Cive 440 Lab Report Serge (Repaired)

Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
2 Theory and Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Underlying Principle ................................................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Governing Equations ............................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Continuity Equation ......................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.2 Energy Equation ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.2.3 Minor losses: Head loss due to pipe fittings .......................................................................... 8
2.3 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................................ 8
3 Experimental Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 9
4 Data and Measurements ............................................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Friction Loss Readings For The Rough Pipe ................................................................................ 11
4.2 Friction Loss Readings for the Smooth Pipe ................................................................................ 12
4.3 Contraction Minor Head Loss Readings ........................................................................................ 13
4.4 Bend Minor Head Loss Readings ...................................................................................................... 14
5 Calculations and Results ............................................................................................................................... 15
5.1 Sample Calculation ................................................................................................................................. 15
5.1.1 Friction Loss in The Rough Pipe ............................................................................................... 15
5.1.2 Friction Loss in the Smooth Pipe ............................................................................................. 18
5.1.3 Contraction Head Loss Coefficient .......................................................................................... 21
5.1.4 Bend Head Loss Coefficient ........................................................................................................ 23
5.2 Tabulated Results .................................................................................................................................... 25
5.2.1 Friction Loss Trials for the Rough Pipe ................................................................................. 25
5.2.2 Friction Loss Trials for the Smooth Pipe .............................................................................. 25
5.2.3 Contraction Loss Trials ................................................................................................................ 26
5.2.4 Bend Loss Trials .............................................................................................................................. 26
6 Discussion and Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 27
6.1 Friction Loss Trials for the Rough and Smooth Pipes ............................................................. 27
6.2 Contraction Loss Trials ......................................................................................................................... 30
6.3 Bend Loss Trials ....................................................................................................................................... 31
7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 32
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................... 33
i

References .................................................................................................................................................................. 33

Table of Figures
Figure 1- Equipment Board ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2 – PC Software Screen ............................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 3 - Moody's Diagram .................................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 4 - Contraction loss coefficient ............................................................................................................... 34
Figure 5 - Bend loss coefficient ............................................................................................................................ 34

Table of Tables
Table 1 -Major (Friction) Loss Measured Data .............................................................................................. 11

Table 2 - Measured Data for the Smooth Pipe ................................................................................................ 12
Table 3 - Minor Loss (Due to Contraction) Measured Data ....................................................................... 13
Table 4 - Minor Loss (Due to Bend Fitting) Measured Data ..................................................................... 14
Table 5 - Results for the Experimental and Theoretical Friction Factors for a Rough Pipe ............ 25
Table 6 - Results for the Experimental and Theoretical Friction Factors for a Smooth Pipe .......... 25
Table 7 - Results for the Contraction Head Loss Coefficients ................................................................... 26
Table 8 - Results for the Bend Head Loss Coefficients ............................................................................... 26
Table 9 - Friction Loss Coefficient Error Calculations for the Rough Pipe .......................................... 27
Table 10 - Calculations for the Roughness Constant, Ks for the Rough Pipe ...................................... 27
Table 11 - Friction Loss Coefficient Error Calculations for the Smooth Pipe ..................................... 28
Table 12 -‐ Calculations for the Roughness Constant, Ks ............................................................................ 28
Table 13 - Contraction Loss Coefficient Error Calculations ...................................................................... 30
Table 14 - Bend Loss Coefficient Error Calculations ................................................................................... 31
ii

Abstract

This experiment is designed to allow the students to perform a hands-on activity in order to get familiar
with energy losses in pipes. The objective of the experiment is to determine the major and minor head loss
coefficients, such as the friction factor due to contact between water flowing and the inner walls of the
pipe, and the minor loss coefficients, such as the contraction and bend coefficients, due to changes in pipe
geometry. The flow is fixed for every reading. Four readings were ultimately carried out for four different
pipe segments, one rough pipe, one smooth pipe, one pipe with a contraction fitting, and another pipe with
a bend fitting. The corresponding head loss coefficients were calculated and were compared to the
literature values.
Upon the execution of the related calculations, significant errors were found due to several assumptions or
instrumental errors. For example, the errors in friction factors were found to be around 60%, while the
theoretical contraction head loss coefficients were found to be around 13 times as much as the theoretical
values. The bend coefficients were inconsistent as they were very close to the theoretical values for two
readings and very far from the theoretical values for the two other readings. An analysis was carried out to
study and interpret the errors and their origins and ultimately reach a conclusion that validates the results
of the experiment.
1

