THESIS
AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ©F THE FLOW IF SAMB
4 WATER !N FIFES UNDER «*£SrdRE.
Nera	Sl&tch
1885ms
c>s

CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
					
2	•	924 1		05 929 3	62
Date Due
DO ]			ITE.
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
PRINTED IN	U. S. A.	fMf CAT’	NO. 23233
31924105929362Tr ms-
65-ah experimental study
\
OF TEE
FI07/ OF SARD ADD WATER III PIPES UNDER PRESSURE.
THESIS
PRESENTED FOR TEE DEGREE OF
CIVIL ENGINEER

DORA STARTOH BLATCH.
CORNELL UITIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF CIVIL ENGINEERING.
1905





• ~ —




T
4?





.Bibliography.
Chief of Engineers Report
T!	I!	ft	IT
1895	P.	3796
1898	PP.	3327 - 41.
1898	P.	3642
Annual Report of the Mississippi River
Commission. --------	_ ---1905 Appendix 1 F
" Report of the Mississippi River
Commission. ----------- 1904	" IB
Bredges and Bredging. --------- J. A. Ockerson.
(Trans, of American Soc. of C. E.,7ol. XI, Bee. 1898)
Bredging on the Mississippi River. -- - - F.-Br Maltby.
(Trans, of American Soc. of C. S.,Vol. IIV, May 1905.)
Resistances to the Flov/ of 7/ater in pipes. - - Saph and Schoder.
(Trans, of American Soc. of 0. E.,Vol. XXIX, May 1902)
Measurement of Suction and Bischarge Heads. - - -W. M. TYhite.
(Journal of Assoc, of Eng. Societies, October 1900.)
Piezometric Indications. ------------ Mills.
(Proc. American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 14).$ I
: i
-•) n 0 ■:

--------- ■'
r.-Ti.. xc;r.' J .c-:i	la aiocnr. I sun: .
. . -------- - .
	. . .	'	. " - - X
	- - - -- .	• L i i.r, 9 • •	■
	. , . .		.
.. . • - -			-
• - - ' *\ ' - <	. . ' .	. n iiacr. v ,.o	

' . ~	...	t . j :o. .	.	.	■	. >	•
. ...TAB IE OF OOITTETTT5.
Page
List of Tables.
List of Plates.
Introduction.
Part I. The Mississippi River Commission Experiments.
1.	Outline of Tests with References.- -----	l
2.	Description of Discharge Pipe. -------	5
3.	Apparatus for Capacity Tests. --------	6
4.	Local Conditions influencing the Loss of Head. 7
5.	Causes of Inaccuracy in Observations. - - - -	9
6.	Apparatxis for Efficiency Tests. - -- -- --	10
7.	Reduction of Observations. ------	- - -	13
8.	Results of Efficiency Tests. --- — ____	22
9.	Results of Capacity Tests. -------- —	23
10.	Effective cross section of the Discharge pipe
and Conclusions. ---------------	24
Part II. Experiments with Small Pipes.
1.	Description of Apparatus and Changes in the Same.
________29
2.	Methods of Cunducting Experiments. ------ 37
3.	Reduction of Observed Data. ---------	40
4.	Accuracy of Experiments. -----------42- 44.
5.	General Indications of Results. -------	60
6.	Experiments with Glass Sections inserted in
Pipe.-------------------------------------61
■ w:

"	. e
.
■? H

VefXi *£f£

J J
: r S •
' -* *


• - - -
• • • “ ■ -
. rrrv
- . ' ' ' "
... . . .
'
- - "
. ; - . ■ ■ •
■ ( *
' - . r: l •7.
Page
Comparison of Results with Coarse and Fine
(Trades on	Brass Pipe. - -- -- --	-- --	--	--	64
8.	Comparison	of	Results with Brass and	Gal-
vanized Pipes.	56
9.	Discussion of Causes of Loss of Head at low
Velocities. --------------------	$8
10.	Discussion Of Relative Economy of Various
Velocities and percentages.	72
11.	Conclusions. --------------	__	___	79
Part III. Practical Deductions.
1.	Comparison	of	Conditions of Parts I and II. -----	81
2.	"	"	Conclusions reached in	Parts I	and	II.-	82
3.	Relative Form of Curves on Large and Small Pipes. - - 83
4.	Range of Effective Velociries. -----------	83
------ .
______ ___________
------ --
.31
i
------.	. "I
----- .
.
-
_____________LIST OF TABLES
Page.
I.	Form and Dimensions of Discharge Pipes of Dredges.
------------3-4
II.	Capacity Tests of Dredges pumping Sand and Later.	17-	19
IIT.	Efficiency Tests of Dredges pumping Later only. -	20-	21
IV.	Sand Analyses.	gg
V.	Data for Brass Pipe, Grade II. ---------	45-	gp
VI.	Data for Brass Pipe, Grade IV. ---------	52-	54
VII* "	"	"	" Later only. --------	55
VIII.	"	" Iron Pipe, Grade II. ---------- 56- 58
IX.	"	”	"	" Later only. ---------59
X.	Observations with Glass Sections. --------	62
XI.	Ratios lor Reduction of Head with Various Per-
centages for Grades II and IV. ------ - _	74
XII.	Computation for Efficiency Curves; Brass Pipe,
Grade II. -------------- ------- 75- 76
XIII.	Computation for Efficiency Curves; Brass Pipe,
Grade IV. ------------	77
XIV.	Computation for Efficiency Curves; Galvanized
Iron Pipe, Grade II. ----------	-_ —	78— - - - -
	- . .	-Ci ,-p ■ 1 .	to ad	::e ,ox 3io			.
					. . '			. ■
		- - - . . ,	9<jl	• a it' toI			.
	- ______	_ • - •' * f.	aql	3B-8tff 10t			
		- - . r.-.o t >		II	V		
		■' ■	. =’ ■ ' ’	Oil "		ft	.
	e .i - - 		- - - . 1			Tf		
_________	IJSl
XX.' •	.<	' ‘
-------- - .
, : ■ ■ ■. ; ' ■•••■.'. ■■■:■•
0? - -----------	----- - - .
«	/, 8	\c‘l '-•>J.•.
------ -	7.: extrz
*i. .Is ;g:'V*i s:‘ voitexoi-I to::	v
-- - -	---------- .II ef ril ,s - tI.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
LI3T OP PLATES.
Plotting of Tests of Mississippi River Com-
mission, Dredges pumping Hater only. _ _ _ _ _
Plotting of Tests of Mississippi River Com-
mission, Dredges pumping Sand and Hater. - - -
Sketch of Apparatus.
Computing Chart. Brass Pipe, (Trade II. - - -
”	n	*’	»»	i»	jy _	—	—
Logarithmic Plotting of Runs on Brass Pipe,
(Trade II, Loss of Head in ft. of Hater.-------
Logarithmic Plotting of Runs, Brass Pipe;
Grade TV, Loss of Head in ft. of ’^ater. - - -
Logarithmic Plotting of Runs, Galvanized Iron
Pipe, Grade II, Loss of Head in Ft. of Hater.-
Logarithmic Plotting of Curves on Plates VI,
VII and VIII, Loss of Head in Ft. of Hixture.-
Plotting on cross section paper of Curves on
Plates VI and VIII, Loss of Head in Ft. of
Between
Pages.
21 - 22
25 - 24
29 - 30
40 - 41
40 - 41
60 - 61
64 - 65
66 - 67
66 - 67
Hater. --------------------	66-67
Plotting of 3and and Hater Curves from Plate
IX, Curves of Hater only considered as having
zero Loss of Head. -------------	70-71
Sketch shov/ing approximate distribution of
Loss of Head due to different causes at Various
Velocities
71 - 72
:	■ j;
----- - . ■ -\
^ ;V					•
		• .tS fro		JolV ajtarf&tTtasoJ	
	- - - . '	. ’ to	.:. r . r	- i' , ' o	
				;o . nxi:	
•	- - - . -0	ir\ ' ‘to	.		
			, . ■ ' ' : r.	.	•
-.	•	J .	,	••	,
,	; .	•	'0 -VI...	• C; ■ /..	: r	o.~.
! - . • - . , ’
V	. ....	...
,	:	f	.
:% : .7,.
.
..:.v.	- j',o 1 oj	■ i Jr;	:;0n	' ,
_____________	. .	O',
%b ra	■ t	. xri
_________________XIII.
XIV.

