Needs Pictures: 0
Picture(s) thanks: 0
Results 1 to 15 of 18
-
10th January 2020, 07:10 AM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2016
- Location
- USA, Indiana, West Lafayette
- Posts
- 188
Testo 405i Hot Wire Anemometer inappropriate for small (150mm) duct
A while back there were some posts here about the Testo 405i Hot Wire Anemometer. I looked at the Testo website and also found the 510i Manometer. They looked interesting.
Recently I started a project that required a lot of airflow measurements and the data recording capabilities of the pair seemed perfect for my needs. Unfortunately the 405i has some serious deficiencies when used for traversing a 150mm duct.
I compared the 405i to a pitot tube. A traverse requires a series of velocity measurements at specific points along the diameter of a duct. To do that the measuring device is inserted in a hole in the side of the duct. Velocity measurements are taken at various insertion depths. The 405i had large errors at shallow insertion depths. That is, accuracy was way off for points near the insertion port.
Here's a plot of the traverse data. I used ports on both sides of the pipe so I could do traverses from both sides. That way I eliminated the possibility, however remote, that there was actually a huge asymmetry in the flow. So you see traverses labeled "From Left" and "From Right". Also included are plots of velocity data from the pitot-static tube, also from both sides. The "x" axis label is "Relative Position" but that means relative to diameter; the plot goes left to right looking towards the fan. Also note the 2x expansion of the "y" axis.
This photo shows what I think is a part of the problem:
I don't know the details of the internal operation of this instrument but I do have experience with automotive Mass Airflow Sensors. There's compensation required for ambient temperature and the inherent non-linearity of the physics of the device and the turbulence effects on heat transfer from the sensor. The actual sensor, a thermistor or other temperature dependent resistor, is on the left. One scheme heats it to a constant temperature. Knowing that temperature and the ambient temperature, the power required to maintain that temperature varies with the rate of heat removal from the sensor which varies with the air velocity. The ambient temperature measurement is done by the device on the right side. It's over 40mm away from the flow sensor.
When the traverse points are close to the near wall the temperature sensor is outside the duct wall where the temperature can be different from the inside.
Another issue is that the tube is hollow. When the test pipe is restricted for low flows the pressure difference between inside and outside of the duct is large and there can be noticeable airflow through the tube.
Whatever the actual cause of the errors the instrument is simply not capable of making accurate measurements in a small duct. It probably works fine in a large HVAC duct, which is it's real intended use.Dave
-
10th January 2020 07:10 AM # ADSGoogle Adsense Advertisement
- Join Date
- Always
- Location
- Advertising world
- Posts
- Many
-
10th January 2020, 07:35 AM #2GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
- Posts
- 1,439
So this would beg the question, are there any affordable hot wire anemometers where the sensors are close to the tip so this error doesn't occur?
Pete
-
10th January 2020, 07:59 AM #3Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2016
- Location
- USA, Indiana, West Lafayette
- Posts
- 188
I don't know. I'm going to stay with a pitot-static tube and manometer. The Testo 510i seems to be a good manometer. I wish I had just bought two of those.
The advantage to a pitot-static tube is that it requires no calibration. It's a primary standard. The manometer can also be calibrated to a water column which is, of course, also a primary standard.
The one issue I've had with the 510i is a bit of zero drift, as much as .02"wg. It's necessary to save data before re-zeroing because it's cleared with that operation.Dave
-
10th January 2020, 08:38 AM #4GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
- Posts
- 1,439
I was wondering if you have any experience/knowledge of these kind of pitot static traverse probes? https://www.airmonitor.com/wp-conten...m-brochure.pdf Sold by VOLU-probe Pitot Airflow Measurement Traverse Probe - Air Monitor Corporation With something along those lines there would be no need to take the multiple readings and do the calculations. Probably wallet melting though. There are these but they have fewer ports for sampling. Pitot Tube | WorkACI
Pete
-
10th January 2020, 09:05 AM #5.
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Perth
- Posts
- 27,792
This is a good point worth raising but I have not seen this problem probably because the air temperature outside my ducts don't differ significantly from inside the duct ,and because I use a 240 mm diameter test duct.
I would never do a direct measurement in a 150 mm duct with any sensor as the air flow is much too turbulent.
So for testing air flow in 150 mm ducts I use a 240 mm test duct, for testing air flow in 100 mm ducts I use a 150 mm test duct ETC
However even when using smaller test ducts my Testo results still consistently agree (perhaps a bit lower ) with my Pitot Tube measurements, and with my other two hot wire anemometers which have their temp sensors much closer to the hot wire air sensor than the Testo. This suggests that air temps are not a factor for my measurements.
Also what air temperature were you performing the measurements at?
My tests usually take place with the test duct drawing air from outside my shed with my shed door wide open so the shed air is pretty well equilibrated temperature wise with the outside air. The air temps my testing normally takes place at 20ºC or above.
100mmflexytest.jpg
-
10th January 2020, 09:28 AM #6Woodworking mechanic
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- Sydney Upper North Shore
- Posts
- 4,470
I’d be interested in see a diagram of how you positioned a pitot tube close to the walls of the pipe. I thought that pitot tubes where normally mounted centrally in the tube.
I use both a pitot tube/manometer combo and a Testo unit. Central and near central measurements show the Testo recorded a slightly higher flow than the Pitot (HW = 2952.75; PT = 2791.409)
However, you show close on a 38% variation between central and near wall readings for the HW (4750 vs 2900) but my tests show only about 2% variation? (The reading I have on hand are in CFM)
Maybe BobL’s reference to very similar inner and outer pipe air temps may explain this.
I also have a great deal of experience with Automotive MAF sensors, both Hot Wire, Hot film and Cold wire units.Last edited by Lappa; 10th January 2020 at 09:45 AM. Reason: Rechecked some figures
-
10th January 2020, 10:26 AM #7Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2016
- Location
- USA, Indiana, West Lafayette
- Posts
- 188
My testing is done entirely within my shop so the temperatures are nominally the same. The (admittedly small) differences are those caused by the differences in pressure and density inside as well as some thermal energy lost to the kinetic energy of the moving air. It's not something I take into account but if you follow AMCA 210 test methods I think you're supposed to.
The temperatures reported by the 405i for the data in the above plot ranged from 19.9°C to 20.8°C. That's inside the duct.
Both the 405i and 510i will average as many velocity readings as you like. This helps a lot with the turbulence issue. I get very good repeatability. Is there something I'm missing?
Interesting. Can you share your secret sauce? I'd love to be able to use the 405i for velocity measurements and free up the 510i for pressure.Dave
-
10th January 2020, 11:25 AM #8.
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Perth
- Posts
- 27,792
Thanks for that info.
Both the 405i and 510i will average as many velocity readings as you like. This helps a lot with the turbulence issue. I get very good repeatability. Is there something I'm missing?
I haven't done anywhere near as many measurements with the Testo as I have with my other air flow meters but of the few I have done with the Testo I do not recall seeing an inverted speed profile such as you see. I will need to take a closer look when I get a chance. This could take some time as due to health problems and the hot weather I have not been able to get into my shed.
Interesting. Can you share your secret sauce? I'd love to be able to use the 405i for velocity measurements and free up the 510i for pressure.
However, if you are trying to perform measurements inside existing ducting then this is not going to be possible. My problem with insitu measurements is not only the air speeds but the presence of many nearby junctions which injects even more turbulence into my system. One point I would really like to know the air speed is about 3m back from the entry into the DC but about meter before that point there are 3 Wyes, a 90º bend, and 4 gates. I have attempted to measure this point with a Pitot tube many times but it's been different every time I measure it
-
10th January 2020, 11:27 AM #9GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
- Posts
- 1,439
Dave it just might be in the first sticky. DRAFT: FAQ - Dust Extraction (Practical Aspects). Otherwise you'll have to search through Bob's posts. There are lots though.
