Abstract

Bernoullis Equation along with the mass continuity equation or mass conservation principle
were applied to test fluid flow rates for incompressible and steady state flow of water by
using an Armfield Rig with the assumptions of lossless and inviscid flow. Discharge
coefficients introduced in this experiment were calculated to determine the ratio of actual
flow rates to the ideal flow rates for different values of the Reynolds number.
The experiment involved the calculation of the flow rate of steadily flowing water in pipes
using a venturi meter, orifice plate, rotameter manually with a measuring beaker and stop
watch. Eight manometer tubes were used to determine the pressure difference between
several positions in the Armfield rig, readings taken were then analysed.
Significant differences between theoretical and actual flow rates were present due to friction
and head losses in the pipe systems, human response delay and variation in environmental
factors. Discharge coefficients calculated were reasonably matched with the given literature
values as shown by the plot of the corresponding coefficients against their respective
Reynolds numbers. It was determined that flow rates calculated from theory differ
considerably from real values, however this can be amended with the usage of discharge
coefficients.

Introduction
The main principle used is the Bernoullis Equation, it can be expressed as
1
V 2 P gz constant
2
Where
V = fluid velocity at the respective points along a streamline
g = gravitational acceleration
z = height of fluid
P = pressure along the streamline
= density of the fluid
The Bernoulli Equation was used to determine the ideal volumetric flow rate of a liquid by
assuming negligible frictional losses, inviscid flow, no energy losses or gains from external
sources with negligible change of temperature and zero heat transfer and steady flow. In
practice viscous effects are present due to sudden contractions that causes swirling and
turbulent flow. These are taken into consideration by the coefficient of discharge C d which
was calculated when the ideal flow rate and the actual flow rate were known, using the
following formula, where Qideal is the ideal flow rate and Q actual is the actual flow rate from the
experiment.

Cd

Qactual
Qideal

Application to Experiment
To apply Bernoullis Equation, an expression relating flow rate of the fluid to the dimensions
of the pipe system and pressure difference of the fluid between two points can be used to
theoretically calculate flow rate without having to directly measure the velocity of flow in
question.

Assumptions made and their validity

Water was used in this experiment, and thus it can be assumed to be incompressible in its
liquid form for this practical application. Orifice plate and Venturi tube was also assumed to
be placed on a perfectly horizontal plane.
Assumption for inviscid flow is not entirely valid as water is treated as a fluid with low but
non-zero viscosity. Additionally, head losses due to friction are sufficiently large enough to
not be negligible as well. Minor head losses in the experimental rig were accounted for by the
discharge coefficient calculated.
Given that the losses from the aforementioned factors are not taken into account during the
calculation of experimental flow rates, the ideal flow rate from Bernoullis Equation will
return a relatively higher value than the actual flow rate.
Brief comparison of different flow measurement techniques
In this experiment, four measuring techniques are employed to measure the flow rate. Key
advantages and disadvantages are as follows:
Orifice Plate
Orifice plates are relatively cheap, easy to install and maintain as they have simple
geometries and can be placed anywhere and easily be removed for inspection and cleaning. It
also offers flexibility as it is independent of fluid properties and no change in plate geometry
is needed for different fluid densities. Orifice plates have a limited range of accuracy for flow
rates, different specifications are required for different flow rates. They are also easy to
automate by installing pressure sensors upstream and downstream of the orifice plate to
measure differences in the fluid pressure. The major disadvantage of orifice plate is that they
create high pressure drop and severe disruption of flow due to a sudden constriction in the
flow, resulting in large energy and head loss. Its limiting range of accuracy for differing flow
rates may also be a cause of concern in experiments.
Venturi Meter
The venturi meter has slightly more complicated geometrical tolerances and is more
expensive to manufacture. Disadvantages also include installation effort as welding is
required, resulting in high installation costs. They are also easy to automate as pressure
sensors are easily installed upstream and at the throat section. In addition, they are
independent of fluid properties. The venturi meter has smooth contractions and expansions,
this reduces pressure drop and flow disruption so minor head losses are reduced. Similar to
orifice plates, venture meters have limited range of accuracy for flow rates, hence calibration
is required for different flow rates.
Rotameter
Rotameters benefit heavily from ease of use as flow rates are read directly from device scale.
It also costs relatively low and is easily manufactured. Moreover, rotameters are more
accurate than the abovementioned two methods as they are not dependant on flow
constriction as a measure of pressure drop. A major disadvantage of rotameters is installation
difficulty. Rotameters must be placed vertically due to it depending on gravity to work and
take up considerable vertical space. Furthermore rotameters are highly dependant on fluid
properties and are only accurate for limited fluid types. Also, it is hard to automate
measurements with the rotameter without the help of advanced optical sensors and magnetic
coupling.
Manual measurement with beaker and stopwatch