Diagrams showing relative economy of Various
Velocities fo"** any given Percentage of Sand.
Diagrams showing relative economy of Various
Percentages of Sana for any given Velocity. ■
Between
Pages.
71 - 72
71 - 72I
I 0
. « •
- L
•••. - •'
.	■ -rnv -	■■ •: :	— :	-
.Bfisr: lo agsd	•
-
- ' • •
. ‘
.INTRODUCTION.
The laws governing the carrying power of water in rivers
and open channels have long been a subject of investigation,
hut the importance of the study of the flow of sand and water
in pipes under pressure was not recognized until recently.
Both in hydraulic excavation and in hydraulic dredging,
it would he of great advantage to know the most effective
working velocity, and how this velocity varies with the size
and roughness of pipe, or character of material to he trans-
ported. It would also he helpful to ascertain if it is more
economical to carry high or low percentages of solid matter.
In this paper the attempt has been made to throw; some
light on these questions by performing a series of experiments
with two 1 inch pipes, one rough and one smooth, using a coarse
and a fine grade of sand. It v.as hoped that by comparing the
results of these experiments with tests made on large pipes in
actual practice, the laws governing the intermediate sizes of
pipe could he approximately inferred.
Thanks are due to Professor Gardner S. Williams for the '
suggestion of the subject of the thesis in the first place, and
to Mr. G. D. Cass, for his care and good-will in fitting and
setting up the apparatus.
The vmriter also reels herself deeply indebted to Dr. E. W.
Schoder for his help and advice throughout the experiments.iv.-:.	re:	.■.. •	[
,				irsqo	.'non:.
- . r ; on...	o r	O \ nir ;	2 to e erratic		
v . • .'.		. . • - -y ■			
■v ' lie ten	»rf cT	• !	'■ j ; - i > f •> £ ere r 21
J n .	■' ' •	■ ■ -■■'■J -v	' ‘ “	,	.	:-v •	-■-■■■:
-anait# arf ot Islta	,
•• ... x o.	■ x ' i'	‘ ;o	■. o "	£;•	■	. ■	>•..
n, j: -v	i.	n; 'n „xa..' :
'“CE v.'o'x	mono :	jD:':	mnO '
•• rcoo
■ ;j so > ic.r no o T‘ s :: ' f:	. m :	. is -0 Jin
.	total arfi alate	,o 1	E si -
.
,	i£	■
; - ■. . , . '........................................................- .
.r
, . . -•>, ;■ ■ : .. : >0 ■ , : 1 ' - . • '
	391* SS	r ..r.i'.o'xo.:		i ,n 1 no.	.no ....
.0 J.		■ : ,. j-		o , c, * '	.
1 0 0		o..q Off 3 o		. n	
. X ■	. O.i	JiQ‘X /	. - . ■
■ Jl : .
1 ■' .n .	" fo.1-
PAET I.
-tills
MISSISSIPPI HIVER 0OMITSSIOK EXPERIMENTS.
I. Outline of Tests with References.
The writer was unable to iind any data hearing on this
subject outside of some experiments performed by The Missis-
sippi River Commission. These experiments were made for the
purpose of determining the efficiencies and capacities at
various speeds of the hydraulic dredges in use on the river.
The first contract for a hydraulic dredge to be used on
the Mississippi River was entered into as early as 1887, but
the first large dredge Alpha was not completed until the fall
of 1894.
In quick succession after the Alpha eight other dredges
were built as follows
Zeta---------1898
Iota---------1900
Kappa--------1901
Henry Flad---1901
Alpha------1894
Beta-------1896
Gamma------1897
Delta------1897
Epsilon ---1898
The full description and data of the experiments on
these dredges have been published in the Annual Reports of the
Commission. Two articles have also appeared in the Trans,
of The American Society of Civil Engineers, which give a more
condensed statement of the progress made in hydraulic dredging
on the Mississippi, namely:- An article by J. A. Ockerson",
- For references see Bibliography.which reviews the work done up to 1898,and one by
F. B. T&ltby* which continues the account from 1895 up to the
end of the season of 1904.
Six dredges in all were tested while pumping sand and
water, namely:- the Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon and
Zeta. 77ith the exception of the tests made on the Alpha all
were for the purpose of ascertaining whether the contract
requirements as to capacity had been complied with, and there-
fore the velocities were higher in most cases than the ordinary
working velocities. On the Alpha, however, the velocities
ran as low as four feet per second.
The tests were made as follows^all the references being
in the Chief of Engineers Report:-
Alpha	—winters	1894 - 1695 --		page TT	3796, 3341,	1895 1898
Beta	--spring	of	1696 		TT	3642,	1898
Gamma	--autumn	Tf	1697 		Tf	3327,	1898
Delta	--summer	Tf	189 7 		Tf	3329,	1898
Epsilon	--spring	Tf	1898 		TT	3333,	1898
Zeta		 Tt	TT	Tf	Tf	TT	TT
During the summers of 1902 and 1903 the pumps on nine
dredges were tested for efficiency, water only being pumped.
These dredges were the six alread^r named together with the
three new dredges Iota, kappa and Henry Flad.
The references to the tests recorded in the Annual Reports
of the Tlississippi River Commission are as follows:-
r For references see Bibliography.FORM & DIMENSIONS OF DISCHARGE PIPES
		Diam. of Discharge Pipe in inches.	length of Pipe on pontoons	length of pontoons	Method of Coupling	No. of Blades on Main Sand Pipe	Descrip. of Discharge Pipe.	Rise or fall at stern of dredge.
Alpha	1898	30	500	33'	Rubb er	Edwards		
			1000		hose	r Six		
						Morris		
						r five		
Beta	1898	33	1000	100*	T?	Eight	’,7r ought	Gradual re-
				&			iron l/4"	verse curve
				50'			thick. 5’	near pump
	1902	TT	600			TT	sections	Drop of 7'
							Rivet	2 1/2".
							counter-	
							sunk on	
							inside.	
Gamma	1898	34	1000	50’	T?	Four	Tank Steel	Gradual
							1/4” thick	rise of 13"
	1902	34	500			II	Cylindrical	at stern of
							sections	dredge.
Delta	1898	34	1000	50'	TT	Five	riveted	Gradual
							steel	drop of 2'
							pipe	7" near
								pump.
	1902	34	500			IT		
Epsilon	1898	32	1000	50’	Tl	Seven		
	1902	32	500			Five		Gradual
Seta	1898	32	1000	50'	TT	Seven	f?ivet ed	rise of 16"
						Three	steel	at stern of
	1902	32	1000			Five	pipe	dredge.Diam. of	Length length
Discharge of Pipe of
Pipe in on	pontoons
inches, pontoons
Iota	1902	52	11/16	500	50'
Zappa	1902	31	7/8	240	60’
Henry	1902	32		480	60'
Flad
Ilethod Ho. of Descrip. Rise or fall
of Blades of at stern of
Coupling on	Discharge	dredge.
I Iain Pipe.
Sand
ZiPl.__________________________
Rubber	Five	Rivited	
hose		steel	Sudden rise
Ball & Socket Joint.	Five	Pipe.	of five ft. at stern of dredge.
T»	Five	Tt ff	Reversed Curve.5-
Beta			1904,	Page	102
Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon		1903,	IT	155 - 157.
Zeta 7 blade runner 			1903,	IT	155 - 157.
•7 r fZ IT Tf Oo «J • —		1904,	?1	100 - 101
Iota, Open runner 			1903,	»?	155 - 157
Shrouded runner 		-1904,	II	102
Eappa and Henry FIad 			1903,	Tf	155 - 157
2. Description of Discharge - jpe.
In Table I. are given for each dredge the factors that
would be likely to influence the loss of head in the discharge
pipe. The conditions for the year 1898 are those under which
the tests given in Table II. were made. The tests in Table
III. were performed under the conditions of 1902.
All the dredges were provided with centrifugal sand pumps.
In all oases except Alpha and 3eta, the discharge pipe
line is composed of cylindrical sections of 1/4 inch tank
steel,riveted together.	Only in the case of Beta is it stated,
however, whether these rivets are countersunk or not. On
Alpha the material of which the discharge pipe was made is not
mentioned. From the stern of the dredge the discharge pipes
are carried for a distance varying from 240 to 1000 feet on
floating pontoons.
For full description of pumps and apparatus see,
Ockerson on Dredges and Dredging in Bibliography.6-
The flange joints used to connect the pipe lengths on
the Kappa and Flad were made so as to allow a deflection of
20° in either direction.
3. Apparatus for Capacity Tests.
A "brief description of the apparatus used for all the
tests of Table II. will be given here.
A measuring barge was fitted up^to which the lower end
of the discharge pipe was attached by means of suitable
diverting valves,so arranged that it could be made to deflect
either into the spoil bin on the bgrge or into the river
through an opening in the bottom of the barge, the diverter
being revolved "almost instantaneously by means of the dropping
of heavy weights".
Two gauges were stationed in the barge by means of which
the volume of material discharged could be read. During a test
tjie dredge was pulled ahead as in actual work. Sufficient
water was let into the spoil bin to cover the floor and the
gauges were read. 'Then all was running smoothly at about the
normal rate the discharge valve was thrown open. When the barge
was almost full the valve was closed.” After a few minutes
necessary to allow the water to settle in the spoil bin, the
gauges were read. The water was then drawn off and the sand
was measured by measuring the depth on parallel crocs sections
at eleven points on each section,or sometimes by shovelling it
# The time was taken with a stop watch^ the runs being
made about 2 minutes long.7-
into a "bon of known volume. This latter method was abandoned
finally though some of the experiments were probably made
that way, giving erroneous percentages of sand.since,as stated
the volume of the sand was 22$ more when measured this way.
Knowing the volume of water and the volume of sand,the veloc-
ity and the percentage of sand were computed.
The loss of head in the discharge pipe was determined by
taking readings during the run on an open mercury gauge,
stationed near the pump. The head obtained from these read-
ings contained all losses of head due to friction, bends, and
contraction at the end of the discharge pipe,but not the
velocity head. The readings of the gauge.corrected for the
height above the center of the pipe, are the delivery heads
given in the table,and these therefore give directly the loss
of pressure head in the discharge pipe.
4. Local Conditions Influencing the Loss of Head.
There are many local conditions affecting the losses of
head on the different dredges which make it difficult to com-
pare the results. Some of the most important are as follows:
On dredge Alpha,When the discharge pipe was swinging freely
in the current with the lower end open and the pump running,
the pipes would kink up at the joints. Mr. Maltby states
that this is due to the centrifugal force of the water exag-
gerating any slight bend in the pipe. One would think that
the centrifugal force of thw water would tend rather to8-
straighten the pipe than to bend it still more, owing to the
natural tendency of a body in motion to move in a straight
line. A baffle plate was provided at the discharge end of
the pipe line to prevent this and it seems to have been suc-
cessful. This kinking at the joints would greatly increase
the loss of head,but this affects only the first set of exper-
iments with the Edwards pump.
It is also stated in connection with this dredge that the
pontoons were not given sufficient buoyancy,so that as soon as
10 per cent of sand was being carried , the pipe line would
commence to sink. This was remedied for the second set of
experiments made with the Morris pump. However, in the first
set of experiments there were several percentages above 10 per
cent and the middle portion of the pipe line must have been
submerged. This would affect the loss of head only slightly
as compared with some of the irregularities.-
A cause influencing the loss of head in the case of all
the dredges was the fact that the center line of the pipes was
not horizontal,there being a change of elevation in every case
at the stern of the dredge,where the pipe first entered on the
pontoons.
THien water only is running this error can be practically
eliminated by correcting for the change in elevation. TThen
sand and water are being pumped the correction to be made is
not known,and the nearest estimation would be the same correc-
tion as for water only. Thus one would come no nearer the9-
relative losses of head than when no correction was applied.
Since the relative and not the absolute losses are of most
importance,no allowance will he made for the change in eleva-
tion in either Tables II or III.
Beta had two independent dredgihg machinesjcomplete from
suction to end of discharge pipe,and two deflecting valves
were provided at the test barge so that both pipe lines could
be discharged into the barge at the same time if so desired!
In tests 1 to 8 of Table II. this was done and these tests
are decidedly unreliable because only the mean velocity and
mean percentage are given,while the delivery head on the two
sides differs. In Table II. runs in which the delivery heads
differ more than three feet are marked with an asterisk.
Any horizontal curves in the floating pipe line being
neccessarily of very large radius nad but little effect. A
test was made on the Flad pumping water only with all the joints
deflected in the same direction, to the limit of their throw
of about 20°. The additional loss of head for the 600* pipe
was about 2" of mercury.in a total head of 28 inches.
5. Causes on Inaccuracy in Observations.
As previously stated the mercury gauge is stationed
close to the pump where the water is greatly disturbed,owing
to the pulsating pressure and the centrifugal force of the
water as it first leaves the pump. The fluctuations due to
these causes amounted in some cases to two or three inches
of mercury. This prevented the accixrate determination of10-
the pressure head.
s
Another point brought out in Mr. Llaltby's paper in the
fact that the duration of this test covered a shorter time in
many cases than was required for the mixture to pass from the
pump to the barge. Since the percentage of sand was constant
ly varying, the percentage obtained from the barge measure-
ments may not have been an indication of the average character
of the mixture passing through the pipe during the experiment.
If the percentage of sand varied greatly and quickly this
alone would be sufficient to vitiate the experiment entirely,
and a great deal of the irregularity of the tests is probably
due to it.
The character of the sand also varied as the dredge was
pulled ahead, and the sample takeiij^rom the barge may not have
been similar to the quality passing through the experimental
length when the gauges were read.
Considering these variable conditions even greater irreg-
ularity would be expected than the results show.
6. Apparatus for Efficiency nests.
The apparatus used for the water tests of Table III. was
entirely different from that already described.
The method of barge measurement was abandoned and pitot
tubes were used to measure the velocity instead. Ten tubes
were constructed and tested.* The impact and pressure tubes
# See pages 418 - 427 of Maltby's paper. Bibliography.11-
in each instance were encased in a 1 1/4" pipe,inserted
through a hole in the top of the discharge pipe.fitted with
a stuffing box, thus permitting vertical traverses to he made.
A pointer was placed on the end of the Pitot tube stem at
right angles with the plane of the impact opening.	In the
tubes finally adopted there was little or no suction on the
static point. The indicated velocities checked well with
those by float at velocities between 3 and 4 feet per second.
The average of six tests on two tubes checked each other
within 0.84 at velocities varying around 25 feet per second.
The piezometers were ordinary 1/4" T-handled air cocks
screwed injro holes tapped in the sides of the pipes along
their horizontal diameters. In the discharge pipes these
were made as nearly fliish with the inside of the pipe as was
possible by measurements from the outside.
Two forms of gauges were used, namely.- a differential
V-shaped gauge with two rubber hose attachments,and with a
scale divided to inches and tenths;and an open V-shaped gauge,
with one leg longer than the other,and with one rubber hose
attached to the short leg. Mercury was used in both gauges.
In a few cases where the pressure was very low water was used.
It is stated that great care was taken to remove all the air
from the rubber tubing.
In general the kitot tubes were connected to the differ-
ential gauges and the piezometers to the open gauges; but in12-
a few cases the two sides of the Pitot tubes were connected
to the separate open gauges.
In the case of each dredge Pitot tubes were inserted in
one suction pipe and in the discharge pipe. The tube in the
discharge pipe was placed some distance from the pump, usually
in the first or second section outside the dredge, to avoid
the disturbance existing near the pump. Piezometers were
introduced at various points at intervals of' about 100 feet
along the entire length of the discharge pipe, the first
piezometer being near the pump. As with the capacity tests
the mercury columns fluctuated in some cases as much as 2 or
3 inches. For each test from 5 to 10 readings were taken
on each leg of the gauge. "They were not taken exactly
simultaneously or at regular intervals by each observer, but
each m8de the readings as rapidly as possible,observing the
mean of the fluctxiations as nearly as could be judged".
It is stated that this method is open to criticism.and
on the face of it it certainly seems to be,for though there
is no necessity of taking the readings simultaneously or at the
same intervals on the different gauges, they ought certainly
to be taken at equal intervals on the same gauge,or the
arithmetric mean will be far from the truth since each read-
ing has a different weight.
The time required for one set of observations was from
5 to 10 minutes. "'’his is longer than in the case of the
barge tests.13-
7. deductIon of Observations.
In reducing the gauge readings, all piezometer pressures
were reduced to give pressures at the elevation of the center
of the pipe at that point. The Pitot tube pressures were
reduced to the elevation of the impact point of the tube in
the few cases where open gauges were used. Where differential
gaugeswere used these corrections are eliminated.
The delivery heads given in Table 33 of Hr. Maltby1s
articlekon which Table III is based, are not the pressures
obtained from the first piezometer near the pumptas it was