1 Introduction

A prevalent concept in hydraulics engineering is head losses in a system. Since hydraulics engineering
deals with water distribution systems, one cannot neglect the head losses that occur inside these systems.
Designing a water system targets the transport of water from one place to a desired location.Transport
mainly happens through the installation of pipes. Water, which is a non-ideal fluid, tends to flow under
turbulent yet steady conditions. Head losses are mainly due to these connecting pipes and the flow of
water in them. These losses can be considered major friction losses due to the roughness of the pipe too, or
they can be considered minor losses due to change in geometry such as the existence of bends or the
presence of contraction and expansion in pipe sizes.
Two major principles are noteworthy when it comes to designing a pipe, the continuity principle and that
of energy loss. If these two principles are to be examined thoroughly, the result is a functional hydraulic
system. As explained above however, there are several losses in a pipe due to friction or pipe geometry
and features. Nevertheless, one cannot find the losses except through experimentation and measurements.
From this perspective, a set of experiments is conducted to determine experimental head loss coefficients
due to friction, contraction, and bends existing in the pipe system. On the other hand, there are preset
empirical values that are predefined in textbooks and hydraulics manuals that define these coefficients.
These theoretical values will be used in order to evaluate the results of the experiments.
What follows in the report is a discussion on the theoretical principles that are related to the experiment.
The section after deals with the experimental procedure respected upon the execution of the laboratory.
The collection of data is then demonstrated along with the different measurements. What comes up after
are calculations based on the objective of the experiments, and finally a thorough analysis is offered to
explain the obtained results, their significance, and their validity.
2

2 Theory and Assumptions

2.1 Underlying Principle

The experiment is designed to target two principles: The principle of conservation of mass and the
principle of conservation of energy. The objective of the experiment is to calculate the head loss
coefficients. When it comes to steady pipe flow, three principles come to mind: the principle of energy
conservation, that of the conservation of energy, and the principle of conservation of momentum. The first
two principles will allow one to calculate the head loss coefficients.
2.2 Governing Equations

2.2.1 Continuity Equation

The fluid’s flow through the pipe can be computed as the area of the pipe multiplied by the velocity of the
fluid at the point where a cross section is taken. This value must be constant all along the length of the
pipe. The value obtained is what is referred to as the flow rate, Q. In other words, the flow throughout the
pipe should be equal all along.
From this perspective, a continuity equation can be written according to the following derivation.
First of all, it was discussed that the flow all along the pipe is the same. Equation 1.2.1.1. summarizesthis
idea:
𝑄! = 𝑄!
However, the flow rate is equal to the area of the cross section of the pipe, A, multiplied by the velocity of
the fluid moving inside the pipe at that critical section, v, as shown in equation 1.2.1.2. :
𝑄 = 𝐴 × 𝑣
By replacing equation 1.2.1.2 in equation 1.2.1.1., one obtains a third equation, 1.2.1.3. , referred to as the
continuity equation:
𝐴! ×𝑣! = 𝐴! ×𝑣!
The equation above shows an inversely proportional relation between velocity and area. As the cross
sectional area increases, the velocity at the critical section decreases and vice versa.
3

Just as a reminder, in the above equations,
A is the cross sectional area at the cross-section of interest;
vis the velocity of the fluid at the point of interest;
Q is the flow inside the pipe system.
4

2.2.2 Energy Equation

Energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is rather conserved in the system. It remains constant
throughout. The energy that one starts with at the beginning is subjected to many head losses as water
flows through the pipe system. Hence, one can write equation 1.2.2.1. as:
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! = +𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝛾 2𝑔 𝛾 2𝑔
where:
𝑃is the piezometric pressure;
𝛾is the specific weight of the fluid;
!
is the pressure head;
!
! ! !"
𝛼isthe kinematic correction factor,𝛼= ;
! × ! !
𝑣is the mean velocity in the conduit. (This is why the kinematic correction factor is used since the actual
velocity should be accounted for rather than the meanvelocity);
!!
is the velocity head;
!!
ℎ! is the head supplied to the system by a pump;
ℎ! is the head given by the system to a turbine;
ℎ! is the major head loss due to friction mainly;
ℎ! is the minor head loss due to contraction of the pipe or its expansion or due to the elbow (i.e. bends) in
the pipe system.
5

