com
School of Process, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom
Faculty of Engineering and Technology, University of the Punjab, Quaid-e-Azam Campus, Lahore 54590, Pakistan
Received 1 June 2007; received in revised form 3 December 2007; accepted 15 January 2008
Available online 26 January 2008
Abstract
In continuation of mass ow rate and error analysis comparison, a dierent comparative performance study is made
between concentric tube bulb manometer (CTB) and U-shaped manometer using stability response equations. Basic
response equation of transfer function would hold for both the devices since the same underlying principle of force balance
existed. Whilst variation in stability response was evaluated in terms of deviation form of dierential height for dierent
lengths of same amount of sensing uid. This included a step change forcing function of 20 kPa at a constant value of gain.
On the basis of smaller characteristic time constant it was concluded that CTB is stable and more prompt in response as
compared to U-shaped manometer. Response curves for both the manometers were plotted with the help of MATLAB.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Concentric tube bulb manometer; Response equation; Sensing uid; Gain; Forcing function; Characteristic time constant;
MATLAB
1. Introduction
Regardless of oldest invention, manometer still
nds its vast application in both commercial and
industrial sectors due to accuracy and simplicity of
operation. Basis of its simplicity involves balancing
of pressure forces against the weight of uid column. Dierent types of manometers have been
designed according to the need of processes and
their suitability specic to operations. Each type
has its own utilization and advantage; however, gen-
0263-2241/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.measurement.2008.01.005
935
Nomenclature
a
A
D
FP
Ff
Fg
g
h
h
L
m
DP
0
DP
h0t
dt
gases in open vessels and under steady ow conditions. Results included analysis of the manometer
performance with an error in measurement of
1.2% in the pressure range between 103 and
102 torr. Model development along with study of
response of capacitance manometers was done by
Poulter et al. [5]. The determination of enthalpies
of sublimation by means of thermal conductivity
manometers was done by Kruif et al. [6]; who investigated the suitability of thermal conductivity
manometers operated according to Engelsman
method for the determination of enthalpies of sublimation of low volatility substances. They used the
known vapour pressure temperature relation of
mercury to determine the characteristics of the
manometers.
Yesilata et al. [7] examined the eect of high viscosity on the response time of manometers and
transducers and established their feasibility for
dynamic pressure measurement. Ransom [8] studied
on frictionless oscillating manometer involving Utube manometer which resulted in undamped oscillations of a given frequency. Suresan and Jayanti [9]
q
g
s
f
Kp
936
The design of CTB manometer previously presented by Daood et al. [10] is inspired by two reservoir manometer which itself occupy more of space
like U-shaped manometer. However, CTB manometer shown in Fig. 1 comprises of two spherical glass
bulbs A, B of 20.6 cm3 and 7.24 cm3 volume, respectively. Total length of CTB is 305 mm; outer diameter of outer and inner tubes is 14 mm and 7 mm,
respectively with 1 mm wall thickness of whole construction. Such wall thickness is optimized after
analysis of capillary eects for various wall thicknesses. However this is trivial with respect to changing diameters and lengths of CTB. Extension X, Y
from sphere B and A, respectively is used as pressure tapings. Basic construction benets include
dampening down of mass ow changeover eects,
inhibiting spillage or carryover of sensing uid
and prompt stable response during operation.
2g dt2 qgD2 dt
2qg
16Lg
1
Using s2 2gL ; 2fs qgD
2 ; K p 2qg. Taking variables
in deviation form
s2
d2 h0
dh0
h0 K p DP 0 :
2fs
2
dt
dt
K p DP 0
ss2 s2 2fss 1
K p DP 0
s0:00367s2 0:1212fs 1
K p DP 0
0:234fs 1
s0:0137s2
3
4
oscillations:
"
q
t
h t DP K p 1 e
cosh f2 1
s
q !#
f
t
sinh f2 1
p
2
s
f 1
0
937
0
tf
s
Fig. 2. Comparison of critically damped response curves of both U-shaped and CTB manometer.
Fig. 3. Comparison of under damped response curves of both U-shaped and CTB manometer.
938
Fig. 4. Comparison of over damped response curves of both U-shaped and CTB manometer.
939