With this method, a specific volume of fluid is collected and the time taken to collect the
amount of fluid is taken using a stopwatch. In addition, it is very simple and low cost as it
does not require anything other than a stopwatch and beaker which was within the Armfield
rig. In addition, this method is easy to employ for fluids of different properties. This method
generates high amount of error from human response delay and is unsuitable for measuring
flow rates of high temperature or hazardous fluids. This method is also not as precise as there
are room for many errors to affect the data. Finally, this method is hard to automate as it
requires fluids measurement tools coupled with cut-off circuit for the pump.

Procedure
1) The tap was opened slightly before the pump was turned on.
2) The flow rate of the water was adjusted by varying the tap opening.
3) Water was allowed to enter and completely fill up the pipes, including the venturi
meter and orifice plate. The rig was allowed to run for several minutes to flush air
bubbles out.
4) The actual flow rate of water through the pipes was calculated using the time taken
for a fixed volume of water to be collected.
5) The flow rate of the fluid recorded by the rotameter was also recorded.
6) For all eight tubes in the manometer, which were connected to the venturi meter,
rotameter and orifice plate, the heights of fluid in each tube were recorded for each
flow rate measured.
Point 1 measures the pressure of the water upstream of the venturi meter.
Point 2 measures the pressure of the water at the throat of the venturi meter.
Point 3 measures the pressure of the water downstream of the venturi meter.
Point 4 measures the pressure of the water below and going into the rotameter.
Point 5 measures the pressure of the water above and coming out from the
rotameter.
Point 6 measures the pressure of the water upstream of the orifice plate.
Point 7 measures the pressure of the water downstream of the orifice plate.
Point 8 measures the pressure of the water flowing out of the system of pipes in
the rig.
7) 9 sets of evenly spread data for volumetric flow rate were recorded.

Orifice

Valv

Rotamet

Manomet

Measuring
scale

Venturi

Figure 1: Photograph of experimental rig with flow measurement apparatus labelled.

Results
Using Bernoulli equation and continuity, the volumetric flow rate, Q through a Venturi tube
or Orifice plate, in terms of upstream A1 and throat A2, pressure difference P and fluid
density can be expressed. For conservation of mass, the inflow rate must be equal to the
outflow rate. Assuming the system is in steady state and density remains constant
(incompressible flow), the theoretical volumetric flow rate is:
Qtheoretical =A 2

[ [

2( P)

A2
1
A1

]]
2

Refer to the appendix for derivation steps for the above expression as well as expressions for
Reynolds number and discharge coefficients.