Major Losses: Head loss due to fluid friction:
As water flows through the pipe, it gets in contact with the pipe’s inner walls. This contact creates
frictional forces that causes head losses. These losses are referred to as major head losses. Pipes can be
PVC pipes, steel pipes, stainless steel pipes… The material used to build the pipe is directly related to how
much friction is being produced upon contact. Major head losses thus are due to viscous resistance and
result in the dissipation of energy due to frictional resistance. Equation 1.2.3.1, a universal equation
referred to as Darcy-Weisbach’s equation, shows how we can calculate the major head losses:
𝐿 𝑣!
ℎ! = 𝑓 ×
𝐷 2𝑔
where:
ℎ! is the major head loss due the friction;
𝑓is the friction factor;
L is the total length of the pipe;
D is the diameter of the pipe;
𝑣is the velocity at any point in the pipe;
𝑔is the gravitational acceleration.
The friction factor can be calculated using equation 1.2.3.2. as:
0.25
𝑓= !! !.!"
(log + )!
!.!×! !!!.!
6

where :
𝑘! is the roughness constant;
𝐷is the diameter of the pipe;
𝑅! isReynold’s number.
There are two ways to find Reynold’s number:
1) Through equation 1.2.3.3.
𝑣×𝐷
𝑅! =
𝜐
where:
𝑅! isReynold’s number;
𝑣is the velocity in the pipe;
𝐷is the diameter of the pipe;
𝜐is the kinematic viscosity.
2) Through Moody’s Diagram (refer to the Appendix).
7

2.2.3 Minor losses: Head loss due to pipe fittings

Changes in the geometry of the pipe result in further head losses. These losses are what are referred to as
minor losses. The bends (elbows) in pipes, the contractions and expansions, the valves, and other
pipefittings are all changes in the geometry of the regular pipe. These changes induce a viscous dissipation
of turbulence, referred to as minor losses. Equation 1.2.3. is used to determine the several minor losses:
𝑣!
ℎ! = 𝑘
2𝑔
where:
ℎ! is the head loss due to factors mentioned in the paragraph above;
𝑘is the head loss coefficient due to contraction, expansion, bends, valves …
2.3 Assumptions

For the calculations presented later on in the report, the following assumptions a made. These assumptions
are as close to universal values and practical use as possible.
1) Water flows through the pipes under steady yet turbulent conditions, i.e. the kinematic correction
factor is approximately 1.04-1.06. However, for simplicity, the kinematic correction factor will be
assumed 1.
2) Temperature is constant throughout the experiment. It is assumed to be 20! 𝐶.
3) For the assumed temperate, the kinematic viscosity of water is 𝜐 = 1.004 ×10!! 𝑚 ! /𝑠.
4) The value for gravitational acceleration, g, is assumed to be 𝑔 = 9.81 𝑚/𝑠 ! .
5) The roughness of the rough pipe is assumed to be 1 mm and 0.007 for the smooth one.
6) The bend angle is assumed to be preciselyθ = 90! .
7) The contraction angle is assumed to be θ = 60! .
!
8) The pipes have a circular cross sectional area, such that 𝐴 = ×𝐷 ! , D being the diameter of the
!
pipe.
9) Major losses are neglected when one is interested in finding the minor losses in the pipes with
contraction and bend.
8

3 Experimental Procedure

This section details the procedure followed in the experiment as to calculate the friction losses and the
minor losses.
1) Turn on the pump and choose a flow rate to begin the measurement.
2) Open the software on a nearby PC. You should be able to see the flow rate on the screen.
3) For each measurement, open the valve for the pipe you are interested in experimenting on and
close the valves for the other pipes on the board, as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1- Equipment Board

4) Attach to the pipe under study two pressure differential sensors that will be also connected to the
PC so that the software can display the upper and lower pressure heads on the screen.
5) Click on the run button on the PC.
6) Open the plug on the hydraulic bench and record the time needed for the volume to become either
5L or 10L, according to preference and time management.
7) Once the volume read becomes 5L or 10L stop the stopwatch. Stop the software too.
8) Record the chosen flow rate, the flow rate related to the stopwatch-volume measurements, and the
upper and lower pressure heads on the screen, as shown in figure 2.
9

Figure 2 – PC Software Screen

9) Keeping the picked flow constant, repeat the procedure for the smooth pipe, the pipe with
contraction, and the pipe with a 90-degree-bend.
10) Repeat the experiment for different flow rates.
11) Record the pipe dimensions for each of the studied pipes.
10

4 Data and Measurements

The experiment conducted resulted in the following measurements and readings. This section entails the
data collected. The format of this section is in accordance with the laboratory data sheet provided upon the
execution of the laboratory experiment.
4.1 Friction Loss Readings For The Rough Pipe

Table 1 tabulates the results for the rough pipe.
Table 1 -Major (Friction) Loss Measured Data
Reading Chosen Flow Measured Upper Head Lower Head

