Advertisement

An Innovative Preston Tube for Determination of Shear Stress on Smooth and Rough Beds

  • Seyed Hossein Mohajeri
  • Akbar Safarzadeh
  • Seyed Ali Akbar Salehi Neyshabouri
Research Paper
  • 111 Downloads

Abstract

Preston tube is a shear stress measuring technique which is widely used due to its simple operation and construction. Although application of this technique in smooth bed is convenient and reliable, such application in rough bed is problematic due to the appearance of additional parameters such as roughness length scale and zero-plane displacement. In present study, a different sort of Preston tube technique is developed which is suitable for bed shear stress measurement in both smooth and rough bed open channel flows. The new instrument works according to an equation derived from wall-similarity approach and double averaging method. Unlike the conventional Preston tube, this instrument consisted of three Pitot tubes and one Prandtl static tube. Other available methods for shear stress estimation [i.e. logarithmic law, Reynolds shear stress profile, energy slope and conventional Preston tube (the later just in the case of smooth bed)] were used for to control the accuracy of the data collected by new instrument. The results comparison shows that this instrument is capable of measuring bed shear stress with accuracy up to ±15.0 and ±24% respectively in smooth and rough bed conditions. These accuracy ranges assure applicability of this device in future open-channel flow studies.

Keywords

Shear stress Instrumentation Preston tube Smooth and rough beds Logarithmic layer 

