Model Studies on the Resistance of Airways Supported With Round Timber Sets

While investigating on the aerodynamic resistance of airways supported with peripheral timber sets, at regular intervals, the following theoretical equations were developed by the author to estimate the resistance coefficient of such airways: [ ] for S < 1, where f is Darcy-Weisbach resistance coefficient of the airway, C is modified drag coefficient of the supporting member, D is equivalent diameter of the bare airway, 8 is ratio of the approach velocity over the sets to the average velocity of the bare airway, A is cross-sectional area of the bare airway, a is projected frontal area of the sets, A., is cross-sectional area of the air stream at the vena contracta inside the set, S is spacing of the sets, f, is resistance coefficient of the bare airway, l is length of aerodynamic influence of sets, p is perimeter of the bare airway, p, is setted portion of the perimeter of the bare airway, pe is unsetted portion of the perimeter of the bare airway, and P shielding factor. The equations were verified experimentally in a model rectangular airway supported with one- (bars), three-, and four-piece sets of square-section timber of three different sizes and were found to hold true. The work has been further extended to one-, three-, and four-piece sets of round timber of 2.6, 3.2, and 3.8 cm diam with the same experimental set up. Tests have been carried out for spacings of 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, and 200 cm over a regime of flow defined by the Reynolds number (with respect to the equivalent diameter of the bare duct) ranging from about 1.5 X 106 to 5 X 106 using the same experimental techniques. The values of f are calculated in the manner indicated in [Ref. 1]. Unlike with square-section timber, the resistance coefficient f of the airway setted with round timber shows a distinct variation with the Reynolds number of flow. This conforms to observations made by Sales and Hinsley.2 In order to have a comparable value of f for all types of sets with all sizes of timber, it was necessary to select the value of f at a fixed Reynolds number of flow. Since f is chiefly a function of the drag coefficient of the sets, the appropriate Reynolds number RE is that with respect to the diameter of timber in the set. Considering the diameters of timber used and the regime of flow over which measurements were made, f was chosen at a value of RE = 20,000 in all cases. The f vs. S curves are maximal in nature and in conformity with theory, the f vs. 1/S curves are straight lines up to a value of S = 1 beyond which they show a distinct flexure. The observed values of 1, the length of aerodynamic influence of sets, agree with the relation 1 = 42 e, developed for square-section timber sets, thus suggesting that the shape of timber has little influence on the length of aerodynamic influence. The value of the modified drag coefficient CD for round timber was calculated in the same way as for square timber in Ref. 1, taking the contraction factor Z = 1.5 for round-edged constrictions. CD has an average value of 0.96 with a standard deviation of 6.08% as compared to the free stream drag coefficient of 1.2 at RE = 20,000 for long cylindrical obstructions The shielding factor [ ] is plotted against S/1 in [Fig. 1]. The curves are more or less independent of the size of timber, but are different for the different types of sets, possibly due to their different degree of symmetry. Values of f calculated by the author&apos;s [Eqs. 1 and 2], using experimental values of CD&apos; and [ ] and taking I = 42 e, are plotted in [Fig. 2] against experimentally measured values of f for different types of sets with different sizes of round timber. The values agree closely with a standard deviation of only 5%, thus establishing the veracity of the theoretical equations developed by the author for round timber as well. A comparison was made between the Xenofontowa4 equations (the only other reasonable relations available for the estimation of the resistance coefficient of supported airways) and the author&apos;s [Eqs. 1 and 2] by comparing in [Fig. 3] the values of the resistance coefficient f computed by the Xenofontowa relations with those experimentally measured by the author. In order to make