Modified EZ-Flow bench problem

Anything that does not fit into pitot or conventional orifice flowbench design
Post Reply
larrycavan
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Modified EZ-Flow bench problem

Post by larrycavan »

Brucepts wrote:
larrycavan wrote: Please clarify your calibration and CFM rating method for your plates.

If I have a PTS calibration plate with a xxx CFM written on it. Is it to be used to calibrate xxx CFM or (xxx CFM * .8)?

If the plate is to be used internally and is marked xxx CFM, is it really (xxx CFM - 25)?

I totally get it with over pressure situation. That's got nothing to do with my questions.

To clarify; if your scale (water or digital) is 100cfm the calibration plate I would recommend is 80cfm, 200cfm would be 160cfm, 300cfm would be 240 etc . . . some flowbenches on the market have various end ranges that are odd numbers, in that case I spec plates in what I consider "normal" numbers for ease of use as close to 80% as possible. This allows one to compare someone else's flowbench to another if they are all using my plates. As you know I can machine plates in any size that would be needed and I don't put the customer into a one size fits all, if someone would want a 223cfm@28" plate or some other what I would consider "weird" number I will machine it for them. I usually discuss this with someone when we work on plates for non-PTS flowbenches, I already have ranges worked out to work with the PTS Bench design with my DM.

Plates flow what they are marked so the internal plate cfm is what it is capable of flowing. But, it's over ranged by 25cfm per my design, it is still marked 625 or what other range is required by the customer. There is no conversion math needed by anyone using my plates.
Are you saying that if a 600CFM range is desired that you make the plate 625 CFM? A 200 Range desired would result in a 225 CFM plate?
Larry C

http://www.cavanaughracing.com
Brucepts
Site Admin
Posts: 1851
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:35 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Modified EZ-Flow bench problem

Post by Brucepts »

larrycavan wrote: Are you saying that if a 600CFM range is desired that you make the plate 625 CFM? A 200 Range desired would result in a 225 CFM plate?
Yes
Bruce

Who . . . me? I stayed at a Holiday in Express . . .
larrycavan
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Modified EZ-Flow bench problem

Post by larrycavan »

SWR wrote:Hi guys,

But. The problem now. I moved it, as in completely took it apart and moved it, now I am reassembling it to a slightly more compact form after a de-tour via a typical orifice bench, that showed too much flow at all times.. just like this now. I did not get the math to work out on it, but now it seems more like I have forgotten something about the setup of a bench as this current bench, although a very different design, shows the exact same numbers - too much flow for the test pressure - like the other one.
When all else fails to solve a problem, go back to the beginning and see what might have been overlooked.

Also check your manometer lines. Very important & easy to overlook. Size & condition.
Larry C

http://www.cavanaughracing.com
larrycavan
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Modified EZ-Flow bench problem

Post by larrycavan »

Brucepts wrote:
larrycavan wrote: Are you saying that if a 600CFM range is desired that you make the plate 625 CFM? A 200 Range desired would result in a 225 CFM plate?
Yes
Got it...makes sense now.
Larry C

http://www.cavanaughracing.com
SWR
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:00 am

Re: Modified EZ-Flow bench problem

Post by SWR »

1960FL wrote:SWR, I went back and reread your original post and as usual I had some reading comprehension issues! Am I correct in stating that in the way you are testing that if you Teed the test pressure (Vertical Monometer) into the high side (upstream ) of the orifice taps and ran your test the 300 cfm test part would flow correct it is only when you Tap the test pressure just under the test part that you get the pressure loss issue?
Rick, If I tee both manometers - inclined and vertical - to the flow orifice and pull 10" on the vertical, I hit exactly 100% flow on the inclined. When I flowtest the 300cfm part, I have everything hooked up like it should be, no tee-ing into anything. It then shows way too much flow on the inclined. If I subtract the pressure loss from the test pressure of the 300 cfm part, it shows "correct".

