0
TECHNICAL BRIEFS TECHNICAL BRIEFS

# Permeability and Form Coefficient Measurement of Porous Inserts With Non-Darcy Model Using Non-Plug Flow Experiments

[+] Author Affiliations
L. Wilson

Heat Transfer and Thermal Power Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600036, India

Arunn Narasimhan

Heat Transfer and Thermal Power Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600036, India, arunn@iitm.ac.in

S. P. Venkateshan

Heat Transfer and Thermal Power Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600036, India, spv@iitm.ac.in

J. Fluids Eng. 128(3), 638-642 (Sep 24, 2005) (5 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2175172 History: Received February 10, 2005; Revised September 24, 2005

## Abstract

Permeability $(K)$ and form coefficient $(C)$ are the characteristic hydraulic properties of any porous medium. They are determined simultaneously, for known fluid thermo-physical properties by using the Hazen-Dupuit-Darcy model (HDD) to curve-fit the longitudinal global pressure-drop versus average fluid speed data from an isothermal, steady flow, hydraulic experiment across a test section of the porous medium. The $K$ and $C$ thus measured are global parameters, i.e., valid for the entire porous medium and universal provided the flow throughout the porous medium is of plug flow nature. We report here experimental evidence on the influence of non-plug flow velocity profiles at the inlet, on the simultaneous determination of $K$ and $C$ of fissure- and rod bundle-type porous inserts. Although variation in $K$ is minimal, as much as 12.1% variation in $C$ is observed, when going from a fully developed velocity profile to a plug flow profile at the inlet.

<>

## Figures

Figure 1

(a) Picture and (b) schematic of experimental apparatus. (c) Simulation results for determining the length necessary to generate plug flow at the exit of the plug flow generator.

Figure 2

Cross-sectional pictures of the porous inserts used: Types (a) through (d) are serialized as nos. 1 through 4, respectively, in Table 1

Figure 3

Longitudinal pressure drop versus average fluid velocity for (a) aluminum rod bundle inserts for porosity ε=0.25, 140 rods of d=3mm, L∕Dh=3.2. Experiment done at T=30°C, with water of μ=792.4×10−6Nsm−2 and ρ=995.7kg∕m3; (b) aluminum rod bundle inserts for porosity ε=0.21, 990 rods of d=1mm, L∕Dh=3.2. Experiment done at T=31°C, with water of μ=811.4×10−6Nsm−2 and ρ=997.25kg∕m3.

Figure 4

Longitudinal pressure drop versus average fluid velocity for (a) aluminum block inserts porosity ε=0.18, 84 holes of d=2mm, L∕Dh=1.6. Experiment done at T=25°C, with water of μ=935.06×10−6Nsm−2 and ρ=999kg∕m3; (b) aluminum block inserts porosity ε=0.18, 159 holes of d=1.5mm, L∕Dh=1.6. Experiment done at T=27°C, with water of μ=882.6×10−6Nsm−2 and ρ=998.25kg∕m3.

## Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

### Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Chapters
Topic Collections