(L/min) Flow (𝒉𝒖 ) (cm of (𝒉𝒍 ) (cm of
H2O) H2O)
1 48.0 5L/4.37s = 68.6 572 417

L/min
2 38.0 10L/13.12s = 366 264

45.7 L/min
3 27.0 10L/20.82s = 173 119

28.8 L/min
4 20.0 10L/25.78s = 90.0 57.0

23.3 L/s
Length (m) Diameter Roughness Other Data

(mm) (mm)
1.00 17.0 1.00 T = 20oC
11

4.2 Friction Loss Readings for the Smooth Pipe

Table 2 tabulates the results for the smooth pipe.
Table 2 - Measured Data for the Smooth Pipe

H2O) H2O)
1 44.0 5L/4.80s = 62.5 438 338

L/min
2 36.0 10L/14.98s= 298 226

40.1 L/min
3 27.0 10L/21.56s = 152 111

27.8 L/min
4 20.0 10L/28.02s= 78.0 52.0

21.4 L/s
Length (m) Diameter Other Data

(mm)
1.00 16.5 T = 20oC
12

4.3 Contraction Minor Head Loss Readings

Table 3 tabulates the results for the pipe with a contraction.
Table 3 - Minor Loss (Due to Contraction) Measured Data

H2O) H2O)
1 41.0 5L/5.44s = 55.1 302 277

L/min
2 35.0 5L/8.28s= 36.2 205 190

L/min
3 26.0 10L/19.29s = 107 97.0

31.1 L/min
4 19.0 10L/25.34s= 50.0 45.0

23.7 L/s
Diameter 1 Diameter 2 Roughness Other Data

(mm) (mm) (mm)
40.0 25.0 1.00 T = 20oC
13

4.4 Bend Minor Head Loss Readings

Table 4 below tabulated the data collected for the bend fitting.
Table 4 - Minor Loss (Due to Bend Fitting) Measured Data

H2O) H2O)
1 46.0 5L/5.32s = 56.4 408 378

L/min
2 37.0 5L/5.92s= 50.7 273 248

L/min
3 27.0 10L/19.89s = 134 121

30.2 L/min
4 19.0 10L/25.13s= 59.0 52.0

23.9 L/s
Diameter 1 Diameter 2 Roughness Other Data

(mm) (mm) (mm)
17.0 17.0.0 1.00 T = 20oC
14

5 Calculations and Results
5.1 Sample Calculation

This section encloses a detailed sample for the calculations performed to obtain the experimental head loss
coefficients as to compare them to the theoretical values in the analysis that will be carried out later on in
the report.The calculations carried out are for the first reading for each of the friction loss trial, the
contraction loss trial, and for the bend loss trial. The units used are in accordance with the SI system.
5.1.1 Friction Loss in The Rough Pipe

This section of the report deals with the thorough calculations of the experimental and theoretical values
of the major head loss due to friction. A comparison between the two values is then performed in order to
check for inaccuracy.
The data measured during the first trial were as follows:
!".! ×!"!!
1) 𝑄 = 68.6 𝐿/ min = 𝑚 ! /𝑠 = 1.14×10!! 𝑚 ! /𝑠
!"
2) 𝐿 = 1 𝑚
3) 𝐷 = 17×10!! 𝑚
4) 𝑘! = 1×10!! 𝑚
! !
5) 𝐴 = ×𝐷 ! = ×(17×10!! )! = 2.27×10!! 𝑚 !
! !
! !.!"×!"!!
6) 𝑉 = = = 5.02 𝑚/𝑠
! !.!"×!"!!
To calculate the experimental result for the friction factor f, the energy equation is used.
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! = +𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! + ℎ! + ℎ!
However, the pipe is horizontal so the elevation heads are equal, which allows us to simplify the equation
into:
15

𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 + ℎ! = +𝛼 + ℎ! + ℎ! + ℎ!
The absence of any pump or turbine allows us to further simplify the equation so that it can be written as:
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 = + 𝛼 + ℎ! + ℎ!
Knowing that the flow is constant all along the pipe and the diameter is uniform all throughout, one can
use the continuity equality 𝐴𝑣! = 𝐴𝑣! to simplify the energy equation to:
𝑃! 𝑃!
= + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝛾 𝛾
The absence of any minor head losses due to change in geometry can simplify the equation to its final
form:
𝑃! 𝑃!
= + ℎ!
𝛾 𝛾
Hence we can write:
(ℎ! − ℎ! )(𝐷)(2𝑔) (5.72 − 4.17)(17×10!! )(2×9.81)