feared that the great disturbance of the v/ater at that point
would give erroneous results. The corrected piezometer press-
ures were plotted.^ The hydraulic grade line was obtained for
the floating part of the discharge pipe, and projected back to
the flange of the pump. This pressure was corrected for any
difference of elevation between the pump and the first gauge on
the floating pipe line, and this was considered as the delivery
head. The curvature between the two points mentioned was neg-
glected^but this is very slight on all the dredges except the
Iota, kappa and Flad. Since these dredges were not tested while
pumping sand and water this omission is of no consequence.
To reduce the pressure head in inches or mercury to feet
of water,the specific gravity of mercury was assumed to be 13.5.~
See Article by Haltby, plate XXXVII.
$ This value is low since for a temperature of 60° the
specific gravity of mercury = 13.58.14-
In connection with the loss of pressure head in the
discharge pipe,it is stated that on the lota, Kappa, and Flad,
the point of zero pressure is reached at the last gauge and
not at the end of the pipe as would he expected, while on the
Beta this point occurred at a gauge 18 feet from the end.
This phenomenon is described as follows:- "Then the piezometer
was connected to the ordinary mercuty gauge it showed no
pressure or suction. ---- The gauges were removed and the air-
cock unscrewed from the hole in the pipe. This hole is 1/2
inch in diameter hut although it was on the horizontal center
of a 32 inch pipe flowing entirely full and at a mean velocity
ofjirom 14 to 21 feet per seconc^no water came out except
occasionally a few drops,which seemed to he caught on the
downstream edge of the hole and thrown out. This observation
was made on each of the four dredges mentioned; how far from
the end of the pipe the condition of no pressure extended
was not determined. This was only true when the pipes were
flowing entirely full at the ends. Then on the Iota the
speed of the pump was reduced to such an extent that water
filled the discharge pipe at the end to wdthin four or five
inches of the top, then the water in the gauge attached to
the piezometer rose to approximately the height of the water
in the pipe".
According to the above statement there was no friction
7
in the last 30 feet of discharge pipe.'^ Moreover, unless
# See fftot note on next page.15-
the section where the last gauge was stationed was contracted,
the center of the pipe could not be at atmospheric pressure
with the pipe flowing full. Provided the above is a correct
statement of the conditions actually observed, there must
have been some local cause of error unknown to the observers.
Scale 2" +o-Hl& inch .
The lap of the rings was in the direction of the current,
as shown in the above figure. If the hole in the pipe was
situated as there shown, the conditions described would be
accounted for. At high velocities of from 14 to 21 f.p.s.,
the pressure at the hole would be far less than the pressure
at the center of the pipe, while at low velocities the pressure
at the hole would increase.
In any case, if the entire pipe was filled at the end,
the loss of head should be considered as taking place through-
out the entire length of the discharge pipe. The loss of head
per 1000* given in Table III was computed on this basis.	In
the diagrams given in Mr. Maltby's paper on the other hand the
# ’Thich according to the measurements on the rest of the
pipe would amount to a head of 1 foot of water in some
cases and the water v/ould shoot from the hole at a veloc-
ity of 8 ft. per second.16*
hydraulic grade line reached the pipe at the last gauge.
The delivery head id simply the pressure head,as in
Table II, and therefore the velocity head must not be subtracted.
To obtain the correct center velocities from the read-
ings of the Pitot tubes, which were made at the center of the
pipe, the formula v = 2gh was used,the constants having
been found for the various tubes by rating them as already
stated.
The velocities given in Tables II and III are the mean
velocities obtained from the center velocities by applying
different factors for each dredge. These factors were deter-
mined by making traverses of the vertical diameter of the
discharge pipes, at the points where the Pitot tubes were
stationed, and finding the mean value for the range of work-
ing velocities.
The mean value_v mean for all dredges • 0.8721 ,varying
v center
from 0.8008 on the Delta to 0.911 on the Gamma.. This value
does not vary in accordance with the velocity,but seems to be
dependent rather on the local conditions of the dredge.
It is believed that the other columns of Tables II and
III are self explanatory.
For plotting of traverses see Appendix IF, Chief
Engineers Report, 1903.TABLE II
CAPACITY TESTS OF DRED03S PUMrlUG 3Alii AJID WATER.
Name c£ Dredge	Ho. of test	length of Diech Pipe	Total Loss of Head	Loss of Head per 1000’	Vel. in Ft. per seo.	Charac. of Band $ of $ of Wt. per Sand. Voids on. ft. dry			Remarks.
Alpha	7	604.5	TB75IT	"25.7	13.31	5.63	35	106	
1894	8	If	15.80	26.15	11.10	12.45	33	104	
1895	9	tf	15.59	25.5	11.74	10.89	38	104	
	10	Tt	15.38	25.5	11.74	7.61	37	108	
	11	If	16.59	27.5	12.41	10.27	37	104	
	12	If	15.23	25.2	12.04	6.37	37	109	
	15	If	14.08	23.3	12.85	9.21	33	109	Edwards Pump.
	14	If	15.90	26.3	11.48	8.67	37	106	
	15	If	15.32	25.35	12.94	6.20	38	106	
	16	1059.5	22.13	20.9	9.78	5.23	42	100	
	17	If	22.80	21.5	7.53	7.38	39	108	
	18	If	22.64	21.4	7.85	12.17	37	106	
	19	If	23.53	22.2	9.20	9.11	37	108	
	20	If	25.52	24.1	8.94	6.93	34	111	
	21	II	23.36	22.03	9.46	7.75	40	107	
	22	If	20.73	19.57	10.79	8.90	42	103	«
	1	599	25.8	43.05	14.2	T,7at er	Test		
	2	II	30.4	50.75	13.9	18.0	30	104	
	5	1151	35.0	30.9	9.6	14.0	34	108	
	4	If	35.0	30.9	8.6	4.0	37	96	Morris Pump.
	5	If	32.7	28.9	11.4	12.0	35	97	
	6	If	24.6	21.75	12.4	Hat er	Test		
	7	If	53.4	47.2	7.2	25.0	35	100	
	8	If	38.5	34.0	5.9	21.0	36	97	
	9#	»i	28.1	24.8	9.7	14.0	36	96	Unreliable.
	10	599	30.4	50.75	14.1	16.0	35	99	Fame of Dredge	Ho. of Test	length of Disch Pipe	Total Loss of Head	Loss of Head per 100©»	Vel. in Ft. per sec.	$ of Sand.	Charac. of Voids	of Sand Wt. per Remarks, cu. ft. dry	
Beta'	1	1162	32.3	27.8	~To7B~	~~if.tr'	35			
1896	2	Tt	40.9	35.2	11.9	15.1	33	98	
	3#	Tt	46.4	39.93	11.6	34.6	34	99	losses of head
	ii	T!	39.0	33.6	13.8	22.8	34	99	are means between
		tt	41.8	36.0	13.5	36.4	35	98	Port and Star-
	S	T»	37.5	32.3	14.0	21.9	35	98	board Pipes. Tests
	7#	Tt	38.0	32.7	14.0	17.4	32	99	in 7/hich head on
	8#	Tf	37.1	31.9	13.5	29.0	33	98	two sides differs
	9#	If	32.7	29.2	13.9	28.8	35	98	more than 3 feet
	10	If	33.2	28.6	14.9	21.5	35	98	are starred.
	11	It	29.9	25.7	16.5	Water Test			
	12	Tf	36.7	31.6	14.4	4.7	Gravel	Teat	
Gamma	1	1069	29.3	27.4	11.59	14.3	37	99	
1897	2	tt	35.0	32.75	10.64	16.0	37	99	
	3	It	38.5	36.0	8.48	15.8	33	106	
	4	If	30.0	28.1	11.57	8.1	37	99	
	5	tf	35.0	32.75	10.57	22.2	36	104	
	6	tt	38.7	36.2	9.79	21.6	35	102	
	7	It	41.5	38.8	7.84	21.4	34	103	
	8	tf	41.5	38.8	9.42	27.6	34	105	
	9	If	33.9	31.7	10.77	13.2	35	100	
	10	tt	45.4	42.5	5.15	21.6	35	107	
	11	tf	37.3	34.9	10.64	29.0	36	106	
	12	If	30.4	28.45	12.99	6.6			Special Test.
Delta	1	1104.5	46.4	42.0	16.2	12.8	37	99	
1897	2	tf	45.3	41.05	16.5	11.7	37	77	
	3	tf	45.3	41.05	15.6	17.0	37	95	
	4#	If	54.5	49.35	12.1	17.8	34	99	Teste 4, 6, &8
	5	If	47.6	43.1	15.0	7.4	35	105	test barge valve
	6#	ri	45.3	41.0	14.7	19.6	36	109	not entirely
									open.
	7#	Tf	47.6	45.1	14.0	25.1	40	101	Gutter machinery
broke at test.name of Dredge	Ho. of Test	Length of Disch -lie® _	Total Loss of Head	Loss of Head per 1000*	Vel. in Ft. per sec.	$ of Sand.	Charac. fo of Vjbids	of Sand Wt. per cu. ft. dry	Remarks.
Delta									
1897									
	8#	1104.5	47.6	43.1	15.4	7.7	36	116	
	9	TT	38.4	34.8	13.9	18.0	37	97	
	10	ft	43.0	38.95	15.0	25.5	33	111	
	11	4L	41.8	37.85	15.4	14.3	37	101	
	12	If	43.0	38.95	14.7	11.9	39	103	
	IS	I?	45.3	41.0	14.8	10.0	35	97	Sand witfcjemall
	14	If	46.4	42.0	15.1	7.9	35	113	$ of gravel.
	jff	532	33.8	63.5	18.5	9.9			Special tests.
	16#	532	38.4	72.2	15.9	9.5			Exp. length
									uncertain.
Epsilon	1	1121	44.7	39.9	10.2	9.9	33	106	
1898	2	II	34.7	30.95	14.7	6.5	33	103	
	3	rt	34.7	30.95	16.9	13.6	36	100	
	4	IT	37.7	33.65	15.7	24.6	33	103	
	5	Tl	37.7	33.65	16.4	25.8	36	98	
	6	If	37.7	33.65	16.6	22.9	35	98	
	7	Tl	36.7	32.7	18.3	16.5	36	99	
Zeta	1	If	34.7	30.9	17.0	14.8	36	100	
	2	If	35.7	31.8	14.6	11.9	37	95	
	3	If	35.7	31.8	16.5	10.8	36	95	
	4	If	35.7	31.8	17.8	8.1	37	95	
	5	II	33.7	30.1	16.5	10.1	35	93	
19-20-
TABLE
III.
Dredge
Beta
Disch.
Samma
or 34**
Delta
Epsilon
Zeta
Tests of	Dredges,	Pumping	Water only.	
Length Total Loss of of' Head Diseh. Pipe		Loss of Head p. 1000	Vel. in Remar] Ft. per 1 sec.	
745.8	24.58	' 32.95	20.27	600' of
	23.89	32.04	19.32	pontoons
	24.14	32.40	19.90	
	24.76	33.20	20.27	
	27.01	36.24	20.80	
	26.51	35.55	20.43	
	28.77	38. 60	21.50	
	20.66	27.70	18.13	
	20.37	27.32	18.75	
596.0	12.54	20.88	13.76	500’ of
	13.90	23.30	14.50	pontoons
	15.36	25.75	15.26	
	16.31	27.36	15.90	
	13.80	23.16	14.41	
	13.90	23.32	14.70	
620.5	15.32	24.65	16.70	500' of
	15.52	25.00	16. E3	pontoons
	15.80	25.42	17.02	
590	22.78	38.65	19.847 500' of	
	24.97	42.3	20.897 pontoons	
	25.05	42.4	£0.74	
	25.65	43.5	21.21	
	26.60	45.1	21.58	
	28.86	48.9	22.06	
	28.70	48.7	21.98	
1092	33.86	31.0	15.74	1000’ of
	34.65	31.7	15.77	pontoona
	35.02	32.1	15.87	>
	32.14	29.43	15.12	3 bladed
	31.58	28.9	14.96,	runner.
	29.81	27.3	14.15s	1000' of
	33.75	30.9	15.01	pontoons
	39.60	36.25	16.35	5 bladed
	42.29	38.7	16.43	runner.
	40.16	36.6	16.78/	
	40.73	37.3	17.50^:	
	41.83	38.3	17.97	1000' of
	37.35	34.2	16.961	pontoons
	38.22	35.0	17.06	7 bladed
	34.46	31.53	16.10	runner.
	41.03	37.57	17.56	
	39.17	35.84	17.33/	21-
Dredge Diam.of Disch. inches.	Length of Disch. Pipe	Total Loss of Head	Loss of Head p. 1000	Yel. in Ft. per ' sec.		Remarks
Iota 32 117To”	662	26.55	40.1	17.1JT		“5oo,_oT~
		31.57	47.7	17.92		pontoons
		31.85	48.1	18.18		Open run-
		31.80	48.1	18.06		
		33.80	51.1	18.75		
		33.70	50.9	18.75		
		30.91	46.7	18.10s		Shrouded
		31.16	47.05	21.30		runner.
		30.96	46.75	20.90		
Kappa SI 7/8	392	26.19	66.8	19.66		240' of
		28.07	71.6	20.71		pont 00113
		28.44	72.6	20.99		
		28.44	72.6	20.97		
		28.81	73.5	21.42		
		28.82	73.5	21.48		
		£9.05	74.1	21.77		
		29.35	74.9	22.09		
Henry 32	642	26.91	41.9	14.78		480' of
Flad		26.91	41.9	14.78		pontoons
		29.25	45.6	16.75		
		30.32	47.2	16.99		
		29.87	46.5	16.96		
		30.24	47.1	17.11		
		35.00	54.5	19.14		
		31.95	49.7	17.51		l(o
14
Z5
P L AT E I
90
/ o
LOGARITHMIC PLOTTING OF
EFFICIENCTTESTS OF DREDGES
PUMPING WATER ONLY
LOSSES OF HEAD )N FEET PER IOOO FEET AS ORE>iN ATE©.
VELOCITIES IN FEET PER SECOMDAS ABSCISSAS.,
- He
10
I 2
i 4
O	Be+“a-. Piometer *33^
•	Samma.Diom.t34". Rise ot /3"a+&tern.
O	Delta. Diom.«34'! Dropof 2.‘7''a+e+ern.
E	Epeifon.Diam.*32^u Rise ofr Ue>“a+stern.
A	2.eta.3 Blades."D«32" • » * * *
A "	5 Blades ••**•*»	* .
A - 7Blode& -	*	- *	*	» .
□ Xota.D* 32^“.Open runner* Ri&eof 5'cHfctern.
c	u •* H .Shroudedrunner »*•»*«*	»•
a	Kappa.D* 32". Rt'«e 5‘
■ Flad . ©«3I^"	•»	* - -
Equation o+Vsloci+y Curves^- H~ mV ,'7*5.
IS
So
3 S22-
8. Results of Efficiency Tests.
The tests given in Table III are plotted logarithmically
in Plate I. It was found that on the Beta and Gamma, on
which the most tests were made, the points seem to follow
approximately lines having the equation H -	Since
all the pipes are of a similar character.where only a cluster
of points is obtained lines having this same equation were
drawn through the center of gravity of the points. The Iota,
Zappa and Flad show the highest resistances due to the fact
that they all three have a sudden rise of 5’ at the stern of
the dredge. They are consistent among themselves,the loss
of head decreasing as the diameter increases. Zeta and
Epsilon both have a rise of 16" at the stern and these also are
consistent. Beta and Delta are low incomparison with the
others owing to their having a drop of 7' 2 l/2" and 2’ 7"
respectively. Beta with a much larger drop falls below
Delta in spite of having a smaller diameter. Gamma is the
only one that does not check:, for although the rise at the
stern is only 15" as compared with 16" on the Epsilon and its
diameter larger, it still has a higher resistance. In the
case of the Zeta attention is called to the variation of the
loss of head with the number of blades on the runner. The
plotting of the tests is not sufficiently regular, however,
for reliable conclusions to be drawn from this fact.9, Results of Capacity Tests
23-
On Plate II are plotted the tests given in Table II.
The blue lines taken from Plate I are the velocity curves
with water only. With the exception of Epsilon,the same
number of blades v/ere used for the tests in Table II as for
those in Table III. For Epsilon seven blades were used
instead of five,which would probably cause some variation in
the water curve. In the case of Beta.it is seen that the
run made with water only in 1898 checks well with the velocity
curve obtained in 1902. The friction in the discharge pipe
of dredge Alpha is very uncertain since it had been dismanteled
previous to the season of 1902. The line connecting tests
made in 1898,with water only running, would indicate that
the loss of head varied with the fifth power of the velocity^
which is incredible.
Judging from the runs with sand and water the lower
point is nearer the truth,and a line having the same equation
as the velocity curves on the other dredges was therefore
drawn through this point.
From this plotting the following conclusions can be
drawn within the limits covered by the tests.
1. For any given velocity the loss of head due to sand
and water is greater than that due to water alone.
(out of 78 runs, 6 lie below the water curves and 4 of
these occur on one dredge, Zeta, indicating that theLOGARITHMIC PLOTTING OP
CAPACITY TESTS OF DREDGES
PUMPING SAND AND WATER
BY BARGE MEASUREMENT
LOSSES OF HEAD IN FEET PER IOOO FEET AS ORDINATES
VELOCITIES IN FEET PER SECOND AS ABSCISSAS
PLAT E1124-
v/ater curve is too high in that one case. )
2.	The higher the percentage of sand the greater the
loss of head. (This is the case wherever the plottings
are at all consistant as on the Alpha, Beta,Gamma and
Epsilon.)
3.	The higher the velocities the less the loss of head
due to the sand and the less the affect of the percent-
age of sand. (Where the sand curves can he drawn they
seem to approach the water curves.)
The reasons for the irregularity of the tests on the Beta
has already been stated, but why the tests on the Delta should
be so inconsistent is not evident. In several cases it is
stated, however, that the barge valve was only partially
open, which v/ould greatly increase the loss of head .
On Epsilon and Zeta the rater velocity curves are evident-
ly too high. On Epsilon this line is uncertain owing to
changes in the pump.
This plate will be referred to again in discussing the
results of the experiments by the writer.
10. Effective Gross Section of Discharge Pipe.
During the same season of 1902, tests were made to deter-
mine the effective cross section of the discharge pipe and at
the same time the proportion of sand pumped .
Mr. Maltby states that they were not successful in deter-25-
mining the velocity in the discharge pipe while pumping sand.
The apparatus used was as follov/s:- "A piece of 1 inch
pipe, about 4 feet long was fitted to go through one of the
stuffing boxes already described as being used with the Pitot
tubes; the lower end of the pipe was bent to a right angle to
face the current; the upper end of the pipe was fitted with
two elbows so arranged as to turn the opening downward.
Between the elbows was a gate valve for shutting off the flow
of water. The fittings on the top of the pipe formed a handle
by which it could be manipulated . The stuffing box permitted
the lower end of the pipe to be placed at any point along the
vertical diameter.
The valve being opened the water would flow up through
the pipe and since the vertical height of the pipe was much
head
less than the^at that point it was assumed that this stream
of water would carry the same proportion of sand as was being
carried by the discharge pipe at the end of the tube.K
The effluent was caught in buckets and the proportion of
sand measured.
^hree traverses were made on the Delta and eight on the
Xappa. The mean of all the results showed that the percent-
age increases only slightly toward the bottom;although the
observations covered a large range of percentages.
This points to the fact that most of the sand was in
suspension. Besides,the small pipe was thrust down until it26-
touched the bottom at the end of' every traverse, and if there
had been a large amount of inert sand at the bottom of the
discharge pipe, it would surely have been noticed.
The data for the traverses are not given here since they
are of little value owing to the velocity not being known.
The velocities probably ranged around the ordinary working
velocity of 14 feet per second, but not even the revolutions
of the pump are given.
A statement made with regard to the barge tests on the
Beta has a direct bearing an this point.
"7/hen discharging into the river while the barge was
connected, the stream had to make a right angle turn at the
barge but when the valves were opened it flowed in a straight
line". When the valves were closed "the pontoons by their
submergence show that from 30 to 50 per cent of sand is being
transported, a large portion of the heavier particles in the
bottom half of the pipe moving at a very low velocity,or
probably not moving at all, and a sudden removal of a certain
amount of head at the end of the discharge pipe acts as a
relief and permits the material to be discharged more rapidly.
This reduction of head at the end of the pipe occurred when
the flow of the discharge v/as changed to a straight line.
The amount of reduction of head was the friction head developed
by the stream flowing through 90 degrees of curvature having
a very short radius. The amount of this head was probably27-
more than that required at a 90° ell since the sides of the