Graph of Discharge Coefficent, C vs Reynold's Graph of Discharge Coefficent, Cd versus Reynold's

Number, Re of Orifice Plate
Number, Re of Venturi Tube
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.62
Discharge coefficient
0.6
0.58

1.05
1
0.95
0.9
Discharge coefficient
0.85
0.8
10000
0 20000

20000
0 40000

Reynold's number

Reynold's number

plots of discharge coefficient versus the free-stream

Venturi meter are as per Graphs 1 and 2 below:
Graph 1: Effect of freestream Reynolds
number on discharge coefficient for orifice
plate

The
Reynolds number for both the orifice plate and
Graph 2: Effect of freestream Reynolds
number on discharge coefficient for Venturi
mete

The literature results of discharge coefficient versus Reynolds number from Munson et al are
listed in the appendix.
The plot of rotameter reading against actual measured volumetric flow rate is as per Graph 4
below:

Plot of Rotameter Reading against Volumetric Flow Rate in 3/

3.00E-04
2.00E-04

Rotameter reading

1.00E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00

2.00E-04

4.00E-04

Volumetric flow rate

Graph

3:

Relationship

between rotameter reading and actual flow rate

The max-min method was employed during error analysis for all variables; please refer to the
appendix for a complete explanation and derivation. Primary sources of errors are stated in
the discussion below.

Discussion
Comparisons between experimental data and literature predictions and the effects of
assumptions
Range of values for discharge coefficient, C d in venturi tube varies depending on the
geometry of the tube. In this experiment, geometry of the venturi tube was not provided.
Therefore, results were compared within all ranges of possible geometry within a range of
Reynolds number. The range of Reynolds number obtained in the experiment were in
between 5249 to 14628. In this case, Reynolds numbers ranging from 10 4 to 105 on the
theoretical graph of discharge coefficient of venturi tube were taken for comparison. Based
on the literature, discharge coefficient, Cd ranges from 0.94 0.97. Experimental plot on
figure showed the range of C d varied from 0.89 1.02 at Reynolds number greater than
104, which is outside the theoretical range of

C d . Experimental results of

Cd

deviate

about 4% above theoretical value, while those of Reynolds numbers are about 0.6%, which is
still acceptable.
For Orifice plate, Reynolds number calculated based on the experiment were ranging from
7213 to 22811, which should be compared to Reynolds number ranging from 104 to 105 and
discharge coefficient ranging from 0.60 to 0.64 of theoretical graph (figure). Experimental

results showed that values of discharge coefficients ranged from 0.61 to 0.66 from Reynolds
number starting from 104 onwards. This experimental results of C d deviate about 4.5%
above theoretical value, while those of Reynolds numbers are about 0.8%, which is also still
acceptable. Therefore, the graph obtained from the experiment agrees to the graphs of the
literature results, showing the same trend-line as the theoretical graph. However, there are
slight discrepancies due to the experimental errors that will be further discussed. The graphs
are shown in graph 1 and 2 and figure 2.
Based on the graph of rotameter reading versus actual volumetric flow rate (graph 3), it is
observed that the readings are generally very close to each other. The assumptions that were
made while applying the concept of Bernoullis equation and continuity equation include: the
flow is steady, the viscous forces are negligible (inviscid fluid), no friction losses, no work
done by or done on fluid, fluid is incompressible, no enthalpy change, no heating or cooling
and no energy losses. In addition, variations in pump output and thermal inefficiencies also
contribute to energy losses, which worsen the errors. These assumptions made might have
affected the theoretical predictions and the comparisons since neglecting the properties of
fluid such as its viscosity and the energy losses across the tube might have resulted in an
over-estimation of the calculated values for volumetric flow rates.
Main sources of errors, its significance and ways of improvements
There were some errors present during the experiment. Major errors occurred due to human
errors and reaction delays. The limitation of human reaction time contributes to the fact that
the stopwatch was not started immediately as water was starting to accumulate, which causes
the volumetric flow rate to be slightly different than the actual. In addition, the readings of
water level using the manometer might fluctuate slightly from time to time due to the
inconsistency of water pressure. It affects the calculations regarding pressure differences for
venturi tube and orifice plate. Other than that, parallax errors also contribute to the error in
obtaining the data. This error occurs when the position of eye level might not be exactly
perpendicular to the meniscus of the water. Another common error called round-off error is
caused by the significant figures used in calculation. It affects the calculation which generates
minor difference compared to the theoretical predictions.
In order to overcome the errors, a few improvements can be made. For example, equipment
should be checked before using to ensure that they are in good conditions. Next, the
experiment could be repeated several times for the same conditions. The purpose is to obtain
an average value, which will minimize the random errors. Besides that, digital pressure meter
can be used to minimize the effects of the fluctuating water pressure on the reading of
pressure. Lastly, to avoid parallax errors, it should be ensured that readings are taken at an
eye level where the scale and the meniscus are perpendicular to the eye position.
Reasons why the discharge coefficient is much lower for the orifice plate
In orifice plate, water passed from upstream to the orifice plate that has smaller diameter than
the pipe. Water vortexes then will be formed at the orifice exit because the water is forced to
pass through the orifice plate.
According to simplified Bernoullis equation,
1
1
Q+ m v2 Energyloss= m v 2out
2
2
The potential energy was ignored here due to horizontal arrangement. From the equation, it
could be seen that when diameter of the plate is small, the vortex formed is big; the energy