𝑓!"#!$%&!'()* = = = 0.0205
𝐿×𝑣 ! 1×5.02!
16

The theoretical value can be calculated according to Darcy-Weisbach’s equation:
0.25
𝑓= !! !.!"
(log + )!
!.!×! !!!.!
First, one has to calculate Reynold’s number:
𝑣×𝐷 5.02×17×10!!
𝑅! = = = 85000
𝜐 1.004 × 10!!
Replace the values of Reynold’s number, the diameter D, and the roughness constant, in the Darcy-
Weisbach equation, to find the theoretical value for the friction factor f.
0.25
𝑓!!!"#!$%&'( = !×!"!! !.!"
= 0.0778
(log + )!
!.!×!"×!"!! !"###!.!
The percent error between the experimental and theoretical values can be computed as such:
|𝑓!"#!$%&!'()* − 𝑓!!!"#!$%&'( | |0.0205 − 0.0778|

% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = ×100 = ×100
𝑓!!!"#!$%&'( 0.0778
= 73.7%
17

5.1.2 Friction Loss in the Smooth Pipe

This section of the report deals with the thorough calculations of the experimental and theoretical values
of the major head loss due to friction. A comparison between the two values is then performed in order to
check for inaccuracy.
The data measured during the first trial were as follows:
!".! ×!"!!
1) 𝑄 = 68.6 𝐿/ min = 𝑚 ! /𝑠 = 1.04×10!! 𝑚 ! /𝑠
!"
2) 𝐿 = 1 𝑚
3) 𝐷 = 16.5×10!! 𝑚
4) 𝑘! = 0.007×10!! 𝑚
! !
5) 𝐴 = ×𝐷 ! = ×(16.5×10!! )! = 2.14×10!! 𝑚 !
! !
! !.!"×!"!!
6) 𝑉 = = = 4.86 𝑚/𝑠
! !.!"×!"!!
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! = +𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! + ℎ! + ℎ!
However, the pipe is horizontal so the elevation heads are equal, which allows us to simplify the equation
into:
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 + ℎ! = +𝛼 + ℎ! + ℎ! + ℎ!
18

The absence of any pump or turbine allows us to further simplify the equation so that it can be written as:
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 = + 𝛼 + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝑃! 𝑃!
= + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝛾 𝛾
The absence of any minor head losses due to change in geometry can simplify the equation to its final
form:
𝑃! 𝑃!
= + ℎ!
𝛾 𝛾
In this case,
𝐿 𝑣!
ℎ! = ℎ! + (𝑓 )( )
𝐷 2𝑔
19

Hence we can write:
(ℎ! − ℎ! )(𝐷)(2𝑔) (4.38 − 3.38)(16.5×10!! )(2×9.81)

𝑓!"#!$%&!'()* = = = 0.0137
𝐿×𝑣 ! 1×4.86!
The theoretical value can be calculated according to Darcy-Weisbach’s equation:
0.25
𝑓= !! !.!"
(log + )!
!.!×! !!!.!
First, one has to calculate Reynold’s number:
𝑣×𝐷 4.86×16.5×10!!
𝑅! = = = 780000
𝜐 1.004 × 10!!
Replace the values of Reynold’s number, the diameter D, and the roughness constant, in the Darcy-
Weisbach equation, to find the theoretical value for the friction factor f.
0.25
𝑓!!!"#!$%&'( = !.!!"×!"!! !.!"
= 0.0207
(log + )!
!.!×!".!×!"!! !"#!$!.!
20

|𝑓!"#!$%&!'()* − 𝑓!!!"#!$%&'( | |0.0137 − 0.0207|

𝑓!!!"#!$%&'( 0.0207
= 33.8%
5.1.3 Contraction Head Loss Coefficient

In this section of the report, the experimental and theoretical head loss coefficients due to contraction of
the pipe will be calculated thoroughly in details. The two values will then be compared to check for error.
The data that is initially present is accessible below:
!!.! ×!"!!
1) 𝑄 = 55.1 𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛!! = 𝑚 ! 𝑠 !! = 9.18×10!! 𝑚 ! 𝑠 !!
!"
2) 𝐷! = 40 𝑚𝑚 = 0.040 𝑚
3) 𝐷! = 25 𝑚𝑚 = 0.025 𝑚
! !
4) 𝐴! = ×𝐷!! = ×0.040! = 1.26 ×10!! 𝑚 !
! !
! !
5) 𝐴! = ×𝐷!! = ×0.025! = 4.91 ×10!! 𝑚 !
! !
! !.!"×!"!!
6) 𝑣! = = = 0.729 𝑚𝑠 !!
!! !.!"×!"!!
! !.!"×!"!!
7) 𝑣! = = = 1.87 𝑚𝑠 !!
!! !.!"×!"!!
8) 𝜃 = 60°
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! = +𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! + ℎ! + ℎ!
Taking 𝛼 = 1, and considering the fact that there is neither a pump nor a turbine, taking into account that
the pipe is horizontal, and neglecting major friction losses since the pipe is considered to be short, the
energy equation can thus be simplified to :
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑣!!

+ = + + 𝑘! ×
𝛾 2𝑔 𝛾 2𝑔 2𝑔
21

In this case,
2×9.81×(3.02 − 2.77) 0.729 !

𝑘! !"#!$%&!'()* = !
+( ) − 1 = 0.555
1.87 1.87
The theoretical value can be found from “Table 1. Minor loss coefficients for pipes” (Basha 2014).
The following data is present:
𝐷! 0.025
= = 0.625 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜃 = 60°
𝐷! 0.040
By interpolating over the values in the table (refer to the Appendix), the empirical, theoretical value for 𝑘!
can be found as 0.0588
|𝑘! !"#!$%&!'()* − 𝑘! !!!"#!$%&'( | |0.555 − 0.0588|

𝑘! !!!"#!!"#$% 0.0588
= 844%
Since the relative error is so large, the proportion between 𝑘! !"#!$%&!'()* and 𝑘! !!!"#!$%&'( is calculated:
!! !"#!$%&!'()* !.!!!
Proportion= = = 9.44 ⟹ 𝑘! !"#!$%&!'()* = 9.44 𝑘! !!!"#!$%&'(
!! !!!"#!$%&'( !.!"##
22

5.1.4 Bend Head Loss Coefficient

In this section of the report, the experimental and theoretical head loss coefficients due to elbow present in
the pipe will be calculated thoroughly in details. The two values will then be compared to check for error.
The data that is initially present is offered below:
!".! ×!"!!
1) 𝑄 = 56.4 𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛!! = 𝑚 ! 𝑠 !! = 9.40×10!! 𝑚 ! 𝑠 !!
!"
2) 𝐷! = 17 𝑚𝑚 = 0.0417 𝑚
! !
3) 𝐴 = ×𝐷 ! = ×(17×10!! )! = 2.27×10!! 𝑚 !
! !
! !.!"×!"!!
4) 𝑉 = = = 4.14 𝑚/𝑠
! !.!"×!"!!
5) 𝜃 = 90°
To calculate the experimental value for the minor head loss coefficient due to bend fitting, the energy
equation is used:
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! = +𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! + ℎ! + ℎ!
With 𝛼 = 1 and the non-existence of pumps or pipes in the system, the equation becomes:
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝐿 𝑣!! 𝑣!!

+ + 𝑧! = + + 𝑧! + 𝑓 × + 𝑘! ×
𝛾 2𝑔 𝛾 2𝑔 𝐷 2𝑔 2𝑔
𝑃! 𝑃! 𝐿 𝑣!! 𝑣!!
+ 𝑧! = + 𝑧! + 𝑓 × + 𝑘! ×
𝛾 𝛾 𝐷 2𝑔 2𝑔
23

Finally, since the length of the section of the pipe of interest is not large enough, one can neglect the major
losses due to friction. The final energy equation becomes:
𝑃! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+ 𝑧! = + 𝑧! + 𝑘! ×
𝛾 𝛾 2𝑔
The difference between the elevations is around 6.8 cm which is 0.068 m which will be neglected.
The experimental bend loss coefficient is then:
(4.08 − 3.78)×2×9.81
𝑘! = = 0.343
4.14!
The theoretical value can be found from “Table 1. Minor loss coefficients for pipes” (Basha 2014).
The following data is present:
𝑟
= 1 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜃 = 90°
𝑑
From the table, 𝑘! = 0.350 (The table is found in the Appendix section.)
|𝑘! !"#!$%&!'()* − 𝑘! !!!"#!$%&'( | |0.343 − 0.350|

% 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐸𝑟𝑟𝑜𝑟 = ×100 = ×100 = 2%
𝑘! !!!"#!$%&'( 0.350
24