valve chamber were square and the valve alone curved".
Assuming the velocity to have been 14 feet per second,
which is certainly higher than it actually was-,and the radius
of the bend equals 16 inches,,which is the least that it could
be, the loss of head according to Weisbach can now be
obtained.
hr - 5 vL where § : C.151 + 1.847 (a)!
1 2g~	r
a - radius of pipe s 16 - 1, whence J - 1.98.
r radius of bend 16	^
h = 1.98 (14) = 6.04 *.
A reduction of six feet in the delivery head means a
reduction of only two feet in the velocity. Doubling this to
allow for the sand flowing and the exceptional roughness of the
bend, the velocity could not possibly have been redticed more
than three or four feet due to this cause.
The velocities at which these tests were made are those
given in Table II,and are for the most part IS or 14 feet per
second.
From the facts stated on the last few pages two more
conclusions can be drawn.
4.	At velocities of about 14 feet per second all the
sand is suspended but the per cent is slightly greater toward
the lower part of the pipe.
5.	At velocities Belov/ about 10 feet per second the entire28-
cross section is rnodt effective,the sand moving at a slower
velocity than the water along the bottom of the pipe.
Some field tests were made to determine the working
capacity of each dredge,but here likewise the velocity in the
discharge pipe was omitted.
In the 190J3 report it is stated that more measurements
will be made during the following season and at the same time
the velocity measured,thus determining the relationsjof veloc-
ity to sand bearing capacity; but nothing further seems to
have been done along this line according to the report of 1904.
It is seen that here only very general conclusions are
reached. In Part III the results of these tests will be com-
pared with the results obtained by the writer and the laws
governing the flow will be more strictly defined.29-
PART II.
EXPERIMENTS PERFORATED ON SMALL ' PIPES.
1. Apparatus,
This series of experiments was performed "by the writer
during the winter of 1904 - 1905, while a student in the College
of Civil Engineering at Cornell University. The apparatus
was set up in the basement of the college.
A general idea of the apparatus can he gained from Plate III.
(a)	water Supply.
As is seen from the sketch there were two pipes from
which water could he obtained. The supply of water regulated
by the valve I could be drawn either from the Campus mains,
with a head of about 70 feet of water,or from the attic tank,
with a head of about 45 feet less. The supply of water flowing
through fc-he sand tank K, and regulated by the valve IT, could be
drawn only from the city mains. The advantage of using the
attic pressure was that it was steadier.
(b)	Sand obtained.
The sand was ordinary bank sand obtained near Ithaca and
was delivered in the same condition as excavated, except for
having been passed through a l/2 inch screen (2 meshes to the
inch). The sand was first divided into grades by hand screen-
ing as follows:PLATE III
Detail ofSandTank
A SouLes
B E x-perirnent TtvnJc
C \Vuste> Tunic
J) Rubber cLefle^tnq Rose^.
E Drain,.
E Glass ohsoriring Certgihs
G J) vPfi&r&rtt iat JVlorc ivy Gcuaoe,
H Fiezacrruetor Couplings.
I Rubber Ccrn^nectvno Rose.
J Clxvmp for rcg xxlcdJcny Sccrud.
K /S cuvet Reeepj-iociL/. 8 Ripe.!
L Valve, regulatirg IVbccLri Flow.
M Valve, regulating Flew tfirouyh
N M/ooden- Coven
~P G abveunitzed. Iren FuruvzL
SAND FEEDING PIPES
SIZES USED First Second.
&*	Feel Ripe. —
b	Ccupling----------L“---i
c	Nipples----------—j----y*
d Street Elbow-------------/'
e	Cross-------------~jr--
5	Hippies----------~~~k-l<r
g Redxvcing Elhcws—l“-jC
h	Vertical, Pipes- —-2.--L."
i Reduucer Ccxjplinfs— $"‘.£■—'2 "'ir
j Bzxshirtgs vNozzles—	-----£
SKETCH OF APPARATUS
SCALES
General Plan«w=E levation-2 Feet to the inch
Detail of Sand Receptical-^feet toltie inch
/30-
Grade I. lasses through 10 and remains on 20 meshes to the
inch.
VI	II.	20 - 40	meshes to	the	inch
TV	III.	40 - 60	if r?	If	TT
?f	IV.	60 - 100	if if	II	If
The per cent of grades was found by taking 10 lbs. of
the unsifted sand. The results are only approximate since
a nest oi sieves was not available.
Below	10	O.Tfo
I	5.2 fo
II	15.3'$
III	62.5$
Passing through 60	16.5 j
1CC$
IV	was not determined but equalled approximately 14^.
All above 10 and below ICO was discarded and of the
grades it was ultimately decided to use only II and IV, since
Grade I had other materials in it besides quartz. II and
IV were very homogeneous and composed almost entirely of sharp
quartz grains.
In Table IV is given the volume and percentage of voids
of Grades II and IV, two sets of determinations being made for
each, one before use the other after being used for some time.
In the first case the sand is unwashed, in the second washed.
SincB the volume of the sand in water was to be measured at the
end of each run,care was taken to find the per cent of voidsIT.
1
2
3
4
5
Mean
II.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mean
TABLE IV
SAND ANALYSES.
Wt.of Sand Initial Vol.of Vol. of Spec.Grav. > of Voids
Vcl. of Sand & Sand in
lbs	. grs. w	Wat er ccm. V	1 'ater. ccm. V’	Water ccm. W v + V - v' V v1 - v V
Before Washing.				
5	1360.8	555	1071	960
3	ft	555	1071	950
3	tt	555	1071	950
3	Tt	555	1071	953
3	11	554	1069	953
3	1360.8	655	1071	953 2.64 4.5.9
	Wt.per	cu. ft	. - 62.	5 x 2.64 x .541 - 89.2 #
	ff If	ff II	= By	measurement 89.1 #
After Washing.				
3	1360.8	555	1073	970
3	II	555	1070	970
TT	If	556	1072	970
It	If	556	1072	970
ft	If	560	1077	968
It	ff	559	1076	970
K	1360.8	557	1073	970 2.638 46.5
	Wt. per	cu. ft	. by measurement = q7#q	
	It Tf	ff Tf	by f0	of voids method » 87.9
Remarks.
Hot disturbed.
Slightly disturbed
If	Tf
Hot disturbed.
Some sand lost.
Some of the smaller
particles have
dvid.ently been
lost due to wash-
ing making $ of
voids higher.
w
M
IGrade	wt. lbs	of Sand Initial Vol.of Vol. of Sand & Water Water . grs. com. ccra. W v v'			Vol. of Sand in Water com. V	SpecGrav. $ W v V* - V	of Voids t V - v’ “V	Remarks.
IV.	BeforeWashing.							
1	3	1360.8	561	1082	992	2.615	47.5	
2	TT	TT	558	1080	992	2.608	47.4	
3	IT	IT	554	1079	994	2.593	47:2	
4	»T	TT	564	1089	994	2.593	47.2	/
5	If	It	573	1098	991	2.593	47.0	
6	ft	11	574	1097	998	2.602	47.6	
Mean						2.601	47.3	
		Wt.	■per cu. ft. = 62.		.4 x 2.601	x .527 « 85	.5 #	
		IT	T? TT	" by measurement - 85.5 ■>				
IV.	After Was		hing.					
1	s	907.2	553	898	662	2.630	47.9	
2	If	II	550	894	645	2.637	46.7	These results in
'Z	IT	If	552	897	649	2.630	46.9	dicate that sand
4	If	TT	550	895	649	2.630	46.9	has not changed
5	If	TT	555	899	654	2.637	47.4	due to washing a
Mean						2.633	47.1	perceptable
		Wt.	per cu.	ft. =2	x 2831.7	- 86.95		amount.
					”bbi:b			
		TT	If IT	" -= 2.	633 x 62.	4 x 0.529 -	86.8	
w
w
I53-
in water and not in air. On this account the fine grade
showed the higher percentage of voids,since the sand almost
floated in the water like quicksand. It was found that
shaking the calibrated glass jar before allowing the sand to
settle reduced the volume of the sand as much as 7 or 8 per
cent-and therefore both in the determination of voids,and in
measuring the sand during the experiments, care was taken not
to shake the sand and the same precautions were observed in
both cases. The coarse grade settled at once while at least
5 minutes were allowed for the fine sand to settle.
(c) Sand feeding apparatus.
On Plate III a detail of the sand feeding apparatus is
given. The cylinder consisted of an 8 inch wrought iron
pipe with a cap screwed onto the lower end .while a wooden cover
with a rubber gasket attached was bolted onto the other.with
eight 1/2 inch bolts. This cover had to be removed each
time the tank was filled. The v/ater entered through pipe,
a, and passed down through the cross and vertical pipes
issuing at a high velocity through the nozzles at j, thus pre-
venting the sand from blocking in the lower part of the cylin-
der. The conical galvanized iron funnel also helped in pre-
venting this. The first sizes of feed pipes used are tabulated
but not shown in the sketch. The second set of feed pipes
are shown in the detail. They were introduced so that a greater
pressure could be obtained at the nozzles and thus enable more34-
sand to “be introduced into the main flow at high velocities.
In this latter arrangement four l/s inch holes were cored in the
bottom of the cross isolating downwards at 45°. Their purpose
was to keep the sand from clogging in the upper part of the
cylinder.
The rubber hose connection between the sand tank and the
main pipe was at first connected to a T. later a Y w/as used as
shown in diagram it being thought that this would cause less
disturbance where the sand entered and might help it to flow
more evenly. (Ho advantage was noticed, however).
A distance of 6 feet 6 inches was allowed between the point
where the sand entered and the, upstream piezometer. This was
distance
considered as allowing ample time at even high velocities for
steady flow to set in.
(d) Pipes.
Both the pipes and piezometers used for these experiments
had been previously used by Drs. Saph and Schoder in their
thesis and the names and numbers used in refering to them are
the same as used there. Detail descriptions and methods of
measurement will also be found there.
The 1 inch brass pipe(kumber V)was first set up, length 5
being used for the Experimental length between the piezometers.
The experimental length was 11.903 feet while the adopted mean
diameter was 1.0546 inches. later the brass pipe was removed
# See Bibliography.35-
and a galvanized iron pipe substituted. Humber XVII was used
the length being reduced to 12.058 feet by cutting the upstream
end. The mean diameter adopted for the experimental length
equalled 1.042 inches.
A distance of about 50 diameters was allowed between the
last piezometer and the end of the pipe. Shortly before the
brass pipe was taken down glass lengths were introduced outside
the experimental length,for the purpose of investigating the
distribution of the sand in the cross section at low velocities.
They were about 1/8 inch smaller in diameter than either the
brass or iron pipes,but a sufficient distance was allowed between
them and the piezometers to avoid any Effect being felt at the
latter. These lengths were used in connection with this
galvanized pipe also.
(e) Piezometers.
The piezometers used in connection with the brass pipe
were E and E having a diameter of 1.054 inches. The pressure
v;as transmitted through a l/lOO inch slit.
■Then the galvanized iron pipe was first set up the piezome-
ters previously used with that pipe were put on. In this type
of piezometer the pressure is transmitted by four 1/8 inch
holes bored in the pipe. It v/as found that these holes allow-
ed sand to pass through to the gauges when the latter were
blown off, and the pip* was therefore cut and threaded so that
piezometers D and E could be used on this pipe also.36-
(f) Gauge.
An ordinary differential mercury gauge was used, the
pressures being transmitted from the piezometers to the gauge
columns by heavy three ply, cotton insertion, rubber tubing.
The gauge scale was divided to hundredths of a foot, the thou-
dandths being estimated. Two air cocks were provided at the
top of the gauge. The difference in diameter of the two glass
tubes was very slight so that the difference in the shape of
the menisci would cause no appreciable error.
The deflecting apparatus consisted of a rubber hose 15,
vrhieh could be switched between the two square galvanized iron
pipes,one leading to the sand measuring cylinder in the exper-
iment tank, the other to the waste tank C from which an over
flow trough led to the drain. A rubber hose (not shown) was
attached to a hole in the side near the bottom of the experi-
ment tank,which enabled the tank to be emptied by siphoning
over into the drain.
For measuring the volume of sand discharged during a run
two cylinders were provided, a galvanized iron jar for mea-
suring high and medium percentages of sand, and a small glass
jar for measuring very small volumes. To measure the volume
of sand in the galvanized cylinder a scale, graduated to hun-
dredths of a cu. ft. and having a flat piece of tin on the
bottom, was placed on the surface of the sand at various points,
and the reading opposite the edge of the jar gave the volume37-
of the sand. The volume off sand in the glass jar was
measured on the outside from the "base of the jar to the sur-
face of the sand, with a scale graduated from the "bottom to
the top.
The experiment tank stood on a platform scale, and the
initial and final weights were taken in pounds and tenths.
The time was taken with a reliable watch to the nearest
one half second. A stop watch was used for determining the
velocity of the sand between the glass lengths.
The temperature was taken with an ordinary mercury ther-
mometer to the nearest degree only.
2. Methods of Conducting Experiments.
After filling the cylinder K with sand, the clamp J being
closed, the water was then let in by means of valve M until
flush with the cylinder top to expell the air; and then the
wooden cover was bolted on. The main flow was next started
by opening valve I^and the stop-cock was closed. The
gauges were then blown off and the zeros noted. Great care
was taken to expell all the air from the rubber lose connections.
In miking the runs it was found very hard to get a sufficient
range of velocities and percentages of sand. To do this valves
M, I,and clamp J were varied in amount of opening, M and J
always being at least partially open while L was sometimes
-then	/
entirely closed, the water running entirely through the sand.38-
The conditions were also varied by removing the nozzles,
or nozzles and bushings both, from the sand feeding apparatus.
It was found impossible with the apparatus adopted to get
high velocities above IS feet per second and at the same time
high percentages. By keeping track of the opening of the
valves and clamp during a series of experiments the conditions
of any experiment could be approximately reproduced.
Before commencing a run the valves M, I and J were
adjusted and the initial weight of the measuring tan]: was
taken. Then the valve Q was opened and as soon as the sand
was running smoothly,which could be judged from the gauge,
the deflecting pipe D was switbhed from tank C to tank 3 and
the time taken. After an internal off'rom 15 to 60 seconds,
usually about 30 seconds, during which the gauges were read,
the deflecting pipe was switched back to the tank C and the
time again taken* Then valve 0 was closed.
To accomplish this two experiments were necessary. One
to adjust the valves, and read the gauges, the other to open-
ed ccrc/
ate the deflecting pipe and take down the gauge readings.
The time could be taken by either. During the first part of
the experiments it was taken by the writer who read the gauges
and adjusted the valves throughout. At that time the writer
had a different assistant for almost every day's experimenting.
For the last half of the experiments the same assistant
was kept throughout and for most of these experiments the time39-
was taken by the assistant, the writer giving the signal when
the sand was running steadily. In the course of the experi-
ments two methods of reading the gauges were used. For runs
up to number 147, both the right and left gauge columns were
read from 2 to 5 times during the run and the zeros were taken
merely to ensure there being no air in the tubes and as a check
on the readings. Riders were used sometimes when the gauges
were sufficiently regular. It was found, however, that the
gauges varied too rapidly to enable them to be read quickly
enough and another method was used. The zeros were kept con-
stant at 1.346,which was arbitrarily chosen,or very near that
value, any mercury lost being replaced. Then the differences
corresponding to readings on the right gauge were determined
by actual observation to allow for irregularity in the diameters
of the tubes. This method enabled as many as fifteen readings
to be taken during a run of thirty seconds if thought necessary,
giving a reliable average. ITo difficulty was encountered
until Srade IV was used when some of the fine sand came through
the l/iCO inch slit in the piezometers and thus constantly
changed the zeros. After this the zeros were read before
and after every one or two runs. The readings on the gauges
were taken at as nearly equal intervals as could be estimated
by the observer, the mean of the fluctuations during each
interval being approximated.
During a run most of the sand was caught in the galvan-40-
ized iron cylinder or glass cylinder already described,while
that flowing over into the experiment tank was collected and
put in the cylinder before measuring. Four readings were
taken with the measuring stick for the iron cylinder, while
for the glass only one was thought necessary.
The observations with the glass lengths were made in
connection with the regular runs, the runs being made as
usual except that a stop watch was started just as soon as the
sand appeared at the upstream glass length and stopped when
it reached the downstream.
3. Heduetion of Observed Bata.
The data obtained on each experiment were as follows
Duration Eight Gauge Tta.InifT Vo17of Sand TemperaTure~
of Exp. in ft. of Final
in secs. Llarcury_______in lbs. in ou.ft. Degr. Faht.
The difference in feet of mercury corresponding to the
average right gauge readings were plotted and mean lines were
drawn. A table was then constructed giving in first column
readings on the right gauge for every l/lOOth. foot; in the
second column corresponding mercury differences, In the third
and fourth columns the loss of head per one hundred feet for
the brass and iron pipes respectively were given. A mercury
one(jf*frV)
equivalent of 13.58 was used,Abeing deducted for the column of
water between the menisci. An experimental length of 11.903
was used for the brass pipe,while 12.058 feet was used for theVeloci+y	o
in fee+per second ^
Wai.gh.tsq? S+Winiwo
LO

