapour pressure of water. If water has been boiled or

subjected to a large positive pressure, which presum-

ably removes all the air bubbles although leaving the

water saturated with air, it can withstand considerable

tensions, certainly above 20 atm. Temperley has cal-

culated that water should have a critical tension of

10-21 l I I I I , I l l 1 I I ,

500 atm andthis value is reduced by less than 0.5 % if

10‘ 2 3 4 5 6 B IO3 2 3 4 5 the water is assumed saturated with (dissolved) air at

R a pressure of 1 atm (see Trevena 1967). A wide range

Figure 2 Comparison of measured values of the of experimental values for thecritical tension of water

friction factorf and two theoreticalestimates: broken have been reported (see Trevena 1967) but Briggs

curve, Poiseuille’s law f = 64IR; andfull curve, (1950) has obtained a value as high as 277 atm forboil-

Atkinson and Goldrtein equation (equation (14)) ed water in a capillary tube open to the atmosphere.

+

f = 641R 1.41 d l l . It is interesting to note thatTrevena (1967) points out

365

that these experimental values for the critical tension column rendering it less liable to breakage. It is a

are a measure of the ‘weakest link’ in the liquid con- helpful analogy to imagine the liquid in the vessel and

tainer system, so that they depend on thematerial and the siphon being replaced by a chain.

nature of the walls of the container. It is clear then that An explanation in terms of fluid dynamics would

liquids can support very considerable tensile stresses. run thus. Imagine a vessel with liquid in it and a

In practice, of course, we may expect that the liquids siphon tube, filled with liquid, with one end immersed

being siphoned will contain dissolved air, foreign in the liquid in the vessel and the other end at F

matter and tiny air bubbles and in these circumstances blocked (see figure 1). When the obstruction at F is

it is a useful rule to assume that the critical pressure removed, the pressure at F is momentarily greater than

is equal to thevapour pressure of the liquid. the external pressure by an amount pgh. Liquid flows

The effect of an external pressure is to compress the out of the tube with increasing velocity until pF be-

liquid column. For a viscous liquid moving through comes equal to p,,. Suppose the liquid is then flowing

the siphon, the pressure at D on thediagram is through the tube with velocity z’, and we assume (for

p = p o - l2 PV’ - Pg (h, - h,) simplicity of argument) that thecross sectional area of

where c is the observed velocity of flow, h,, represents the vesselisvery large comparedwith that of the

the loss in head effective at D caused by friction losses, tube, so that, by (2), we may neglect the downward

and h, is the loss in head due to elevation. The larger velocity of the liquid in the vessel. If the pressure on

p. is, the greater h, can become before p, becomes the horizontal level of A of the (assumed static) liquid

less thanthe saturatedvapour pressure andthe in the vessel isp,, then the pressure at Ajust inside the

column becomes liable to breakage. If there are no entrance to the tube is p s - 3pv2. The pressure differ-

effective nuclei present in the liquid-siphon system, ence across the entranceof the tube maintainsthe flow

we would not expect the external pressure to play any of liquid.

appreciable part in the working of the siphon. Again Obviously this explanation is greatly simplified, but

Nokes (1948) reported operating siphons with water, it is in essence correct and can be refined to allow for

dibutyl phthalate and mercury under ‘vacuum’ condi- the properties of real liquids and pipes. It is worth

tions; in fact the siphons functioned under the vapour emphasizing that the explanation is unaltered whether

pressures of the liquids in them which, at 20”C, would p. is zero or finite.

range from 1.75 cm Hg for water down to 1.2 x

cm Hg for mercury. Nokes ensured that his apparatus Acknowledgments

was clean before use, and after filling the apparatus The authors wish to thank Dr P J Kennedy and Mr J

boiled the liquid ‘to remove dissolved gas’. He states Kyles for many helpful discussions during the prepar-

that the chief disturbing factors which tend to break ation of this paper.

the liquid column of a siphonworking under ‘vacuum’

conditions are gas dissolved in the liquid, adherent gas References

on the walls of the tube, mechanical shock and turbu- Abbott A F 1963 Ordinary Levelphysics (London:

lent flow of the liquid. Heinemann)

Ashhurst W 1966Introduction to Physics (London :

Explanation of the siphon Murray)

By now it should be clear that, despite a wealth of Batchelor G K 1967 An Introduction to Fluid

tradition, the basic mechanism of a siphon does not Dynamics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

depend upon atmosphericpressure. Briggs L J 1950J. appl. Phys. 21 721

Nokes (1948) cites the following explanation, which Goldstein S 1938 Modern Developments inFluid

is also given in the books by Abbott (1963) and Ash- Dynnmics V011 (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

hurst (1966). In a siphon working under vacuum con- Massey B S 1968 Mechanics of Fluids (London:

ditions liquid willflow throughthe siphon if the Van Nostrand)

gravitational force acting on the liquid in the down- Newman F H and Searle V H L 1957 The General

take tube (ie the tube fromD to F) is greater than the Properties of Matter (London: Arnold)

gravitational force acting on the liquid in the uptake Nokes M C1948 Sch. Sci.Rev. 29 233

tube. The liquid column, dragged through the tubeby Temperley H N Vand Chambers L1 G 1946

its own weight, is in a state of tension and it is because Proc. Phys. Soc. 58 420

of the cohesive forces between the molecules of the Trevena D H 1967 Contemp. Phys. 8 185

liquid that the column remains unbroken. The effect

of an external pressure is to compress the liquid

366

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.