5.2 Tabulated Results

5.2.1 Friction Loss Trials for the Rough Pipe

Table 5 below demonstrates the whole calculation results for the four readings concerned with finding the
major head loss coefficient due to friction in a rough pipe.
Table 5 - Results for the Experimental and Theoretical Friction Factors for a Rough Pipe
Q (𝒎𝟑 𝒔!𝟏 ) A (𝒎𝟐 ) V (𝒎/𝒔) 𝒇𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒇𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑹𝒆 ×𝟏𝟎𝟐
𝟏. 𝟏𝟒×𝟏𝟎!𝟑 2.27×10!! 5.02 0.0205 0.0778 850
𝟕. 𝟔𝟐×𝟏𝟎!𝟒 2.27×10!! 3.36 0.0301 0.0780 569
𝟒. 𝟖𝟎×𝟏𝟎!𝟒 2.27×10!! 2.11 0.0405 0.0783 357
𝟑. 𝟖𝟖×𝟏𝟎!𝟒 2.27×10!! 1.71 0.0376 0.0786 290
5.2.2 Friction Loss Trials for the Smooth Pipe

major head loss coefficient due to friction in a smooth pipe.
Table 6 - Results for the Experimental and Theoretical Friction Factors for a Smooth Pipe
Q (𝒎𝟑 𝒔!𝟏 ) A (𝒎𝟐 ) V (𝒎/𝒔) 𝒇𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒇𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑹𝒆 ×𝟏𝟎𝟐
𝟏. 𝟎𝟒×𝟏𝟎!𝟑 2.14×10!! 4.86 0.0137 0.0207 800
𝟔. 𝟔𝟖×𝟏𝟎!𝟒 2.14×10!! 3.12 0.0239 0.0223 513
𝟒. 𝟔𝟒×𝟏𝟎!𝟒 2.14×10!! 2.17 0.0282 0.0237 357
𝟑. 𝟓𝟕×𝟏𝟎!𝟒 2.14×10!! 1.67 0.302 0.0251 274
25

5.2.3 Contraction Loss Trials

minor head loss coefficient due to contraction.
Table 7 - Results for the Contraction Head Loss Coefficients
Q (𝒎𝟑 𝒔!𝟏 ) A1 (𝒎𝟐 ) V1 (𝒎/𝒔) A2 (𝒎𝟐 ) V2 (𝒎/𝒔) 𝒌𝒄 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍
𝟗. 𝟖𝟏×𝟏𝟎!𝟒 1.26×10!! 0.729 4.91×10!! 1.87 0.555
𝟔. 𝟎𝟒×𝟏𝟎!𝟒 1.26×10!! 0.481 4.91×10!! 1.23 1.10
𝟓. 𝟏𝟖×𝟏𝟎!𝟒 1.26×10!! 0.411 4.91×10!! 1.05 0.930
𝟑. 𝟗𝟓×𝟏𝟎!𝟒 1.26×10!! 0.313 4.91×10!! 0.804 0.669
5.2.4 Bend Loss Trials

minor head loss coefficient due to bend fittings.
Table 8 - Results for the Bend Head Loss Coefficients
Q (𝒎𝟑 𝒔!𝟏 ) A (𝒎𝟐 ) V (𝒎/𝒔) 𝒌𝒃 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍
𝟗. 𝟒𝟎×𝟏𝟎!𝟒 2.27×10!! 4.14 0.343
𝟖. 𝟒𝟓×𝟏𝟎!𝟒 2.27×10!! 3.72 0.354
𝟓. 𝟎𝟑×𝟏𝟎!𝟒 2.27×10!! 2.22 0.518
𝟑. 𝟖𝟎×𝟏𝟎!𝟒 2.27×10!! 1.67 0.492
Note: All the values in the tables are written as three-significant-figure numbers.
26

6 Discussion and Analysis

6.1 Friction Loss Trials for the Rough and Smooth Pipes
Table 9 below shows the different values for the experimental and theoretical friction factor values for the
four readings. The table also shows the relative error between the two values.
Table 9 - Friction Loss Coefficient Error Calculations for the Rough Pipe
Trial 𝒇𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒇𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 % Error
1 0.0205 0.0778 73.7
2 0.0301 0.0780 61.4
3 0.0405 0.0783 48.3
4 0.0376 0.0786 52.2
The relative errors between the experimental and theoretical friction cannot be studied unless the true
values of the roughness constant, Ks, are computed. Ks values can be taken from Moody Diagram.
However, in this case Ks/D values are very high on the Moody Diagram, so the values were calculated
from the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor equation. Table 10 tabulates the results gotten from the back-
calculation of Ks from 𝑓!"#!$%&!'()* .
Table 10 - Calculations for the Roughness Constant, Ks for the Rough Pipe
Trial 𝒇𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒌𝒔 (mm)
1 0.0203 0.00704
2 0.0301 0.0636
3 0.0405 0.177
4 0.0376 0.131
27