loss will be high, resulting in slower water velocity at the outlet. Therefore, the smaller
diameter of the plate would give lesser volume of water being discharged.
Comparing to venturi tube, the amount of energy loss depends on the converging slope of the
venturi tube. The steeper the slope, the higher energy lost due to the change of direction.
When more energy is lost, the velocity at the outlet of the throat will be slower, thus
discharge coefficient will decrease. Based on the diameter size of the throat, the same concept
as the orifice plate can be applied. The larger the diameter of the throat, there will be less
water flow per unit cross sectional area. Hence, the energy loss is less. Due to less energy
loss, the velocity of water exiting is higher. Thus, the discharge coefficient of venture tube is
higher compared to that of orifice plate.

Conclusion
In this experiment, flow rate of water was measured through secondary methods using the
venture meter, rotameter and orifice plate as well as directly using measuring beaker and
stopwatch. Results obtained show that flow measurement methods based on differential
pressure give an inaccurate estimation of fluid flows when Bernoullis Equation was applied
with zero loss assumptions. Discrepancies were due to significant energy losses produced by
the measuring device. The values obtained differed from literature values due to errors and
assumptions that were made. It can be concluded that frictional losses can and will produce a
significant difference between the experimental and theoretical value. Once discharge
coefficients are taken into account, our results conclude that Bernoullis equation can be
accurately used to study flow rate of a one-dimensional fluid in a pipe.

References

Automationwiki.com, (2014). Orifice Plate - AutomationWiki. [online] Available at:

http://automationwiki.com/index.php?title=Orifice_Plate [Accessed 6 Sep. 2015].
Automationwiki.com, (2014). Venturi Flow Tubes - AutomationWiki. [online] Available at:
http://automationwiki.com/index.php/Venturi_%26_Flow_Tubes [Accessed 6 Sep.
2015].
Munson, B., Young, D. and Okiishi, T. (2002). Fundamentals of fluid mechanics. 1st ed. New
York: Wiley.

Appendices
Schematic representations of the Orifice plate and the Venturi tube

Orifice Plate

Venturi Tube

The literature results of discharge coefficient versus Reynolds number from Munson et al are
as below:

Fig. 2. Discharge Coefficient vs Reynolds number (a) Orifice plate (b) Venturi meter

Raw data
No

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Volume
(litres)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

Time
(seconds
)
31.99
19.81
16.24
15.79
14.74
13.52
12.58
12.13
11.41
10.7

Rotamete
r (l/min)