References

  1. Ackerman JD, Hoover TM (2001) Measurement of local bed shear stress in streams using a Preston-static tube. Limnol Oceanogr 46(8):2080–2087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baghlani A (2013) On various dispersion models for simulating flow at channel bends, Iran J Sci Eng Trans Civ Eng (ijstc) 37(C2)Google Scholar
  3. Brown KC, Joubert PN (1969) The measurement of skin friction in turbulent boundary layers with adverse pressure gradients. J Fluid Mech 35(04):737–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buttsworth DR, Elston SJ, Jones TV (2000) Skin friction measurements on reflective surfaces using nematic liquid crystal. Exp Fluids 28(1):64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dean RC (1953) Aerodynamic measurements. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Gas Turbine LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  6. Dey S, Das R (2012) Gravel-bed hydrodynamics: double-averaging approach. J Hydraul Eng 138(8):707–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernandes JN, Leal JB, Cardoso AH (2014) Improvement of the lateral distribution method based on the mixing layer theory. Adv Water Resour 69:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finnigan J (2000) Turbulence in plant canopies. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 32(1):519–571CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Franca M, Ferreira R, Lemmin U (2008) Parameterization of the logarithmic layer of double-averaged streamwise velocity profiles in gravel-bed river flows. Adv Water Resour 31(6):915–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fujisawa N, Aoyama A, Kosaka S (2003) Measurement of shear-stress distribution over a surface by liquid-crystal coating. Meas Sci Technol 14(9):1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goring D, Nikora V (2002) Despiking acoustic doppler velocimeter data. J Hydraul Eng 128(1):117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haritonidis J (1989) The measurement of wall shear stress. In: Advances in fluid mechanics measurements. Lecture notes in engineering, vol 45. Springer, Berlin, pp 229–61Google Scholar
  13. Head MR, Rechenberg I (1962) The Preston tube as a means of measuring skin friction. J Fluid Mech 14(01):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jesson M, Sterling M, Bridgeman J (2013) Modeling flow in an open channel with heterogeneous bed roughness. J Hydraul Eng 139(2):195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jin M (1995) Boundary shear stress measurements by two tubes. J Hydraul Res 33(3):385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knight D, Sterling M (2000) Boundary shear in circular pipes running partially full. J Hydraul Eng 126(4):263–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krishnappan B, Engel P (2004) Distribution of bed shear stress in rotating circular flume. J Hydraul Eng 130(4):324–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mohajeri SH, Grizzi S, Righetti M, Romano GP, Nikora V (2015) The structure of gravel-bed flow with intermediate submergence: a laboratory study. Water Resour Res 51(11):9232–9255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mohajeri SH, Righetti M, Wharton G, Romano GP (2016) On the structure of turbulent gravel bed flow: implications for sediment transport. Adv Water Resour 92:90–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mohammadi M (2005) The initiation of sediment motion in fixed bed channels. Iran J sci Eng Trans Civ Eng (ijstc) 29(3):365–372Google Scholar
  21. Monin A, Yaglom A (1971) Statistical fluid mechanics mechanics of turbulence. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Murphy JD, Westphal RV (1986) The laser interferometer skin-friction meter: a numerical and experimental study. J Phys E: Sci Instrum 19(9):744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nezu I, Nakagawa H (1993) Turbulence in open channel flows. Taylor & Francis, Milton ParkMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Nikora V, Rowiński P (2008) Rough-bed flows in geophysical, environmental, and engineering systems: double-averaging Approach and its applications. Acta Geophys 56(3):529–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nikora V, Goring D, McEwan I, Griffiths G (2001) Spatially averaged open-channel flow over rough bed. J Hydraul Eng 127(2):123–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nikora V, Koll K, McLean S, Dittrich A, Aberle J (2002) Zero-plane displacement for rough-bed open-channel flows. In: International conference on fluvial hydraulics, river flowGoogle Scholar
  27. Nikora V, McEwan I, McLean S, Coleman S, Pokrajac D, Walters R (2007a) Double-averaging concept for rough-bed open-channel and overland flows: theoretical background. J Hydraul Eng 133(8):873–883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nikora V, McLean S, Coleman S, Pokrajac D, McEwan I, Campbell L et al (2007b) Double-averaging concept for rough-bed open-channel and overland flows: applications. J Hydraul Eng 133(8):884–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Patel VC (1965) Calibration of the Preston tube and limitations on its use in pressure gradients. J Fluid Mech 23(01):185–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peterson EL (1999) Benthic shear stress and sediment condition. Aquac Eng 21(2):85–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pokrajac D, Finnigan JJ, Manes C, McEwan I, Nikora V (eds) (2006) On the definition of the shear velocity in rough bed open channel flows. River flow. Taylor & Francis, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  32. Pope SB (2000) Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Preston JH (1954) The determination of turbulent skin friction by means of Pitot tubes. J R Aeronaut Soc 58:109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pujara N, Liu PF (2014) Direct measurements of local bed shear stress in the presence of pressure gradients. Exp Fluids 55(7):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Russo GP (2011) Aerodynamic measurements: from physical principles to turnkey instrumentation. Elsevier, AmsterdamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Safarzadeh A, SalehiNeyshabouri SA, Zarrati A, Ghodsian M (eds) (2010) Experimental study of head shape effects on shear stress distribution around a single groyne. In: International conference on fluvial hydraulics, BraunschweigGoogle Scholar
  37. Schlichting H, Gersten K (2000) Boundary-layer theory. MacGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  38. Storm PV, Newman BG, Storm PV, Newman BG (1993) A pressure instrument to measure skin friction in turbulent boundary layers on smooth and non-smooth walls. J Aeronaut 25–32Google Scholar
  39. Vardy AE, Brown JMB (2003) Transient turbulent friction in smooth pipe flows. J Sound Vib 259(5):1011–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Viswanath PR (2002) Aircraft viscous drag reduction using riblets. Prog Aerosp Sci 38(6–7):571–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilcock P (1993) Critical shear stress of natural sediments. J Hydraul Eng 119(4):491–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wu S, Rajaratnam N (2000) A simple method for measuring shear stress on rough boundaries. J Hydraul Res 38(5):399–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seyed Hossein Mohajeri
    • 1
  • Akbar Safarzadeh
    • 2
  • Seyed Ali Akbar Salehi Neyshabouri
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Science and Research BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Faculty of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Mohaghegh ArdabiliArdabilIran
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations