Comparison of experimental mass inflow measurement methods with error analysis

A compressible flow experiment was developed to demonstrate engineering fundamentals and allow students to perform meaningful calculations on student-collected experimental data. Student teams employed four methods to determine the mass flow rate of air flowing into an initially evacuated tank under choked flow conditions. The four methods were (1) theoretical calculation of mass flow through a sonic nozzle, (2) direct measurement with the mass flow meter, (3) the mass point method (e.g., the difference in calculated initial and final masses inside the tank), and (4) the mass slope method (e.g., calculating the mass inside the tank via pressure and temperature data at each time step). These methods are presented along with their measurement uncertainty calculations. Example results demonstrated mass flow rate measurements and overlapping uncertainty bands using choked flow through a 0.096-inch diameter critical flow venturi resulting in flow rates of 1.051 ± 0.012 g/s, 1.045 ± 0.066 g/s, 1.030 ± 0.010 g/s, and 1.042 ± 0.005 g/s for Methods 1–4, respectively. The different methods allow instructors to have flexibility in varying the activity between student cohorts. The experiment demonstrated fundamentals of ideal gas behavior, choked flow, and polytropic compression processes. The experiment gave student teams the opportunity to conduct an experiment, utilize common measurement instruments, and apply classroom theory and concepts to solve a relevant engineering problem: quantifying the flow rate of a compressible gas. The associated Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) outcomes, applicable engineering standards, and general safety issues are discussed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education
Published
2025-11-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/03064190251398014
Primary Topic
Engineering Education and Pedagogy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of experimental mass inflow measurement methods with error analysis

Elizabeth J. Clifford, Christopher Daniels
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education
Engineering Education and Pedagogy
article

Comparison of experimental mass inflow measurement methods with error analysis

Elizabeth J. Clifford, Christopher Daniels
article en

Abstract

A compressible flow experiment was developed to demonstrate engineering fundamentals and allow students to perform meaningful calculations on student-collected experimental data. Student teams employed four methods to determine the mass flow rate of air flowing into an initially evacuated tank under choked flow conditions. The four methods were (1) theoretical calculation of mass flow through a sonic nozzle, (2) direct measurement with the mass flow meter, (3) the mass point method (e.g., the difference in calculated initial and final masses inside the tank), and (4) the mass slope method (e.g., calculating the mass inside the tank via pressure and temperature data at each time step). These methods are presented along with their measurement uncertainty calculations. Example results demonstrated mass flow rate measurements and overlapping uncertainty bands using choked flow through a 0.096-inch diameter critical flow venturi resulting in flow rates of 1.051 ± 0.012 g/s, 1.045 ± 0.066 g/s, 1.030 ± 0.010 g/s, and 1.042 ± 0.005 g/s for Methods 1–4, respectively. The different methods allow instructors to have flexibility in varying the activity between student cohorts. The experiment demonstrated fundamentals of ideal gas behavior, choked flow, and polytropic compression processes. The experiment gave student teams the opportunity to conduct an experiment, utilize common measurement instruments, and apply classroom theory and concepts to solve a relevant engineering problem: quantifying the flow rate of a compressible gas. The associated Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) outcomes, applicable engineering standards, and general safety issues are discussed.

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education
University of Akron (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 64%
Engineering Education and Pedagogy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.