Water Manometer (mm)

h1
h2
h3
h4
h5

h6

h7

h8

5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

147
190
210
220
235
247
265
283
298
317

87
115
127
135
142
152
160
170
180
190

78
90
93
95
97
100
100
100
100
100

79
95
101
105
110
113
116
120
120
125

130
150
160
163
167
170
176
180
184
185

140
155
190
200
209
222
234
250
262
276

137
165
180
187
195
206
215
230
239
251

91
115
125
134
140
150
158
168
170
185

Expression to find theoretical flow rate

The continuity equation where inlet is designated as (1) and outlet is designated as (2)
becomes:
= out
11= 22
A2
V 1=
V2
A1
Again, assuming the flow is completely horizontal and negligible changes in elevation (z 1 =
z2), the Bernoulli equation for horizontal flow becomes:
1
1
P1+ V 21=P 2+ V 22
2
2

V
( 22 V 21)
1
P1P2=
2
2( P)
=V 22 V 21

Substitute both equation above:

[ [ ]]

2
2( P)
A2
A2
2
=V 2
V 22=V 22 1

A1
A1

[ ]

V 2=

[ [

2( P)

A2
1
A1

]]
2

Here is the theoretical volumetric flow rate,

=
Qtheoretical =A 2

[ [

2( P)

A2
1
A1

]]
2

List of fluid properties

Density of air,

air =1.23 kg /m

Density of water,

water =997.13 kg /m3

Dynamic viscosity of water at 30C,

water =0.0007975 kg /ms

2
Acceleration due to gravity, g=9.81m/s

Orifice plate dimensions:

D=31.75 mm and d=20 mm

Venturi tube dimensions:

D=31.75 mm and d=15 mm

Sample Calculation:
I. Calculating the measured volumetric flow rate:

Qmeasured =

Volume collected 3 10
=
=9.37793 105 m3 /s
Time
31.99

II. Calculations for the orifice plate:

Calculating the cross-sectional areas:
Area of orifice at upstream:
D 21 ( 0.03175 )2
4 2
A 1=
=
=7.912 x 10 m
4
4

Area of orifice at throat:

A 2=

d22 (0.02)2
=
=3.142 104 m2
4
4

Calculating the pressure difference: (for h6 = 87 mm and h7 = 78 mm)

P= ( water air ) g ( h )=( 997.131.23 ) ( 9.81 ) ( ( 8778 ) 103 )=87.928 Pa

Calculating the ideal volumetric flow rate:

Qtheoretical =A 2

( ( ))
2 ( P)

A
1 2
A1

=3.142 104

2 ( 87.928 )

[ (

3.142 104
997.13 1
7.912 x 104

4
=1.437726 10

)]
2

m3 /s

Calculating the Discharge Coefficient:

Qmeasured 9.37793 105
C d=
=
=0.6523
Qtheoretical 1.437726 104
Calculating the Reynolds Number:
=

water D1 Qtheoritical 997.13 ( 0.03175 ) ( 1.437726 104 )

=
=7213.645328
water A 1
0.0007975 ( 7.912 x 104 )

III. Calculations for the Venturi tube:

Calculating the cross-sectional areas:
Area of venturi at upstream:
D 21 ( 0.03175 )2
4 2
A 1=
=
=7.912 x 10 m
4
4

Area of venturi at throat:

2

A 2=

d2 (0.015)2
=
=1.767 104 m2
4
4

Calculating the difference in pressure: (for h1 = 147 mm and h2 = 130 mm)

P= ( water air ) g ( h )=( 997.131.23 ) ( 9.81 ) ( ( 147130 ) 103 )
166.086243 Pa

Calculating the ideal volumetric flow rate:

Q theoretical =A 2

2( P)

water ( 1(

A2
))
A1

=1.767 10

2(166.086243)

[ (

997.13 1

= 1.04629

)]

4 2

1.767 10
4
7.912 x 10
3

10 m / s

Calculating the Discharge Coefficient:

Qmeasured 9.37793 105
C d=
=
=0.896302
Qtheoretical 1.04629 104

Calculating the Reynolds Number:

water D1 Qtheoritical 997.13 ( 0.03175 ) ( 1.04629 104 )
=
=
=5249.653229
water A 1
0.0007975(7.912 x 104 )