"correct" as the pressure loss value of 7.5-ish inch H2O should be the Delta P to have a correct answer. 300 cfm part at 7.5" (the loss value) calculated up to 10" (test pressure) is about 346 cfm, and that is what it shows on the inclined..
For clarification can you please explain the T plumbing in the picture, is it a pressure adjusting valve?

Rick
Flowbench layout mod small.jpg
Modified the picture to explain it better.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
1960FL
Posts: 1338
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Modified EZ-Flow bench problem

Post by 1960FL »

Swr, Is it much trouble to set up a pressure tap for depression right under the test opening?

I am having a hard time believing the footage of pipe from test piece to orifice would cause a 25% loss in pressure, but i am not sure the Tee is not causing some type of venturi effect on the pickup at the tee end messing with the reading.

Rick
SWR
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:00 am

Re: Modified EZ-Flow bench problem

Post by SWR »

1960FL wrote:Swr, Is it much trouble to set up a pressure tap for depression right under the test opening?

I am having a hard time believing the footage of pipe from test piece to orifice would cause a 25% loss in pressure, but i am not sure the Tee is not causing some type of venturi effect on the pickup at the tee end messing with the reading.

Rick
Rick, not for testing atleast. I have a corner tapping at either side of the test orifice, the orifices are the same that goes into my bench.
Orifice example small.jpg
I can test it tomorrow, it's already past midnight here and I need to call it a day. :)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Brucepts
Site Admin
Posts: 1851
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:35 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Modified EZ-Flow bench problem

Post by Brucepts »

Ok, ran a simple test just a few minutes ago. Using the digital manometer static pressure scale and a water gauge across the orifice plate. I tested two plates of exact same diameter (2.640) one internally the other one flat on top of the bench. Numbers followed along from 1 to 3" and then they started to spread out and the orifice scale started to increase over the static reading.

At 16" static I was showing 16.5" on the water gauge. This would work out to be a 5 cfm increase in flow

My digital manometer is calibrated to follow a water gauge across it's working range. The water gauge I used for this test is the one I use for calibration.

I ran the same test using total digital and saw the same results but I stopped the digital cfm scale at 16" (to avoid maxing the sensor out) and the static was 15.6", I do not currently have a second water gauge setup right now to run total water gauges on both channels.
Bruce

Who . . . me? I stayed at a Holiday in Express . . .
larrycavan
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Modified EZ-Flow bench problem

Post by larrycavan »

1960FL wrote:Swr, Is it much trouble to set up a pressure tap for depression right under the test opening?

I am having a hard time believing the footage of pipe from test piece to orifice would cause a 25% loss in pressure, but i am not sure the Tee is not causing some type of venturi effect on the pickup at the tee end messing with the reading.

Rick
I'm with you on that for certain. The test pressure pickup location would cause me to question it's accuracy.

Did the bench read accurately before it was taken apart and compacted or not?
Larry C

http://www.cavanaughracing.com
larrycavan
Posts: 235
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Modified EZ-Flow bench problem

Post by larrycavan »

Brucepts wrote:Ok, ran a simple test just a few minutes ago. Using the digital manometer static pressure scale and a water gauge across the orifice plate. I tested two plates of exact same diameter (2.640) one internally the other one flat on top of the bench. Numbers followed along from 1 to 3" and then they started to spread out and the orifice scale started to increase over the static reading.

At 16" static I was showing 16.5" on the water gauge. This would work out to be a 5 cfm increase in flow

My digital manometer is calibrated to follow a water gauge across it's working range. The water gauge I used for this test is the one I use for calibration.

I ran the same test using total digital and saw the same results but I stopped the digital cfm scale at 16" (to avoid maxing the sensor out) and the static was 15.6", I do not currently have a second water gauge setup right now to run total water gauges on both channels.
Flip them and do an exhaust test...see if it repeats.
Larry C

http://www.cavanaughracing.com
Post Reply