<0
T5
O—f
>
c
-5®
m03
co
“Iq
“O 3
C O
co E 0.4
H-
O
t)
E
_g
q	LO	q	IO	O •	10	0 *	in
cvi	c\i	to	IO	*		m	in
2 o\		30 \		40. \	so		so
U) o
d
in	o
~	oi
in	q	in
c\i	rO	K>
140		150
o
in
o
in
in
iri
q	10	O	IO	q	in	O	10
id	&	r*'		CO	<d	d	<ri
isb		I90\		^ 200 \		MO \	2ZO
PLATE IV
DIAGRAM
for db+er mining the
... VELOCITY AND! PERCENTAGE OF SAND
ON£lf4CHBRAS5PIPE,SECT IONDE^ORAOEHOF SANE)
tFjfiTnffi	data	jtfr^\ Btrtlt
Percientage of Voids—j--^46.5
Wt. <^f S and pbr cu.ft. +Vbids-^79lbs.
Length of Rujns 30", C|=	I6 j5!o1
10
Pe r c enf a g e& of S a 4 dVeloc ity, in f eef per second.
Weight of Sand +Water, in lbs.

PLATE :V
0.1
0.2
V 0.5
<0
“Q
$ \0A
W)
c
~51> j
3 o i
lV,o.s
-51
C 0 i
<rS ^ |
oo
<D
£
J3
0.6
0.7
0.8
09
1.0
DIAGRAM
for djeter mining the
. VELOCITY AND PERCENTAGjE OF SAND
ONE INCH BRASS PIPE,SEC[riON| DE, AND GRADLiVQF SAND
S Li:; t: : I §:L: H ~§|±f: ' '::	t | '	| DATA	I	|	| : S: : nSSBSS
Percentage of Voids—I-iJ
Wt cj>f S and per cuft Wpids~ — 8St5lba
ii u it m — it------------16 2.3 lbs.
Length of Rups 30", Cj=^^l = l6|5.0l41-
galvanized iron pipe.	3y taking the difference of the
initial and final weights the weight of sand and water was
found. It was assumed that the sand and v.-ater had the same
velocity and the resultant mean velocity was obtained graphi-
cally (see Plates TV and V), using the weight of sand and -water
and the volume of sand as coordinates.Tn Plate V all the com-
putation is done graphically}while in Plate IV the computing
is done first and then the mean velocity and percentage of
sand are read off directly from the intersection of the coor-
dinates. ^he only advantage of Plate V is that the variation
of the specific gravity of the water due to temperature is
taken into account,while in Plate IV it is not; but the
accuracy of the results do not justify this and Plate IV is
the better chart. Plate V is used as follows:- The two given
coordinates, weight of sand and water and volume of sand in-
cluding voids,are located and their intersection found.
From this point a line is run parallel to the diagonal lines
sloping downwards to the right and its intersection with the
blue line,corresponding to the temperature of the experiment,
noted. From this point a vertical line is run to a point
horizontally opposite the given volume reading interpolated
on the scale giving the volume of sand minus voids. This
point corresponds to the intersection of coordinates on the
other plate and the velocity can be read off directly to
tenths and by interpolation to hundredths of a foot, while the42-
percentage can “be found by extending a thread from the origin
of coordinates through the given point and interpolating on
the scale of percentages.
Since the charts are made out for the normal run of 30
seconds, the velocity with the runs whose durations differed
from this have to be corrected by a factor equal to the recip-
rocal of the ratio of the time. Thus for a 15 second run the
velocity would be multiplied by 2. The diagrams being con-
structed for the brass pipe,a correction was applied to the
velocity obtained from them for runs on the iron pipe. This
correction is the ratio of the squares of the diameters of
the two pipes or 168.82 . The velocity from the charts are
165.01
therefore slightly increased. The velocities of the sand
between the glass lengths were computed by knowing the time
and the distance between them, which was 18.63 feet.
The percentage of sand obtained from the charts is of
course correct for any length of run and for both kinds of
pipe.
The velocity from both charts check up within 0.02 or
0.03 feet with computed velocities, while the percentages for
low volocities check to the nearest percentage and for high
velocities to the nearest tenth of a percent.
4. Accuracy of the Sxperiments.
In reading the gauges the mean for a normal run could43-
not be obtained nearer than .01 or .02 feet for a mercury
difference of 0.2 or 0.3 feet so that the accuracy varied
from 1 in 20 up. In many cases, however, it was less.
The volume of sand could be measured to the nearest .005
cubic foot for volumes above 0.1 cubic foot, making the low-
est accuracy 1 in 20. For smaller volumes, the glass jar
being used, the readings could be taken to the nearest thou-
sandth of a cubic foot, so that even for very small volumes
an accuracy of about 1 in 20 was maintained.
The platform scale was reliable to the nearest tenth of
a pound.
The time was taken to the nearest half second so that
the accuracy was for short runs about 1 in 30.
The computing charts give the percentage of sand for
low velocity with an accuracy of from 1 in 5 to 1 in 40, de-
pending on the percentage. For high velocity the accuracy
is from 1 in 50 up. The velocities are given with an accuracy
of 1 in 30 for low velocities, the accuracy increasing directly
with the velocity.
Thus it is seen that throughout a lower limit of about
1 in 20 was maintained.
The chief causes for discarding runs were as follows:-
(1)	Omission of data such as weight, time, etc.
(2)	Sand giving out during the run.
(3)	Sand changing noticeably in percentage during the run.44-
(4)	Great irregularity of gauges.
(5)	Evident misreading of gauges as when the mean does not
check up with zero. This applies to the first method of
reading only, and only two runs were discarded on this account.
Outside tfce runs discarded on these grounds all the runs
made are given in the tables.
Tables V to VII give data for the brass pipes and Tables
VIII and IX, the data for the galvanized iron pipes.
Table X gives the results of the observations to deter-
mine the velocity of the sand between the glass sections.TABLE V
GRADE II BRASS PIPE.
9
loss ol Head
Ho.	h	Temp	in pt. of	in Ft. of	Wt. of	Vol. of	lie an Vel		%	Remarks.
of	of	Beg.	llercury	Wat er	Sand &	Sand in	of Sand		of	
Rxp.	Runs	j) ant.	in exp.	per 100'	Water	cu.ft.	&	Water	Sand	
	secs.		length		in Ihs		Ft		•	
										First apparatus used with nozzi( hut without glat lengths.
2	110	72.0	0.175	18.3	294.9	0.029		6.96	1.2	
9	85	72.0	0.039	4.1	80.1			2.43	1.0	
IS	80	70.0	0.245	£5.9	171.5	0.247		4.46	16.0	
14	75	70.0	0.255	26.9	158.0	0.629		4.35	16.8	
16	115	71.0	0.247	26.2	. 1.6	. .		2.24	14.6	
£1	55	73.5	0.144	15.2	82.6	0.192		3.46	8.5	
22	60	74.0	0.196	20.7	86.4	0.260		5.18	11.6	
25	5C	72.0	0.175	18.6	133.0	0.240		6.35	6.6	
£4	55	7£. 5	0.253	26.7	144.9	0.568		5.46	16.4	
£5	55	7£. 0	0.204	21.5	76,7	0.243		3.02	12.5	
£6	45	72.0	0.162	17.1	109.1	0.121		5.82	6.2	
27	50	75.0	0.239	25.3	125.7	0.470		5.27	15.4	
£9	56	72.0	0.241	25.5	158.3	0.549		6, 06	14.2	
51	49	70.0	0.266	28.1	127.0	0.492		5.39	16.4	
5	45	69.0	0.121	12.8	170.8	0.262		3.95	5.3	
5	90	69.G	0.453	16.1	213.9	0.228		5.90	3.6	
6	70	68.0	0.194	20.5	81.7	0.213		2.63	9.6	
e	80	68.0	0.182	19.2	228.8	0. 266		7.07	4.0	
55	50	84.0	0.300	31.7	115.3	0.510		4.61	19.3	
56	45	64.0	0.340	35.9	78.4			3.28	24.1	
57	28	62.0	0.285	30.1	41.9	0.200		2.90	21.6	
58	26	62.1	0.313	33.1	59.6	0.304		4.57	23.5	
39#	51	58.0	0.270	28.5	98.8	0.367		6.78	15.5	lie an of gauges does not check
with zero suffi-
ciently closely.
CJt
IRemarks.
loss of Head
Jo. length Temp in ft.of in Ft,of Ft* of Yol. of Mean Vel. #
of of	Deg. Mercury Water Sand & Sand in of Sand of
Exp. Runs Faht in exp. per 100' Water cu.ft. & Water Sand
secs	length	in lhs	Ft.per s.
10	-13“	—p,"A"n	0.260“	or/ r- '		BOX	0.306	" b~. SO'	ttrr	
41	22	83	0.260	27.5	47.2	0.201	4.33	18.5	
43	26	56.0	0.19C	20.1	56.2	0.169	4.75	11.8	
46	24	55.0	0.210	22.2	30.7	0.124	2.63	17.2	
47	24	52.5	0.300	31.7	53.3	0.250	4.39	21.0	
48	32	77.0	0.255	26.9	64.9	0. 266	4.16	17.5	
50	33	69.0	0.320	33.8	14.0	0.610	0.82	18.9	
51	24	58.0	0.210	22.2	51.0	0.167	4.60	13.3	
52	22	62.0	0.315	33.3	28.7	0.128	2.60	19.7	
53	24	56.0	0.380	40.2	44.4	0.241	3.44	25.8	
54	31	90.0	0.295	31.1	35.6	0.163	2.28	20.2	
56	25	58.0	0.355	37.5	52.3	0.273	3.95	24.4	
57	27	56.0	0.400	42.3	37.3	C. 207	2.53	27.1	
58	20	55.0	0.360	38.0	45.1	0.238	4.22	24.9	
59	18	55. 0	0.240	25.4	42.1	0.156	4.92	15.5	
60#	21	58.0	0.30C	31.7	81.6	0.221	8.73	10.6	Evident mistake of C.5 in right gauge reading.
67	30	52.0	0.255	26.9	73.7	0.281	5.11	16.1	
68	32	55.0	0.658	69.2	189.5	0.319	14.25	6.6	
70	30	53.0	0.410	43.3	140.7	0.195	11.44	5.2	
71	30	49.0	0.303	32.0	120.5	0.246	9.44	7.8	
74	SO	55.0	0.314	33.2	121.7	0.296	9.29	9.5	
75	30.	49.0	0.337	35.6	120.0	0.245	9.40	7.9	
76	31	45.0	0.200	21.1	87.3	0.031	7.30	1.3	
79	30	50.0	0.220	23.2	79.0	0.229	5.85	11.7	
80	20	48.0	0.230	24.3	57.3	0.189	6.23	13.8	IJczzles taken off
82*	30	44.0	0.518	54.7	143.8	Trace	12.68	0.0	Sand did not run
83#	30	43.0	0.557	58.8	153.7	Trace	13.50	0.0	uniformally.
85	30	55.0	0.332	35.1	125.4	0.327	9.50	10.2	
87	38	55.0	0.290	30.6	130.7	0.331	7.82	10.0	
88	30	53.0	0.104	11.0	59.8	0.027	5.13	1.7	
89	30	52.0	0.175	18.5	31.3	0.074	2.38	9.3	Remarks
Rose of Head
. of Hxp.	length of Huns secs	Temp keg. Faht	in Ft.OF Mercury- in exp. length	in Ft.of Wat er per 100'	Wt. of Sand & Wat er in lbs	Vol. of Sand in cu. ft.	Mean Vel of Sand & Water Ft.per s.	* of Sand	Remarks. r
90	20	£2. 0	0.109	" 11. S'	“ l9.o	0.027	irsr~	~T7T	
91#	30	53.0	0.520	55.0	163.6	0.292	12.94	6.6	Gauges do not check with zero well.
93	33	50.0	0.220	23.2	92.7	0. 221	6.45	9.2	
94	30	45.0	0.225	23.7	69.8	0.250	4.93	14.9	
95	30	46.0	0.248	26.2	62.9	0.256	4.27	18.0	
96	30	16.0	0.394	41.6	132.1	0.25C	10.40	7.2	
98	30	60.0	0.420	44.4	145.8	0.317	11.30	8.3	
99	30	56.0	C. 828	87.5	190.9	Erace	16.80	0.0	
100	30	55. 0	0.686	72.5	188.2	0.370	14.67	7.3	
101	30	62.0	0.533	56.3	167.7	0.278	13.39	6.2	
102	3C	56.0	0.621	65.6	176.2	0.335	13.86	7.2	
103	30	55.0	0.697	73.6	184.2	0.267	14.93	5.2	
104	30	55.0	0.753	79.6	191.1	0.244	15.63	4.6	
105	30	53.0	0.104	11.0	57.8	0.043	4.86	3.4	
106 if	26	53.0	0.376	39.9	28.9	0.171	1.94	30.0	Mean cf Gauges does not check well with zero.
107#	30	78.0	0.223	23.5	79.2	0.242	5.80	12.8	Gauges irregular.
108	35	63.0	0.184	19.4	93.8	0. 202	6.25	8.5	
109	30	62.0	0.536	56.6	164.3	0.275	13.15	6.2	
111	30	51.0	0.367	38.7	126.0	0.289	9.72	8.8	
112	30	40.0	0.576	60.8	164.4	0.276	13.15	6.2	
114	30	36.0	0.741	78.3	185.7	0.225	15.23	4.5	Beginning with
116	30	37.0	0.627	66.2	172.6	0.354	13.47	7.6	116, second syst.
117	35	39.0	0.546	57.7	189.3	0.391	12.64	7.8	of feed pipes were used without nozzles.
120#	33	39.0	0.409	43.2	145.5	0.287	10.37	7.5	Gauges irregular.
122#	30	41.0	0.608	64.3	184.5	0.625	13.23	14.0	n n
123	20	42.0	0.603	63.7	122.8	0.384	13.41	12.7	piece of glass in
cylinder choking
pipe removed.Loss of Head
Mo. Length Temp in Ft.of in Ft.of ft, of
of	of	Leg. Mercury Water Sand Sc
Exp. Huns Faht in exp. per 100' Water
	secs		length		in lbi
124/f	31	3'6. C	0. 560	”"59.2	
125	20	41.0	0.455	48.1	105.7
129	20	42	0.318	53.6	74.5
150	20	49	0.324	34.2	43.5
131#	20	47	0. 290	30.6	70.5
122#	30	42<	0.456	48.2	154.6
122#	30	42	0.365	38.5	130.7
136jf	30	44	0.278	29.3	85.3
136#	30	41	0.506	32.3	85.7
137	30	40	0.317	33.5	103.5
158	30	42	0.353	37.3	117.3
139#	30	46	0.363	38.3	65.0
140#	30	46	0.306	32.3	81.5
141#	30	42	0.362	38.2	114.8
14 2 f	40	55	0.320	33.8	103.3
143	30	50	0.400	42.3	54.5
144#	40	44	0.348	36.7	59.0
145#	30	48	0.400	42.3	137.2
146#	35	38	0.410	43.3	165.2
147#	30	42	0.420	43.3	145.5
148#	30	47	0.435	45.9	156.6
149	30	40	0.452	47.8	151.6
150	30	40	0.438	46.5	149.0
151	30	40	0.467	49.4	151.0
152	30	44	0.454	48.0	153.9
153	30	37	0.499	52.6	169.5
154	35	38	0.505	53.5	187.0
155	30	43	0.518	54.8	165.0
156	30	41	0.531	56.2	168.0
157	30	39	0.545	57.8	168.4
158	30	38	0.554	58.5	175.0
159	30	40	0.580	61.3	173.7
161	30	44	0.320	33.8	94.2
Hemarhs
Vol. of Sand in cu.ft.	Mean Vel of Sand & Water Ft.per s	c? . /o Of Sand •	Hemarhs.
'' 0.518	12.90	TE7TT	Gauges irregular.
0.354	11.40	13.9	
0.224	8.21	12.2	
0.207	4.25	22.2	
0.231	7.65	13.5	Gauges irreg.
0.512	11.-13	13.5	ti »f
0.498	9.12	16.0	It It
0.363	5.75	18.7	II II
0.339	5.90	17.2	It II
0.408	7.15	16.9	
0.466	8.09	16.9	
0.331	4.11	23.8	Gauges irreg.
0.363	5.43	20.1	it it
0.472	7.83	17.8	;/o lower at end.
0.467	5.13	20.2	Gauges very irreg
0.294	3.35	25.4	
0.610	8.53	16.0	Sand ran out near end.
0.516	9.62	15.5	Gauges irreg.
0.630	9.86	15.8	n n
0.526	10.3	14.7	Tf 7?
0.546	11.15	14.3	Beginning with
0.546	10.8	15.0	148, second meth-
0.540	10.53	15.0	od of reading
0.536	10.71	14.6	gauges was em-
0.564	10.83	15.2	ployed. Gauges
0.587	12.10	14.3	more reliable.
0.599	11. 65	12.9	
0.591	11.50	15.0	
0. 550	12.16	13.1	
0.595	11.97	14.1	
0.571	12.66	13.0	
0.525	12.75	12.0	
0.394	6.38	17.5	
48-loss of Head
No. of - -1 .	Len^t] Runs secs	l Temp in Ft.of Deg. Meroury Faht in exp. length		in Ft.of Wt. of Water Sand per 100' Water in 15 g	
162	30	43	C. 340	3o.4	
165	30.5 36		0.467	49.4	163.1
164	30	39	0.431	45.7	146.3
165	30	41	0.427	45.1	145.7
166	30	40	0.415	43.9	137.4
167	30	40	0.417	44.3	140.7
168#	27	43	0.589	41.1	122.8
170	30	47	0.591	41.3	131.2
172	45	45	0.205	21.4	56.0
173	35	45	0.186	19.6	40.5
174	30	46 '	0.230	24.3	43.4
175	35	47	0.200	22.0	49.2
176	27	46	0.228	24.0	40.0
177	65	45	0.120	12.7	• .7
178	50	43	0.179	18.9	26.5
179	60	44	0.118	12.5	54.5
180	60	44	0.181	19.0	64.9
181	30	42	0.185	19.5	51.8
182#	30	43	0.049	5.2	34.8
103	30	45	0.171	18.1	-.6
164	30		0.118	12.5	28.8
185	35		0.220	23.2	68.2
lQ6tf	30	50	0.177	18.7	22.2
187	30		0.155	16.3	17.0
188	30	46	0.140	14.8	24.8
189	30	45	0.105	11.2	9.2
190	60	45	0.285	30.1	34.6
191	30	55. 0	0. 246	26.C	51.0
193#	22	49.0	0.082	8.7	15.7
194	30	46.0	0.112	11.8	26.7
196	25	51.0	0.824	34.2	11.3
197	30	53.0	0.122	12.9	9.1
Remarks
Yol. of
Sand in
cu.ft.
"u.^,0
0. 5o5
0.552
0.607
0.493
0.59u
0.551
0.565
0.158
0.096
0.137
0.147
0.112
0.078
0.070
0.068
0.160
0.149
Trace
0.080
0.045
0. £20
0.050
0.050
0.04£
0.011
0.156
0. ICO
0.021
0.025
0.050
0. C15
Voi. ,)
of Sand of
& Water Sand
ft.per o.
8.47	la. 4
11.39	14.7
10.23	16.6
9.92	17.6
9.75	14.7
10.06	17.4
9.07	19.8
8.88	18.8
2.78	11.1
2.66	9.0
3.16	12.6
3.12	11.8
3.30	10.9
1.97	5.5
1.96	10.4
4.49	4.6
4.94	9.5
3.85	11.6
3.07	0.0
2.64	8.9
2.30	5.9
4.22	13.0
1.69	8.8
1.35	7.0
1.99	7.1
0.77	4.0
1.18	16.7
2.2	14.7
1.74	4.8
2.22	3.5
0.90	20.1
0.71	5.5
iiozsleo put on.
Sand ran out near
end.
Sand not measured
oeing- too low.
Sand not very
accurate.
Gal. iron cylin-
der u^ed.
Gauges unsteady.
■r
49-Ho.
of
Fxp.
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
212 #
213
214
215
216
217,;
218#
219
coo
221
222#
222
£24
225
226
227
228
229
250
loos of Head
length Temp of leg. Runs Faht sec3		in Ft.of Mercury in exp. length	in Ft.of Wt. of Water Sand & per 100' Water in lbs		Vol. of Sand in cu.ft.	Mean Vel. of Sand & Water - .. .. .	* of Sand	Remarks.
								Glass jar used
30	£1.0	0.258	27.3	23.1	0.081	1.65	14.2	for measuring
30		0.147	15.5	16.6	0.030	1.30	1.1	sand for exp. 186
30		0. 218	23.0	12.5	0.036	0.95	11.0	- 216.
30		0.259	25.3	17.5	0.057	1.25	13.5	
30		0.171	18.1	14.6	0.029	1.14	7.5	
30		0. 063	6.6	18.9	0.012	1.56	1.9	
30	51.0	0.162	17.1	33.2	0.066	2.60	7.2	
30	47.0	0.118	12.5	22.4	0.030	1.81	5.3	
30	48	0.185	19.5	33.3	0.084	2.51	9.9	
30		0.065	6.8	29.2	0.013	2.5	1.5	
30	44	0.082	8.7	35.9	0.029	2.01	2.9	
50	45	0.07 7	8.1	44.5	0.017	3.81	1.4	
30		0.324	34.2	28.7	0.115	1.97	17.0	Sand not accurate
30		0.340	35.9	13.0	0.059	0.85	19.8	
30		0.059	6.2	24.0	0.003	2.10	0.4	
30	47.0	0.075	7.9	39.7	0.021	3.59	1.8	
30	42.0	0.134	14.1	53.5	0.088	4.31	6.3	
30	57.0	0.399	42.2	38.7	0.234	2.24	30.6	Gauges irreg.
30-		0.356	37.6	26.5	0.134	1.67	23.2	” rather
								unsteady.
30	51.0	0. 266	28.1	42.0	.164	2.90	16.3	
30		0.571	60.3	13.0	.097	0.67	42.5	Almost solid sand
30		0.421	44.5	25.0	.133	1.38	28.0	
37	51	0.395	41.7	49.0	.270	£.44	26.1	Gauges irreg. at
								beginning and end
60	48	0.479	50.6	65.1	. 426	1.84	33.9	
40	38	0.676	71.4	246.0	.690	13.72	11.1	Glass jar used.
30	35	0.839	88.7	205.8	.433	15.85	8.0	
30	38	0.879	92.9	210.0	.433	16.39	7.8	Wherever glass
30	tl	1.099	116.2	222.2	.277	18.22	4.5	jar is used % of
30	tr	0.464	48.0	159.1	.560	11.35	14.5	sand is more
								accurate.
40	ir	0.824	87.1	276.2	. 603	16.05	8.3	Runs 331-336 glas
50	if	0.867	91.6	358.7	.665	15.96	7.3	lengths and			loss	of Head
JSo.	length	Temp	in Ft.of	in Ft.of
of	of	Deg.	Mercury	Water
Exp.	Hnns	Faht	in exp.	per 100'
	secs		length	
321#	30	60	0.332	35.1
332	30	50	0.327	24.5
333	18	50	0.349	36.9
3 54	21	50	0.294	31.0
335#	30	51	0.262	27.7
236	20	51	0.287	30.3
237	30	52	0.238	25.2
328#	30	49	0.173	18.3
339	40	49	0.086	9.1
340#	16		0.210	22.2
341	30	58.0	0.326	34.4
342	30		0.275	29.0
343	15	55	0.393	41.5
344	15	48	0.322	35.1
345	15		0.184	19.4
246	25	50	0.281	29.7
347	15.5	57	0.287	30.3
348	15	55	0.296	31.3
349	30	51	0.336	35.5
35C	15	tl	0.318	33.0
251	14	Tf	0.345	36.4
Remarks
ft. of Vol. of Mean Tel. jo
Sand & Sand in of Sand of
Water ou.ft. & Water Sand
in lbs__________Ft.per a.______
121.4	0.414	8.70	14.0	diagonal feed pipe used. Sand gave out
112.6	0.450	7.77	17.1	near end.
19.5	0.102	2.02	24.5	Glass jar used.
54.0	0.235	5.17	19.1	
55.7	0.238	3.76	18.6	Gauges irreg.
74.5	0.192	8.45	10.0	
93.6	0.246	7.07	ie.2	
75.6	Trace	6.65	0.0	Sand ran out
35.0	0.027	2.20	2.7	near beginning.
40.7	6.097	5.81	9.1	
109.6	0.420	7.60	16.2	Huns 331 and on
85.8	0.243	5.90	17.2	allowance made
72.5	0.292	9.98	17.3	for change of
56.9	0.046	9.58	2.8	zeros due to
24.8	0.071	3.66	11.1	sand in Hg.
67.7	0.771	5.58	17.1	
24.7	0.116	3.12	21.0	
37.5	0.172	4.92	20.7	
97.7	0.435	6.51	19.7	
48.1	0.216	6.40	19.8	
48.0	0.205	6.92	18.6	
CJl
iTABLE VI ..
GRADE IV BRASS x Iriii.
Loss of Head
ISO.	Length	Temp	in Ft.of	in Ft.of	Ft. of	Vol. of	Mean Y61.	£	Remarks.
of	of	Leg.	Mercury	Wat er	Sand A	Sand in	of Sand	of	
Exp	Runs	Faht	in exp.	per IOC'	ViTater .	cu.ft.	A Water	Sand	
	secs		length		in Lbs		Ft.per s.		
USE”"	30	44	0.196	So.i	oo • 0	V • .... 19	0 • rk O	8.6	Glass jar usee.
232	30		0.161	16.4	76.5	0.250	5.56	12.8	232 to 330 allow-
224	45		0. 264	27.3	143.6	C. 502	6.87	14.2	ance is made for
225	60	36	0.318	33.0	242.8	0.302	9.98	4.3	variation of
226	30	36	0.077	7.5	37.2	0.085	1.87	8.1	zeros in Hf in Ft
227	24		0.354	36.8	52.1	0.358	3.78	24.1	per 100'.
220	20		0.482	50.4	142.8	0.074	12.20	1.7	232 - 245 zeros not often measur-
229#									ed. Charged ap- prox. afterwards.
	30		0.182	18.7	75.7	C. 019	6.59	0.7	Sand ran out near end.
									