Pete
-
10th January 2020, 10:20 PM #10Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2016
- Location
- USA, Indiana, West Lafayette
- Posts
- 188
The data in the chart I posted was taken with a 75mm orifice on the test duct to give me a velocity that was both low enough for the 405i and high enough for good resolution on the 510i and pitot combination.
I've tested up to about 6000fpm with the pitot in that duct. My maximum variation from center to wall was 1.21:1 using Centroids of Equal Area traverse points. I didn't do a traverse with Log-Tchebycheff points at that flow rate but the ratio would almost certainly be a bit higher for that. I don't understand how you can get 3.5:1 at 8000fpm.
This is my test duct:
Does this forum allow linking to posts on other woodworking forums? If so, I'll post a link to more information about my setup and the project goals.
In situ measurements can be frustrating. One thing I'm doing is keeping track of motor current (using a meter that averages samples taken at 0.5s intervals). After adjusting for air density and supply voltage I have good correlation with my flow measurements. I can use that to make in situ measurements that would otherwise be impossible to do with any kind of accuracy.Dave
-
11th January 2020, 03:21 AM #11Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2016
- Location
- USA, Indiana, West Lafayette
- Posts
- 188
Sorry, no, I have no experience with those. I designed one for 3D printing a while back but I couldn't get printed test parts airtight so I never actually built it.
One thing that bothers my math morality is that they average the pressure instead of the velocity. That gives you the RMS value over the traverse instead of the mean. Not a big deal but feels like a stone in my shoe.
Here's a somewhat interesting paper,Dave
-
11th January 2020, 04:38 AM #12GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
- Posts
- 1,439
Interesting paper. The size of the copper tube they used would be a little big for our purposes but a smaller diameter version is worth a try someday. Bookmarked it.
The blue device midway on your duct. Is it to hold the pitot tube in position and alignment for a reading? Buy it with your pitot tube or design and print it yourself? Any chance of a close up?
Pete
-
11th January 2020, 05:08 AM #13GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
- Posts
- 1,439
"Does this forum allow linking to posts on other woodworking forums? If so, I'll post a link to more information about my setup and the project goals.
Per the Forum Terms and conditions of Use. https://www.woodworkforums.com/f90/woodwork-forums-terms-conditions-tou-198339
Section 15 says. * Members may include in any post, any website address other than one in which they have some commercial interest so long a it is pertinent to the thread or post.
So you are allowed to link to another site. Hopefully one that allows non members access to read the content and view the pictures without having to join or pay. Generally it is better to have the information posted here in case the linked site closes or starts to charge to see the content the thread here stays intact.
Pete
-
11th January 2020, 05:18 AM #14Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2016
- Location
- USA, Indiana, West Lafayette
- Posts
- 188
Thanks for asking. I was hoping someone would.
I 3D printed it. It has positive stops for the traverse points for repeatable measurements. The riser with the indexing notches can be replaced for alternate traverse patterns.
I also made a slider sized for the Hot Wire Anemometer.
Dave
-
11th January 2020, 05:33 AM #15Senior Member
- Join Date
- Nov 2016
- Location
- USA, Indiana, West Lafayette
- Posts
- 188
Thank you for that information. I guess I could have looked that up myself (head slap). Sorry.
I agree that keeping the post self contained is very desirable but this is an ongoing blog that may get fairly long so for now I think a link may be appropriate. I'm working on the next post now. It's all about the start current. Bores even me so it's going slowly.
Here's the link.Dave
Similar Threads
-
Beyond Tools - Flexible Anti Static Duct Duct
By DeeSki in forum DUST EXTRACTIONReplies: 1Last Post: 21st March 2019, 02:56 PM -
Anemometer on special
By elanjacobs in forum DUST EXTRACTIONReplies: 55Last Post: 20th January 2019, 11:48 AM -
Anemometer Anyone?
By Anorak Bob in forum METALWORK FORUMReplies: 18Last Post: 15th January 2012, 10:53 AM -
150mm woodworking vice = too small ?
By Ozziespur in forum WOODWORK - GENERALReplies: 3Last Post: 3rd August 2011, 10:38 AM