Error Analysis
Uncertainties:
Rotameter: 0.025L/min; Stopwatch: 0.2s; Water Manometer: 0.25 mm;
Volume of tank: 0.1L
We employ the maximum-minimum method in error analysis. For any arbitrary value calculated, for
example, X = A/B, by taking the maximum value of A divided by the minimum value of B, we obtain
a maximum value of X. Similarly, by taking the minimum value of A divided by the maximum value
of B, we obtain the minimum value of X. A sample calculation is shown below:
Qmeasured is given by the equation below:

Maximum value of Q measured=

Maximum value of Volume collected

Minimum Time taken

( 3+ 0.02 ) 103
5
3

=9.49984 10 m / s
31.990.2
Minimum value of Qmeasured =

Minimum value of Volume collected

Maximum Time taken

( 30.02 ) 103
=9.2575333 105 m3 /s
31.99+ 0.2

If X = A*B, by taking the product of the maximum value of A and the maximum value of B, we get
the maximum value of X. Similarly, by taking the product of the minimum value of A and the
minimum value of B we obtain the minimum value of X.
Let A = A

A and B = B

B .

Maximum value of X =

( A + A )( B+ B )

Minimum value of X =

( A A ) ( B B )

If X = A + B, by adding the maximum value of A to the maximum value of B, we obtain the

maximum value of X. In the same way, by adding the minimum value of A to the minimum value of B
we obtain the minimum value of X.

Let A = A

A and B = B

B .

Maximum value of X =

( A + A )+ ( B+ B )

Minimum value of X =

( A A ) + ( B B )

Tabulated Data
The following data were tabulated after calculating using Microsoft Excel and performing
error analysis. The percentage errors are shown in the following tables as well.

Venturi Tube
No

Qtheoretical

Qmeasured

Discharge
Coefficient
104 (m3 /s) 104 (m3 /s) , Cd

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

1.04629
1.60494
1.79437
1.91586
2.09258
2.22676
2.39399
2.57541
2.70945

0.93779
1.51439
1.84729
1.89994
2.03528
2.21893
2.38474
2.47321
2.62927

0.89630
0.94357
1.02949
0.99168
0.97262
0.99649
0.99613
0.96032
0.97041

10

2.91552

2.80374

0.96166

Reynolds
Number, Re

Error for Error for

Cd (%)
Re (%)

5249.65929
8052.60977
9003.09142
9612.67116
10499.3186
11172.54263
12011.62214
12921.86711
13594.3699
3
14628.2920
9

2.42683
3.60596
3.94088
4.03342
4.18857
4.34832
4.49721
4.59069
4.71384

1.43892
0.61920
0.49628
0.43573
0.36563
0.32310
0.27972
0.24184
0.21858

4.85498

0.18886

Orifice Plate
No

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Qtheoretical

Qmeasured

Discharge
Coefficient
104 (m3 /s) 104 (m3 /s) , Cd
1.43773
2.39621
2.79444
3.03099
3.21485
3.45586
3.71219
4.00963

0.93779
1.51439
1.84729
1.89994
2.03528
2.21893
2.38474
2.47321

0.65228
0.63199
0.66106
0.62683
0.63309
0.64208
0.64240
0.61682

Reynolds
Number, Re

Error
Error
for Cd for Re
(%)
(%)

7213.64578
12022.74296
14020.80717
15207.70060
16130.20233
17339.44649
18625.55331
20117.89690

1.19557
3.24960
3.71736
3.85625
4.01001
4.20010
4.36835
4.48211

5.08549
0.98525
0.72728
0.61920
0.55097
0.47733
0.41408
0.35524

9
10

4.28647
4.54649

2.62927
2.80374

0.61339
0.61668

21506.93644
22811.55090

4.62546
4.77124

0.31104
0.27663