240	30		0.366	38.0	124.5	0.316	9.49	9.7	
241	30		0.324	33.6	106.8	0.200	8.48	6.7	
242	30.5		0.234	24.1	89.8	0.218	6.76	9.1	
2421	20		0.173	17.7	52.5	C. 142	5.91	10.3	Sand low at endi
244	15		0.411	42.8	14.5	0.111	1.48	40.5	
245	30		0.237	24.4	9^.8	0.173	7.28	6.7	
246	30	48	0.114	12.0	41.5	0.186	2.78	19.0	
247	30	48	0.216	22.8	90.2	0.252	6.75	10.6	
£48	30	48	0. 287	3 3.3	107.7	0.025	9.38	0.0	
249	41		0.096	10.1	57.2	0.199	3.01	14.0	
25C	60	W HJ	0.177	18.7	22.3	0.076	0.79	13.4	
251	30	CD © oj§	0.116	12.2	13.7	L.U..O	1.02	9.7	
252	24	1 <T>	0. 091	9.6	27.4	0.108	2.38	16.1	Glass jar used.
253	30	H © 03	0.076	8.0	27.8	0.70	2.10	9.1	M TT II
254	30		0.D73	■7/7	29.0	0.062	£.47	6.7	II II II
255	20	Of • H	0.091	3.6	47.5	0.152	3.47	12.3	
©
IQ53
		H			• C	1 pi		
		a? •			cn	•H		
		H "C			ro		•	
		pi ©			© i	03 •	© CO	•
«		60 CO			03	rC O	S3 C3 cn	-P
G3		© pi			pi £>	43 05	•H • pi 03	S3
Pi		Sh			CO	o£)C3	!ft	o
u					rS	S3 •	Cl iH t-o	
cj		•r! CS			a3 co	© ^cJ	f3 h n	S3
ig		•rs			•ft P	i—i CD	pi o3 -i-aca	CO
©		G3				o	Pt rt ex	S3
iH		(D CQ			03 M	co pi	O © 03	
		ft to			0^	03 <<3	© 60 03	
		f=5 0?			CJ *-l	c2 o	ft c3 a5 ,'-i	S3
		C? ft			H O	H M	•H «H H O	cd
		pH Ci5			C>3 ft	cb +>	ft itl c!5 ft	CO
fc!		H O %fl CO O CO O O’ Ht-	ft CO 0- CO	UP rH © XX) 1X3 © CO	A 0 9 4	1X3	fti to o	ft 1X3
								
o a}		lXJ xO n£ iX> ft 03 CO iX3 OO	^ 1X3 to CO O’ r-i r-l CO C3 vi< tO H -O’ O tO			xo	O CO 03	O 03
CO		ft HrlrlH H H	H	H H H	H r-i		H	
ft *ci Pt	03							
© pi ©		■ll^HOWOrlO ^ tO	O £>• <-G	ft H C ft XO CO CO XO ft ft t~		CO	C ft XX3	H 1X3
> 4 ft	r-t	to cn 1X3 ft nH to H '.o 0-0	: to w h o c- c G O h co 02 o cn cn			03	1X3 CO Nil	CO CO
CO u3	©							
Pi ft	ft	CO cvl 03 .^l 1X3 CO Cvl 1—i 03 =X3	. 03 to 1X3 r-i to CO 1X3 03 03 C3 03 H«Hri				CO H r-i	CO c
Sfi CH	•							rH
© o =3 +s
F*»
O-H-P
<-» ri pJ
o S3 o
> C/3
03 iX> r-i H t>- t— v}* O
O O ig O O 3 to O
OOHrlNOHrH
i—! (» iXJ -rh O' 'O ffl lO W X) ca W O C W n tO C~
sjlifl H \“1 U3 N « H Uj D O nJI O'- N © W
rl W GCHHGr-iC'r-IOHOOOOOO
OO©	^	03
1X5 CO O	03	ft
WOO	03	O
o o o o o o c
oooooococo
ft o3 G3
O M pa
H © H
• « ft
ft sJ cj £
ps CO F i *H
to O cr> co co to 03 r-
r—i C— 1X5 r—t 03 O t—i -4‘
•Ot to to O t- CO CO O’
C-xQ,-;iX3c3:X3 0ft©Ot>E-xOlX3xQC3U3xO
ixa w o: oixiiatQcMOocoooiOCrac'ixj
CO ft U3 CM n# 1X5 02 ^ CO xO 03 03 CO CO 03 CO 03 H
£> CO i—I
w C te-
en. CO H
CO xQ
• •
CO CO
O CO
H H
ft -
o M O
rrf .00
3 -P-P H
© Pq ecS
a g f-i
ft
o
©
ft
n$ to co ca to to to to
XX> t- O 03 xx> an LQ
HHH H H
*ft >» *
03 o m ftpej
©	•	pi
o ft o
1-1 ft ?H
W +0.
© £ ©
3 ft ft
ft CO x£> 1X3 f£) 1X3 XQ
Oxoaxr-itoco^co
COCIHrlOHrl
oooooooo
O co O to c~ t- xo ft ft c~ to n$ O t- O •>}) to cn
HHHril©C’J©0>»llC()ri0'X)ffl©C'0ts
ft C-- r-i	i—I	i—I	i—li—I i—I	|—i
•O’HO H w O c; © c- O c- co o w r- O O lq
o O	'll ft tffl xXJ ft N,1 to o ft tX3 OO IX3 t- C t^-
ftCCft©OHGOOft^-^OCC'OC^-lO
OOC OOOCOOOOOCCOOOO
CO O 1X3
ft xO 1X3
co c~- 03
CO 1X3 1X3
O O O
o o o
t> 1X3
• •
CO H
03 Nil
03 CO
tc- cn
CO CO
o c
a, .+3
S DiXh
© © sj
E-l PI ft
Temperatures
58° * 48°
A
ft © G3
30-ei 3 ©OOOOOOOO
E. O fi © CO CO CO LO (ft w CO o
© a cj
r-O.JOOuoOOOOOOvjiOOOOO ooo
03 CO to CO to CO CO to CO CO CO to CO CO CO CO CO CO O nH to
o o
CO CO
• •
O HH P4
a o H
ft
xO	7 8 9 C	r-i 03 tO	Nil	1X3		C-	co ft	O	H	03	CO	Njl	1X3	XO	o	05 C-	<Q	ft	o	l—1	03	CO
LQ	ft U3 U3 xo	xo XO XO	XO	xO	XO	XO	XO XO	t-	t-	t>	t-	£>	CO	00	00	co	oo	co	ft	ft	ft	cn
C3	03 03 03 03	03 03 03	03	03	03	M	03 03	03	03	03	03	03	03	03	03	03	03	03	03	03	03	03
nH 1X3
ft cn
03 03loss of Head
Ho. Length Temp in Ft.of in Ft.of I7t. of Vol. of Mean Vel. %	Remarks,
of of Leg. Mercury Water Sand & Sand in of Sand of
Exp.	Runs secs	Faht	in exp. length	per 100'	Y7at er in lbs	eu. ft.	& Water Ft.per s.	Sand	
29 6F	60	CD	0.09T~	9.7	78.5	TEST"	' ~£V8"'	1X76“	Gauges irreg.
297	31		0.098	10.4	57.2	.155	4.17	10.2	
298	30	05 B co *o O CD	0/222	23.4	88.8	.186	6.94	7.8	
299	30		0.296	31.2	108.3	.149	8.84	5.0	
300	30	l to	0.107	11.3	58.9	.172	4.36	11.0	Eoazleo put on.
502	25	c+ £ CD W	0.140	14.8	58.5	.103	5.61	6.2	
319	60		0.088	9.3	81.5	.256	2.99	12.4	
320	45	O CD CO	0.096	10.1	16.0	.046	0.77	10.8	
321	30	55	0.100	10.6	47.5	.191	3.26	16.8	Glass jar used.
322	30	48	0.072	7.6	42.8	.110	3.23	9.5	i> <■ ii
323	30	48	0.051	5.4	30.3	.024	2.55	3.0	it ?i n
325#	60	45	0.387	40.9	242.8	.635	9.21	10.0	Gauges very irreg.
326	30	45	0.180	19.0	84.7	.293	6.10	13.8	
328#	60	56	0.316	33.4	2224.8	.675	8.33	11.5	Gauges irreg. Sand ran out.
329	38	52	0.383	40.5	164.3	.454	9.76	10.6	
330	30	47	0.399	42.2	134.0	.365	10.12	10.4	
54-55-
TA3L3 VII.
Runs With Water Only. Brass Pipe.
Losses of Head
Ho. of Length	in Ft.of in Water Wt. of Vel. in
Run	Of Run.	Temp.	Mercury in Sxp.L.	Ft. per 100'	Water l’os.	Feet per sec.
511	100	56	.049	5.2	129.1	5.415
512	100	51	.159	16.8	250.8	6.640
515	60	50	.441	46.6	266.8	11.76
514	50	49	.486	51.5	257.0	12.55
515	50	48	.555	58.6	255.2	15.40
516	40	47	.611	64.6	214.2	14.16
517	45	47	.695	75.2	252.5	14.85
518	45	46.5	.777	82.0	267.5	15.70TABLE
VIII
grade II.	Iron Pipe.
Loss of Head
Ho.	Length Temp		in Ft.of	in Ft.of	Wt. of	Vol. of	Mean Vel.	%	Remarks.
of	of	Deg.	Mercury	Wat er	Sand &	Sand in	of Sand	of	
Exp.	Runs	Faht	in exp.	per 100'	Water	cu.ft.	& Water	Sand	
	secs		length		in lbs		Ft.per s.		
352	30		.366	38. £	73.7	07272	5.30	TFJET	® Apparatus same
		i			•				except for pipe & piezometers.
353	15	1	.366	38.2	39.5	0.163	5.46	17.9	
354	20	i i i t-9	.316	32.0	19,-9	0.073	2.13	15.5	® Sand ran out at end. Sand got in gauges and old piezometers were
		CD							put back.
355	20	3 ►d	.365	38.1	45.7	0.190	4.76	18.0	
356	15	♦	.376	39.2	41.5	0.171	5.75	17.9	
357	15	>	.420	43.8	46.5	0.194	6.44	18.1	
358	15	hd	.450	46.0	52.6	0.212	7.40	17.2	
359	15	hi	.423	44.1	49.5	0.216	6.75	19.1	
360	15	X	.612	53.4	60.7	0.262	8.35	18.9	
361	15		.615	64.2	64.5	0.253	9.1	16.7	©
362	15	rji	.631	65.9	65.5	0.248	9.33	16.0	o fo lower at
363	13	w	.664	69.3	58.0	0.254	9.12	19.3	
		o							end.
364	30	1 1	.302	31.5	26.5	0.099	1.89	15.5	o gauges irreg. at first.
365	15	1	.336	34.1	37.1	0.151	5.17	17.6	
366	15	1	.311	31.5	34.7	0.133	5.11	16.0	
367	15		.403	42.0	51.2	0.189	7.39	15.3	
368	15		.349	36.4	44.0	0.148	6.43	13.7	© gauges
		1							rather unsteady.
369	20	1	.415	43.3	68.3	0.229	7.52	13.6	
370	15	1	.705	73.6	73.8	0.299	10.35	17.4	
56-Remarks
loss of Eead
NO.	length	Temp	in Ft.of	in Ft.of	Wt. of	Yol. Of	Mean Yel		. 1°	Remarks..
of	of	Deg.	Mercury	Erater	Sand &	Sand in	of	Sand	of	
Exp.	Runs	Faht	in exp.	per 100*	Water	cu.ft.	&	Ueter	Sand	
	seos		length		in lbs		Ft,	.per s	•	
371	12		.285	29.8	25.7	0.D64		4.99	10.0	o Sand ran out near end.
372	15		.324	32.8	9.8	0.035		1.43	14.5	
373	15		.395	41.2	15.8	.092		1.94	28.0	« Gauges irreg. at end.
374	15		.242	25.3	27.5	.099		3.97	15.0	
375	16		.204	21.3	22.5	.062		3.22	11.0	
383	30	59	.279	29.2	32.6	.125		2.31	16.1	© Gauges higher at first.
384	30	56	.334	33.9	36.5	.160		2.50	19.1	
385	15		.365	38.1	12.2	.070		1.54	27.5	o ^ changed in middle of run.
386	15	63	.142	14.8	14.7	.020		2.46	5.0	© $ lower at end.
387	20		.352	36.7	38.0	.178		3.82	21.0	
388	15	59	.354	36.9	10.0	.045		1.37	20.0	
389	15		.138	14.4	8.0	.014		1.31	7.0	© $ decreasing.
389a	15	56	.279	29.2	42.3	.119		6.40	11.0	
390	15		.338	34.3	11.5	.055		1.56	22.0	
391	15	57	.824	23.4	16.0	.043		2.46	10.8	
392	15.5		.256	26.8	25.0	.077		3.60	12.2	
393	20		.360	37.6	42.2	.191		4.27	20.1	o Gauges very irregular.
400	30	58	.097	9.9	31.3	.027		2.67	3.1	
401	60		.169	17.7	52.2	.089		2.13	6.2	
402	60		.214	22.4	29.7	.073		1.16	9.5	
403	60	57	.206	21.5	36.8	.091		1.42	9.2	
404	30	59	.230	24.1	34.5	.102		2.60	11.8	© Sand ran out just at end.
405	50	58	.178	18.6	26.6	.054		1.28	7.5	
406	30		.140	14.6	34.5	.048		2.86	5.0	
407	30		.206	21.5	39.5	.097		3.07	9.7	
408	30		.217	22.7	19.7	.050		1.53	10.0	© Sand ran out near end.
409	30	64	.277	28.9	47.6	. 172		3.43	15.0	Remarks
loss of Head
Ho. of Exp.	Length of Runs secs	Temp Deg. Faht	in Ft. of Mercuty in exp. length	Tn Ft.of Wt. of Water Sand & per 100' Tater in lbs		Vol. of Sand in cu. ft.	Mean Vel. of Sand & Water Ft.per s.		of Of Sand
410	30	60	.304	31.7	83.0	.187		6.55	8.6
411	30	59	.302	31.5	42.§	.176		2.98	17.6
412	35	57	.350	36.5	96.9	.170		5.91	16.1
413	30	56	.220	23.0	67.5	.081		5.66	4.4
414	30	57	.202	21.1	55.7	.142		4.32	9.9
415	35	57	.403	42.0	27.2	.152		1.45	27.0
416	35	56	.469	49.0	124.0	.352		8.09	11.3
417	15		.188	19.7	29.2	.022		5.03	2.7
418	18		.167	17.4	30.7	.056		4.12	7.0
e Gauges rather
irregular.
e % of sand
changing.59-
TAB13 IX.
Runs ”rith 7ater Only.
Galvanized Iron Pipe.
loss of Head
Ho. of Run.	length of Run.	Temp.	in Ft.of Mercury in Sxp.l.	in Tater Ft. per 100'	17t. of Wat er lbs.	Vel. in Feet per sec.
376	30	58	.009	1.0	10.9	.097
378	30	55	.175	18.3	58.0	5.23
379	40	52	.279	29.2	99.7	6.71
380	30	50	.482	50.3	93.7	8.44
381	30	51	.624	65.1	110.1	9.92
394	60	56	.569	59.4	218.0	9.82
396	60	55	.894	93.2	271.9	12.25
397	50	55	1.170	122.0	265.0	14.33
398	60	55	0.267	27.9	147.5	6.63
399	70	56	0.081	8.4	93.5	3.6160-
5. General Indioations.
The runs of Tables V to IX were first plotted logarith-
mically on Plates VI, VII and VIII.
The blue lines in these plates were obtained by plotting
the runs of Tables VII and IX in which water only was flowing.
In the case of the brass pipe, Table VII, the line is the
same as that obtained by Drs. Saph and Schoder $ FOR a temper-
ature of 55° Faht. and is of the form E = mVn in which
m •* 0.613 and n = 1.755. For the galvanized pipe (Table IX)
a line was obtained practically parallel to the one determined
by the above experimenters, but indicating a lower loss of
head. Its equation is H = 0.750V1,
These lines will be called water curves throughout the
following discussion.while the curves obtained when sand flow-
ed with the water will be called 5fc, 10ffo, etc. curves according
to the percentage of sand flowing.
By far the most runs were made with the brass pipe, using
Grade II and the* curves of Plate VI are therefore better de-
fined than any of the others. This plate will therefore be
used in discussing the general form of curves.
It is seen that the percentage curves follow two general
laws, one for velocities below 3.5 feet per second and the
other for velocities above nine feet per second. For the low
velocities the lines are practically horizontal for all percent-
# See Bibliography.ISO
MO
IOO
30
80
70
60
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
IS
16
14
12
10
Q
8
7
6
5
4
IS O
PLAT E VI
120
IIO
IOO
9061-
ages, though there seems to he a tendency for the lines below
5% to slope slightly upward and those above 5?o downward so
that they all converge toward a point on the bfo line. For
the velocities, all the curves run practically parallel to the
water curve. There seems to be a slight tendency for the
lines to diverge from the water curve at 14 feet velocity,
but this is based on too few points to be reliable. It is
also evident that the loss of head above the water curve is
far greater for low velocities than for high.
Before going further it should be explained that the
line given for the loss of head due to water only, plotted
from Table VII, is not necessarily that part of the loss of
head due to water only when sand is running with the water.
As will be shown later these latter curves are probably dif-
ferent for every percentage and vary with the velocity accord-
ing to an entirely different law from the curve given above.
6. Experiments with Glass lengths.
The remarkably high loss of head at low velocities led
the writer to suppose that at low velocities the sand must
be dragged along the bottom of the pipe and thus move at a
lower velocity than the water.
To investigate this both by observation and experiment
the glass lengths already described were introduced. The
results of these experiments are given in Table X. On com-62-
TABLE X.
RTOiS MADE USING GLASS SECTIONS.
Mean Time of Sand Vel. o
Veloc- to pass hetw. Sand ities. Glass lengths			
Grade	17.		
£90	1.23	35	0.53
£91	3.50	5.5	3.39
£9£	1.89	12	1.55
£93	1.46	15.5	1.20
£94	8.31-	5	3.73
£95	10.85	4	4.66
£96	5.8	6.5	2.87
£97	4.17	6	3.11
£98	6.94	5.5	3.39
300	4.36	5	3.75
301	£. £6	10	1.86
30£	5.61	4	4.66
3£0	0.77	35	0.53
3£1	3.£6	6	5.11
3££	3.£3	5.5	3.39
3 £3	£.55	7	2.66
3£5	9. £1	5.5	5.33
3 £6	6.10	3.5	5.33
3£8	8.33	4.5	4.14
3£9	9.76	5.5	5.39
330	10.12	6	3.11
Grade	II.		
331	8.70	17 (?)	
zzz	7.77	8	2.33
353	2.02	15	1.24
334	5.17	4.5	4.14
335	3.76	7	2. 66
336#	8.45	1.5	12.41
337	7.07	7	£.66
338	6.65	3	6. £1
339#	2.20	2.7	6.90
341	7.63	3.0	6.21
343	9.98	3.0	6.21
544	9.58	1.6	11.63
345	3.66	4.2	4.44
346	3.66	3.6	5.09
347	. 3.12	9.2	2.02
348	4.92	3.0	6.21
349	6.51	1£. 6	1.48
350	6.40	£.8	6.56
351	6.92	£.6	7.17
: .Percentage	Remarks,
of Sand
6.5
10.4
5.3
£.0
7.9
£.5
11.6
10.£
7.8
11.0
£.3
6.2
10.8
16.8
9.5
3.0
1C.0
13.8
11.5
10.6
10.4
14.0
17.1
£4.5
19.1
8.6
10.0	Time approx, not
plotted.
10.£	Beginning with 3«0 7
Trace	stop watch was used.
£.7 Time not accurate.
16.£
17.5
£.8
11.1
17.1
£1.0
£0.7
19.7
19.8
18.663-
paring the mean velocity with the velocity of the sand, it is
seen that there seems to he no general law governing it,in
some cases the velocity of the sand being higher than the mean
velocity. This does not mean that the sand flowed faster
than the water. It may even have flowed more slowly than the
water at the time the observation was taken. It simply means
that the first wave of sand flows faster than the mean velocity
of the mixture during the body of the run. Therefore the
only conclusion that can be reached from these observations is
that the first wave of sand does not represent the normal con-
ditions of the run;and when it is remembered that the sand
enters into an unobstructed clean pipe, whereas during the
run (for mpst of the low velocities) the section is partially
blocked with slowly moving sand, this is not to be wondered at.
luring the last 14 experiments, the water was allowed to
flow through the sand only, the main flow being closed, so as
to have as uniform conditions as possible, but the results
seemed just as irregular as the previous runs. This method
was therefore abandoned.
The introduction of the glass lengths was, however, by
no means useless as many interesting phenomena were observed
which will be described in the discussion of the causes of
loss of head64'
7.__Comparison of Results on Brass pipe
with Coarse and Fine Grades.
The runs made with the fine grade, Table VI, are plotted
on Plate VTI. To enable the curves obtained with the coarse
and fine sand on the brass pipe to be better compared, the
latter curves were traced through from Plate VII. it is seen
that the curves have the same form as for Grade II, the two
general laws, one for low and one for high velocities,again
occurring. For curves of the same percentage, the loss of
head for the fine sand is far less than for the coarse sand.
For the fine sand the lines for low velocities above Soare
only sketched in approximately while for high velocities
only the 5 and 10$ lines are well defined. For 1 foot veloc-
ity the ratios of the losses of head for the two grades are
about ,5for percentages 5 to 20, for 3 feet velocity about
.44,while from here on the ratio increases until for velocities
above 10 feet per second, there is apparently no difference.
This difference in the loss of head must be due to the fine-
ness of the sand since the shape end specific gravity of the
two grades are nearly identical as was shown by the sand anal-
yses of Table IV.
It will be seen from Plate VI that for the coarse grade
the curves start to run parallel to the water line at the
following points:-PLAT e: VII65-
1 f	at	5 ft.	per	second
5 fo	at	8 "	Tt	Tl
10 fo	11	10 "	T1	Tt
On the other hand for the fine grade, the change comes
sooner and mote abruptly for all the percentages, namely:-
1 fo	3.5
b f	3.7
10 fo	3.7
This all points to the fact that these turning points
occur where all the sand is first carried in suspension. As
is well known, fine sand can be carried in suspension more
easily than coarse and this is why the change comes earlier
for the fine grade.	The reason why the change comes more
abruptly for the fine grade than for the coarse is probably
due to the fact that the difference in size between the
finest and coarsest particles for grade SO to 40 is greater
than for grade 60 to 1O0, for this v/ould have the tendency to
prolong the change from low velocity flow to suspension.
The reason why transition takes longer for high percentages
than for low in the case of the coarse grade and not in the
fine is not evident, though owing to the approximate character
of the lines in the fine grade there may be some difference
there also which is not brought out. The transition for the
coarse grade begins at about the same point for each percent-
age, however, namely:- at 3.5 ft. per second. This is not66-
the case for 1 ei>% “but is probably clue to that part of the line
not being well defined by the experimental points„ The
change begins at about 3 ft. per second for the fine grade,
showing that the finer particles begin to be suspended in
large quantities at about the same velocity for both grades,
and again indicates that the coarse grade has pafcticles in it
finer than 40„. $
8. Comparison of Results with Brass and
galvanizedPipes.
The runs made with Grade II and the galvalized pipe, given
in Table VIII, are plotted on Plate VIII. To enable the
curves on Plate VIII to be better compared with those obtained
by using the same grade of sand on the brass pipe, the curves
of Plate VI and VIII were replotted on ordinary cross section
paper on Plate X. This also enables the true forms of the
curves to be better recognized. Since the galvanized pipe
has almost exactly the same cross section as the brass pipe,
any difference in the form of the curves can be considered
as due to the roughness of the pipe alone.
# Grade II was dried and sifted again after completing
the experiments and it was found that there was quite an
appreciable amount of fine sand mixed with it. This was
probably due to the disintegration of the particles and
to friction. The analysis was as followsw
Grade	"eight	$
^0 - 40	27 5/16	72.85
40-60	9 oz.	24.00
60 - 100	1 3/16 oz,3.15
$7 1/2 ozlOO.00PLATE VIII
•3.1
LOGARITHMIC PLOTTING OF RUNS
GALVANIZED IRON PIPE,GRADE II
LOSSES or HEAD AS ORDINATES
VELOCITIES AS ABSCISSAS
Percentages of sand in small numbers by each point.
Gurves connect points o^ equal percentages o^-sand.
----Velocity curve., water only,-for 55®
----Velocity curve,water onty# Sa-f-^and Schoder.
O Unreliable runs..
©	Runs in which gauges were rather irregular.
• Reliable runs. "
LOSSES OF HEAD IN FEET OF WATER PER 100 FEET.
50
45
• 27
O
too
too
30
90PLATE. 'IX
12 C
WO
iso
no
100PLATE67-
where
Comparing the points on the two sets of curvesA it is
probable that the sand is first carried in suspension, that
is where the sand lines first become parallel to the water
line, we obtain the following values
Percent	Brass	Iron
5	8	6.5
10	10	7.5
15	10	8.7
£0		C" • CO
Thus it is seen that the sand is entirely suspended
sooner in the case of the iron pipe. This is probably due
to the fact that the increased disturbance of the water, owing
to the roughness of the pipe,enables it to carry all the sand
in suspension sooner.
The transition period commences as follows
Percent	Brass	Iron
5	3.5	3.0
10	3.5	4.0
15	3.5	4.0
80	3.5	3.3
Average	B71T	
Thus the sand begins to be carried in suspension at
approximately the same time in both cases and the roughness
of the pipe evidently has but little effect at these low veloc-
ities.
On Plate IX the curves of Plates VI, VII and VIII are68-
plotted logarithmically, the losses of head, however, being
in feet of mixtxxre per 100 feet instead of feet of water as
on the other diagrams. These reduced losses of head are corn-
put edin Tables XI to XIV. The fact that the curves of one
set sometimes cross is not significant, since it simply means
that the additional loss of head in feet of water due to an
extra 5 per cent of sand does not counterbalance the difference
in the reduction of heads.
9. Discussion of the Causes of Loss of Head at Various
Velocities and with High and Low Percentages.
The possible causes for loss of head are 5 in number.
The two first causes will be considered together in the fol-
lowing discussion as the combination of the two constitute the
loss of head with water only flowing.
1.	Friction	of	7/ater	on	Pipe.	It is evident that if the water and sand moved at
2.	TT	TV	It	H	TTat er.	exactly the same velocity
3.	tt	Tf	TT	it	Sand.	throughout the pipe cross-
4.	Tt	ft	Saiid	TT	Pipe.	section only two of these
5.	ft	Tl	Tl	If	Sand	causes could obtain, namely:-
						1 and 4.
As yet the sum of all these separate losses of head is
known and that is all. On introducing the glass lengths it
was at once noted that for low velocities and high percentages,69-
that is velocities below 2 ft. per second and percentages above
about 10%, the lower part of the pipe became filled with sand
moving very slowly or not at all, the upper layers moving
faster than the lower, and that the water flowed between the
surface of this mass of sand and the top of the pipe csrrying
along with it the smaller particles of sand and rolling some
grains along om the surface of the sand mass. Kow it is
evident under the above conditions that the mean velocity
obtained for the sand and water is far less than the true veloc-
ity of the water, flowing as it did at times freely only through
1/4 of the entire pipe section. These things were noted in
case of both the coarse and fine grades.
Under these conditions (1) is evidently larger than indi-
cated by water line, (3) and (5) must be large factors while
(4) though large is not as large as it would be if the w$ole
mass of sand were moving instead of only the upper layers.
For extremely high pereentages (above 30) it was noted that
the entire cross section was blocked and the entire mass of
sand moved along, the water flowing through it as it would
through a filtration bed. Under these circumstances it is
impossible to say whether (1) would be larger than loss due to
mean velocity or not but (1) would certainly be small as com-
pared with(3),(4 )and( 5) ,all of which must be very large.
For low percentages at low velocities the entire cross
section is available for the water, practically, the very fine70-
particles "being suspended and the coarse ones rolled along the
bottom. It might here he noted that these rolling particles
did not move at a uniform velocity like the suspended particles
hut in small masses with a wave-like pulsating motion, these
masses being at short intervals. Particles would become
detached from one mass and roll along and join the next^the
whole phenomena being very similar to the manner a river
carries solid matter along its bed. Under these circunstan-
ces (1) is probably equal to the loss due to mean velocity,
(8) and (4) are small and (5) very small. After about 3 ft.
persecond, the amount of sand suspended in the water increased
to such an extent that it was very hard to see the relative
motions of the sand and the water. For medium velocities
it was clearly seen, however, by holding a light behind the
glass pipe, that the percentage of sand was higher toward the
bottom of the pipe. Under these circumstances, (1' 1 would
and
be about the same as for the mean velocity,A(3), (4) and (5)
would all enter in,but their relative weights cannot be inves-
tigated until later.
For high velocities, it can pretty safely be assumed that
the water and sand move at almost the same velocity, both
being slightly retarded toward the edges of the pipe. In
this casevowing to the great disturbance of the water all the
causes of loss of head would probably enter,but with the ex-
ception of (1) and (2) which are large, the friction headPLATE XI71-
would be very slight. It is evident therefore, that in the
change from the lor/ to the high velocity, conditions (3), (4)
and (5) change from important factors to very small ones.
On setting jip the galvanized pipe the glass sections were
again introduced and the same phenomena noted as with the
brass pipe.
From the comparison of the curves obtained from the brass
and iron pipes, some clue to the magnitude of the friction of
the sand on the pipe at varioxxs velocities is reached.
At high velocities as on the brass pipe it can pretty
safely be assumed that the water curve is correct whether sand
is runnung or not;at low velocities about the same error is
introduced in the water curves of both pipes.	Eence the loss
of head above the water curves due to the sand can be compared.
To make this comparison clearer the two water curves are
'~s
superimposed and bent in-p'o a straight line (see Plate XI).
Then the intervals between the water curves and the sand curves
in each case were scaled off from Plate X and laid off ver-
tically from tnese water lines which are considered as having
zero loss of head. From this diagram it is seen that for
low velocities the loss bf head due to sand on the galvanized
pipe is greater. This means that for very low velocities
the loss of head due to friction of sand on pipe is an appre-
ciable factor. At a velocity of about 3.5 feet per second
the low percentage curves of the galvanized pipe begin to dropLOSSES OF HEAD in ■feet of wa.fer per IOOfee+
VE.LOC ITIES in feet per second.
30
PLATE XII
/o	II
DIAGRAMS
SHOWING
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE
OF CAUSES OF LOSS OF HEAD
AT LOW VELOCITIES
/Friction of Water on Pipe
iction of Water on Water
n£
Friction of WateronSand
Friction of Sand on Pipe
Friction of Sand on SandSCALE OF RATIOS OF VOLUME OF SAND TRANSPORT ED TO POWER LOST PER IOOFEET OF Pipe.
VOLUME OF SAND IN CU.FT. PEP? HOUR,POWER IN FOOT POUNDS PER SECOND.
SCALE OF VELOCITIES infee+per second.
PLATE. XU l
SCALES OF RATIOS OF VOL. OF SAND TRANSPORTED TO POWER LOST PER IOO FT OF PIPE.
(/>
O
>
r
m
o
D
m
D
0
n
z
1
rn
(A
O
~n
cn
>
z
o
“0
r
m
X
<72-
below those of the brass pipe due to the fact,as stated in
the last section, that the sand particles are carried in sus-
pension in large quantities sooner in the case of the gapva--
nized pipe and hence (3), (4) and (5) are reduced. For these
velocities the curves afford no clue to the magnitude of the
friction of the sand on the pipe, "but for high velocities it
is evident that there is hut little difference in the loss of
head due to sand for the two pipes. Hence, for high velocities
the friction of the sand on the pipe must he very small.
On Plate XII, approximate division of the causes of loss
of head at different velocities ana at high and low percentages
is shown diagramatically, all the lines that are approximated
being dotted.
10, Discussion of the Relative Soonomy of Various
Velocities and percentages.
To find the most economical velocity and percentage to
use in practice the values plotted on Plates XIII and XIV were
is
computed. The computation, giver., in Tables XII, XIII and XIV.
Plate XIII shows for any given percentage the relative economy
of the variol^s velocities, while Plate XIV gives for any veloc-
ity the relative economy of various percentages. The ordi-
nates for both plates are the ratios of the sand transported
to power lost per 100 feet of pipe. The power was computed
from the formula Power = QYh. QY is taken together as the73-
pounds of mixture passing per second. To find h the loss in
feet of mixture pwr 100 feet, the loss in feet of water was
road off Plates 71, VTI and VTII, and these heads (see column 5)
reduced in the ratios differing with the different percentages.
The ratios are given in Table XI. The ratios given in the
last column of the tables are a direct indication of the
economy of this method of transporting sand for the velocities
and percentages under consideration. From the diagrams it is
with
seen thatAthe coarse grades.neither the velocity nor percentage
have as great an influence on the economy as with the fine.
In general a velocity of 3 feet per second is the most econom-
ical while the higher the percentage, the greater the economy
so that j*he most favorable conditions would exist with a
velocity of 3 feet per second, and a very high percentage.
This would probably not be the case in actual practice even
if the same conditions held for large pipes, for in practice
the efficiency of the pumps and engines , the depreciation of
the plant and wages would enter in. The difference in the
efficiency for the brass and iron pipes is least for low
velocities at any given percentage,while at any given velocity
the percentage seems to make no difference. For any low
velocity the added economy due to the fine grade is greater
the higher the percentage, while for any given percentage, it
is apparent only for low velocities.74-
TABLE XI.
RATIO	3 FOR	REDUCTION	OF HEAD	71TH	VARIOUS PERCENTAGES	
	Grade II.				Grade IY.	
	Wt.per GU. ft.	Amt. t o ha added	Ratios	Ut.per Amt.to cu.ft. he added		Ratios
1	63.45	1.05	.985	63.4	1.0	.984
5	67.6	5.2	.924	67.4	5.0	.925
1C	72.6	10.4	.857	72.4	10.c	.861
15	78.0	15.6	.800	77.4	15.0	.806
20	83.3	20.9	.749	82.4	20.0	.758
25	88.6	26.2	.704	87.4	25.0	.714
SO	93.7	31.3	.666	92.4	30.0	.676
35	98.9	36.5	.631	97.4	35.0	.640
40	104.2	41.8	.600	102.4	40.0	.609
	Difference in weight of			Sand and ’"ater,		Grade IY -
162.3 - 62.4 » 09.9
Difference in weight of Sand and 7/ater, Grade II -
167.2 - 62.4 - 104.875
TABLE XII.
COMPUTATION FOR RFFIOIEHCY CURVES.
Veloc- ities.	at 7o	Loss of Head per ICO1 of Vat er	Brass Pipe, Crade II. Loss of # of Power Head per Mix. per 100’ of per 100’ Mixture sec. f.p.s.			Vol.of Sand per hr,
1	1	6.0	5.9	.384	2.3	.22
	5	12.3	11.4	.410	4.7	1.09
	10	20.5	17.55	.441	7.7	2.18
	15	27.8	22.2	.473	10.5	3.27
	20	34.2	25.6	. 505	12.9	4.36
	25	41.5	29.2	.537	15.7	5.45
	30	48.4	32.2	.569	18.3	6.54
	35	54.3	34.3	.601	20.6	7.63
	40	58.0	34.8	.633	22.0	8.72
2	1	6.4	6.3	.77	4.8	0.43
	5	12.2	11.3	.82	9.3	2.18
	10	19.6	16.8	.883	14.8	4.36
	15	26.5	21.2	.945	20.0	6.54
	20	31.2	23.4	JL.OIO	23.6	8.72
	25	38.7	27.2	1.074	29.2	10.90
	30	46.1	30.7	1.138	34.9	13.08
3	1	7.0	6.9	1.152	18.0	0.65
	5	12.2	11.3	1.238	13.9	3.27
	10	19.1	16.4	1.324	21.7	6.54
	15	25.7	20.6	1.420	29.3	9.81
	20	29.5	22.1	1.515.	33.5	13.08
	25	37.5	26.4	1.610	42.5	16.35
4	1	8.1	7.98	1.537	12.3	0.87
	5	12.5	11.6	1.640	19.1	4.36
	10	18.9	16.1	1.765	28.4	8.72
	15	25.4	20.3	1.89	38.4	13.08
	20	29.6	22.1	2.02	44.6	17.44
	25	39.1	27.5	2.15	59.1	21.80
5	1	10.7	10.54	1.920	20.2	1.09
	5	14.1	13.05	2.05	26.8	5.45
	10	20.0	17.1	2.20	37.6	10.90
	15	26.0	20.8	2.36	49.1	16.35
	20	31.0	23.2	2.52	58.5	21.81
	25	43.0	30.2	2.68	81.0	27.26
6	1	14.6	14.4	2.303	33.2	1.51
	5	16.9	15.6	2.46	38.4	6.54
	10	22.0	18.7	2.65	49.5	13.08
	15	27.4	21.9	2.84	62.2	19.62
	20	34.0	25.5	2.03	77.2	26.16
Ratio Index
of n *
Vol.
“Power
.096
.852
.283
.312
.338
.347
.355
.370
.396
.090
.234
.294
.327
.369
.373
.375
.081
.235
.302
.335
.391
.385
.071
.228
.307
.341
.391
.369
.054
.203
.290
.333
.373
.337
.039
.170
.264
.316
.339>
5
10
15
20
5
10
15
5
10
15
5
10
15
5
10
15
5
10
5
5
76
loss	of	loss	of	r of
Head	per	Head	per	Mix.
100*	of	100’	of	per
Fat er		Mixture		see.
20.4	18.9	2.87
24.8	21.2	3.09
29.5	23.6	3.31
58.0	28.5,	3.54
24.4	22.6	3.28
28.3	24.2	3.53
33.0	26.4	3.78
30.0	27.7	3.69
32.7	28.0	3.97
37.2	29.8	4.26
36.7	35.2	4.10
37.6	32.2	4.41
43.0	34.4	4.73
49.0	45.3	4.92
50.6	43.3	5.29
61.0	48.8	5.68
67.0	62.0	5.74
72.8	62.3	6.18
87.0	80.5	6.56
116.0	107.3	7.38
power per 100* f.p.s.	Yol.of Sand per hr.	Ratio Index of n. Vol. Power
54.2	7.63	.141
65.4	15.26	.233
78.1	22.89	.293
100.9	30.52	.303
74.1	8.72	.118
85.4	17.44	.204
99.7	26.16	.262
102.1	9.81	.096
111.0	19.62	.177
127.0	29.43	.232
138.0	10.90	.079
142.0	21.21	.152
162.8	32.71	.201
233.0	15.08	.059
229.0	26.16	.114
277.0	39.24	.142
356.0	15.26	.043
385.0	30.52	.079
528.0	17.44	.033
793.0	19.62	.02577
TABLE XIII.
COMPUTATION FOB EFFICIENCY CURVES.
Veloc- ities.	*	Loss of Head per 100’ of Water	Loss of Head per 100’ of Mixture	# of Mix. per sec.	Power per 100’ f.p.s.	Vol.of Sand per hr.	Ratio Index of n a Vol. Power
1	i		0	~3T94	o75$“	1.5	0.22T	.W
	5	7.15	6.61	0.41	2.71	1.09	.403
	10	9.28	7.99	0.44	3.52	2.18	.619
	15	12.8	10.3	0.47	4.84	3.27	.676
	20	18.7	14.16	0.50	7.08	4.36	.616
2	1	4.32	4.26	0.77	3.32	0, 43	.130
	5	6.75	6.24	0.82	5.11	2.18	.426
	10	8.47	7.29	0.88	6.41	4.36	.680
	15	11.20	9.03	0.94	8.49	6.54	.771
	20	14.9	11.3	1.00	11.3	8.72	.772
	35	38.0	24.3	1.18	28.6	15.26	.533
	40	41.3	25.2	1.24	31.2	17.44	.559
3	1	4.9	4.82	1.15	5.5	6.65	.118
	5	6.57	6.08	1.22	7.4	3.27	.442
	10	8.06	6.94	1.31	9.1	6.54	.718
	15	10.3	8.31	1.40	11.62	9.81	.844
	20	13.2	10.0	1.49	14.9	13.08	.878
	25	17.6	12.6	1.58	19.9	16.35	.822
	35	37.0	23.7	1.77	41.9	22.89	.547
3.5	1	5.85	5.76	1.34	7.7	0.76	.099
	5	6.80	6.29	1.43	9.0	3.81	.423
	10	8.45	7.26	1.53	11.2	7.65	.682
	15	10.4	8.4	1.64	13.8	11.44	.830
	20.	13.4	10.15	1.75	17.8	15.26	.858
	35	37.4	23.9	2.06	49.2	26.72	.543
4	1	7.3	7.2	1.53	11.0	0.87	.079
	5	8.2	7,59	1.63	12.4	4.36	.351
	10	9.85	8.58	1.75	15.0	8.72	.581
	35	38.1	24.4	2.36	57.6	30.52	.530
5	1	10.7	10.54	1.91	20.1	1.09	.054
	5	11.9	11.0	2.04	22.5	5.45	.242
	10	13.6	11.7	2.19	25.6	10.90	^<±26
6	5	16.1	14.9	2.45	36.5	6.54	.179
	10	17.7	15.2	2.63	39.9	13.08	.32.-8
7	5	20.9	19.3	2.86	55.2	7.63	.138
	10	22.9	19.71	3.07	60.5	15.26	.252
8	5	26.2	24.2	3.26	78.9	8.72	.110
	10	29.0	25.0	3.50	87.5	17.44	/2 00
9	5	32.5	30.1	3.67	110.5	9.81	.089
	10	36.0	31.0	3.94	122.2	19.62	.161
10	5	38.9	36.0	4.08	147.0	10.90	.074
	10	43.0	37.0	4.38	162.1	21.81	.13578-
Veloc-
ities.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TABLE XIV.
COMPUTATION FOR EFFICIENCY CURVES*
Galvanized Iron Pipe. Grade II.
$ Loss of Loss of	# of Power Vol.of
Head per Head per Mix.	per Sand
100* of 100' of
’Yater Mixture
5	14.75	13.6
10	23.1	19.8
15	31.6	25.3
20	35.9	26.9
25	40.2	28.3
5	14.7	13.6
10	22.5	19.3
15	30.1	24.1
20	35.1	26.5
25	40.0	28.2
5	14.6	15.5
10	22.2	19.1
15	29.3	23.4
20	34.7	26.0
5	16.5	15.3
10	22.0	18.8
15	28.7	23.0
20	36.5	27.4
5	20.4	18.9
10	24.5	21.0
15	30.1	24.1
20	39.6	29.7
5	26.0	24.0
10	29.5	25.3
15	34.1	27.3
20	43.6	32.6
5	33.1	30.6
10	36.0	30.8
15	39.9	31.9
20	48.0	36.0
10	44.6	38.2
15	47.5	38.0
20	54.1	40.5
15	57.0	45.6
20	64.6	48.4
15	68.5	54.8
20	79.5	59.6
per sec.	100' f.p.s.	per hr
.410	5.57	1.09
.441	8.74	2.18
.473	11.97	3.27
.505	13.57	4.36
.537	15.20	5.45
.820	11.15	2.18
.883	17.05	4.36
.945	22.8	6.54
1.010	26.6	8.72
1.074	30.3	10.90
1.230	16.6	3.27
1.324	25.3	6.54
1.420	33.2	9.81
1.515	39.4	13.08
1.640	25.1	4*36
1.765	33.2	8.72
1.890	43.5	13.08
2.020	55.3	17.44
2.05	38.7	5.45
2.20	46.2	10.90
2.36	56.8	16.35
2.52	74.8	21.81
2.46	59.0	o. 54
2.65	67.©	13.08
2.84	77.5	19.62
3.03	98.9	26.16
2.87	87.8	7.63
3.09	95.1	15.26
3.31	105.5	22.89
3.54	127.4	30.52
3.53	134.9	17.44
3.78	143.7	26.16
4.03	163.2	34.88
4.26	194.2	29.43
4.54	219.7	39.24
4.73	259.0	32.71
5.05	301.0	43.62
Ratio Index
of n =
Vo_l •_
Power
.196
.250
.273
.322
.359
.196
.256
.286
.328
.360
.197
.258
.296
.332
.174
.262
.301
.316
.141
.256
.288
.292
.111
.196
.253
.264
.087
.160
.217
.239
.129
.182
.214
.152
.179
.127
.145
1079-
II. _GoneInsions.
From the results given in sections 5 to 10 tjie following
conclusions can “be drawn with regard to 1-inch pipes and the
grades of sand used.
1.	The loss of head due to sand and water is for any given
velocity greater than the loss of head due to water alone.
2.	The loss of head increases with increasing percentages
off sand.
3.	Two distinct laws govern the flow of sand and water,
one applying to low velocities below about 3 feet per second
and the other to high velocities above about 9 feet per second.
4.	According to the first law, the loss of head with
any given percentage of sand is about the same for any velocity
up to 3 feet per second.
5.	According to the second law, the loss of head due to
sand and water for high velocities varies with the same power
of the velocity as the loss of head due to water only.
6.	Between 3 and 9 feet per second, there is a transition
period in which the curves gradually change from the low veloc-
ity law to the high velocity law.
7.	The loss of head due to sand only is less for high
velocities than for low.
8.	For velocities below about 3 feet per second, no
sand is carried in suspension, all being dragged at a lower
velocity than the water.
Only the upper part of the cross section is effective.80-
9.	For velocities above about 9 feet per second, all
the sand is carried in suspension and the entire cross section
becomes effective.
10.	For velocities between about 3 and 9 feet per second
the sand is partly dragged and partly suspended.
11.	The loss of head due to the fine sand for any given
percentage and at any velocity below about 9 feet per second,
is less than that due to the coarse sand.
12.	For velocities above about 9 feet per second, the loss of
head is approximately the same for both coarse and fine grades.
13.	With any given percentage of sand, the fine sand is
entirely carried in suspension sooner than the coarse.
14.	The loss of head due to a given grade of sand and
water is greater at all velocities for a rough pipe than for a
smooth one.
15.	With a given grade and percentage of sand, the loss
due to the sand only on a rough pipe is greater at low veloc-
ities, less at medium,and about the same at high velocities as
on a smooth pipe.
16.	With a given grade and percentage of sand, the sand
is entirely carried in suspension sooner in the case of the
rough pipe than in the case of the smooth.
17.	For both grades and with both rough and smooth pipes,
the most economical velocity is about 3 feet per second.
18.	For both grades of sand and with both types of pipes,
the higher the percentage of sand, the more economical the process.81-
PART III.
PRACTICAL DEDUCT I CITS.
1. Comparison, of Conditions of Parts I & II.
It might he claimed that it is impossible to compare the
conclusions reached in Parts I and II, owing to the radically
different conditions under which the experiments were performed.
However, with the exception of the very great difference in
the size of the pipes, the conditions were not very unlike.
The riveted steel pipes used on the dredges have a lower
coefficient of friction than the galvanized iron pipe, when
only the lengths between joints are considered. There is,
however, an additional loss of head at the joints so that it
is hard to compare the coefficients of the discharge pipes
with the small pipes.
However, it was found in part II, that the difference in
the roughness of the pipes used, made no radical change in
the general form of the curves and that the most effective
velocity and percentage in the two cases were identical.
A comparison of the sand analyses shows that the sand
dredged has a lower percentage of voids from 33 to 40 percent-
age instead of 45 percentage of voids in the sand used by the
writer, and this is due to there being a mixture of grades in
dredge experiments. Grade iv must have been as fine as the
finest and Grade II considerably coarser than the average ofthe sand dredged. In Part II, it was found that the general
laws were the same for both grades and therefore the variation
due to a mixture of grades could not he great. The specific
gravity of the sand was all about the samft, so that this
factor does not enter in.
If the sand used in the dredge experiments had been used
on the brass pipe, one would have expected the transition
period to begin at about Z feet per second,while the second
law of flow would not have begun until rather above 10 feet
per second owing to the coarseness of some of the particles.
The method of obtaining the velocity and percentage of
sand by barge measurement was very similar to the method used
in part II.
It may therefore be pretty safely assumed that any strilri
ing differences in the laws of flow is due to the great differ-
ence in the diameter of the pipes.
2._Comparison of Conclusions reached in Parts I P II.
Oonclusicns 1, 2 and Z of Part I are identical with
conclusions 1, 2 and 6 of part II.
There is also evidence that conelusion 10 of Part II is
borne out in Plate II. For on the Epsilon in the two cases
where the sand was mixed with mud lumps, the loss of head is
higher than where sand only was being pumped.
On the other hand, conclusion 4 of Plate I, though corre-83-
sponding to conclusion 8 of Part II, it i3 not identical^
with it and also conclusion 5 of Part I does not check with
7 of Part II.
From the above comparison of results, it would seem that
the same general laws hold for the two pipes hut that whereas
in the case of the large pipe the sand does not begin to be
carried in suspension until a velocity of about 9 feet per
second, in the case of the small pipe this point is reached at
about 3 feet per second.
Also while the sand is not entirely suspended until 14
feet per second is reached, in the case of the large pipe,with
the small pipes, this takes place at about 9 feet per second.
3. Relative Form of Curves on Large and Small Pipes.
On comparing the curves pf Plate II with those of Plate VI,
for instance, it is seen that they seem to correspond with the
curves of Plate VI between the velocities of about 2 and 9 feet
per secondjand that 3 feet per second on Plate VI corresponds to
about 9 to 10 feet per second on Plate II. The curves of
Plate II seem to approach the water curves as at high velocities
as in Plate VI. This checks with the statements made in the
preceding paragraph which were based wholly on the observations
made concerning the effective cross section.
4. Range of affective Velocities.
It may therefore be safely inferred that 9 feet per second84-
is the most economic velocity for 30" pipes of the tjrpe under
consideration.
The range of the most economic velocity from 3CTT pipes
to 1 inch pipes, is therefore from 9 feet per second to 3 feet
per second and the following conclusion can he drawn.
THE SMALLER THE SIZE OF THE T13CHARGE PIPE THE LOWER THE
MOST ECONOMIC VELOCITv WHICH VARIES FROM 9 FEET PER SECOND OH
30" PIPE TO 3 FEET PER SECOND 017 1" PirES.
This does not take into consideration,of course, the
efficiency of the engines and pumps, the time of the employees
and the depreciation of the plant, all of which would tend to
increase the velocity and the time element in finishing work.
When in Part I it was stated that 14 l/2 feet per second was
the most effective velocity, all these considerations were
taken into account.
”rom the similarity of the .curves of Plate I and II, we
may safely infer^ that the same lav/ holds concerning the most
economic percentage of sand^and we may state:-
THE HIGHER THE PERCENTAGE OF SARD THE HIGHER THE EFFICIEN-
CY OF THE PROCESS FOR ALL SIZES 0^ PIPS.ion :.t.r > /-'$ er ' .o oo.Si. y,.'..color oir oxioo© om
. ■ *2'‘ -:o ' : ■ -0:
0.	■ ... t	\	,	.' J
.CCWaiA 9(f XC.S O XXO-iafflOflOf	• •
	- - •- . -		‘ • 	 . " r T * ’ - •	
•			• • v • - ~ ■	■
	* V .		.... • • • X	
i, ~f;r , o .	-;n	: ; , .	‘ ..v	- ...t!	•' '■	, : - .,
,
:j-.; blsrow doidn 3to Cl ,	-	.
-Of >	1 ■.	'\r ? ■	*.	o '*	I	\\
^	r , t . r
■