Table 11 below shows the different values for the experimental and theoretical friction factor values for
the four readings. The table also shows the relative error between the two values.
Table 11 - Friction Loss Coefficient Error Calculations for the Smooth Pipe
Trial 𝒇𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒇𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 % Error
1 0.0137 0.0207 33.8
2 0.0239 0.0223 7.17
3 0.0282 0.0237 19.0
4 0.0302 0.0251 20.3
The relative errors between the experimental and theoretical friction cannot be studied unless the true
values of the roughness constant, Ks, are computed. Ks values can be taken from Moody Diagram (refer to
figure 3 in the Appendix). However, in this case Ks/D values are very high on the Moody Diagram, so the
values were calculated from the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor equation. Table 12 tabulates the results
gotten from the back-calculation of Ks from 𝑓!"#!$%&!'()* .
Table 12 -‐ Calculations for the Roughness Constant, Ks
Trial 𝒇𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒌𝒔 (mm)
1 0.0137 -
2 0.0239 0.0154
3 0.0282 0.0363
4 0.0302 0.0455
28

Usually, the smooth pipe used in the lab is PVC pipeof roughness constant equal to 0.0015-0.007 mm.
However, The 𝑘! values are also greater than 0.007 mm in the smooth pipe. This is because of the
excessive use of these pipes and the constant experiments performed using these pipes, which increases
the surface roughness. The excessive consumption of these pipes without cleaning them leads to lowering
the effective diameter of the pipe as some particles start to accumulate around the inner periphery of the
pipes. Timeworn and expended pipes have a different value of roughness coefficient due to the build-up of
rust, and probably erosion, and scale that can alter their operative diameter [Munson, Young &Okiishi.
2006].
As for the rough pipe, the wrong assumption of the roughness constant,𝑘! , leads to the difference in values
between the theoretical and experimental values of the friction factor. Moreover, the rough pipes used
contain some sand and other material on their surface, which makes them rougher and not exactly of the
same roughness as PVC alone.
Furthermore, one cannot compare the friction factors between the rough pipe and the smooth pipe since
they are of different diameter and have a different actual flow of water in them.
There are other factors that might have affected the experiment. These factors have a less impact than that
of the wrong roughness constant assumption.
1) Water temperature is assumed to 20oC, which is directly related to the value of the kinematic
viscosity. The temperature throughout the experiment might have fluctuated between several
values. This will lead to changing the value of the kinematic viscosity and therefore that of
Reynold’s number and ultimately the value of the friction factor f.
2) The kinematic correction factor is assumed to be 1, which means that the mean velocity was
considered the same as the actual velocity at any point. The velocity profile is thus considered
rectangular throughout a given cross section, whereas the actual velocity profile in a pipe starts
from zero at the pipe borderlines and increases to reach a maximum in the center.
3) Also, the instrumental errors and experimental errors are prominent in any experiment, for
instance there is an inconsistency between the measured flow (which is the actual flow) and that
chosen on the PC screen; moreover, the difference in the sensors leads to minor piezometric head
readings on the screen. This can be seen through the head readings on the screen that take time to
attain a definite value.
4) The measurement of 10L or 5L might not have been exactly 10L and 5L.
5) The measurement of the timing it took for the volume to become 10L or 5L might have not been
measured exactly. So from (4) and (5), one can say the flow might not have been exact.
29

6.2 Contraction Loss Trials

Table 13 - Contraction Loss Coefficient Error Calculations
Trial 𝒌𝒄 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒌𝒄 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 Proportion of

𝒌𝒄 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍 to
𝒌𝒄 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍
1 0.555 0.0588 9.44
2 1.10 0.0588 18.7
3 0.930 0.0588 15.8
4 0.669 0.0588 11.4
The values of the experimental head loss coefficients are 9 to 18 times greater than the predefined
theoretical values. Several factors might have affected the discrepancy in these values:
1) The major losses due to friction are neglected.

2) The angle 𝜃 is assumed to be exactly 60°C.
3) Also, the temperature factor might have affected the results.
4) As the coefficient of contraction is a function of the velocity in the pipe, the choice of the
kinematic correction factor as 1 has a certain influence on the validity of the results, since the
velocity values are not exact but rather simplified for calculation processes.
5) Since the coefficient of contraction is a function of the upper and lower pressure heads, the
incorrect calibration, or even the neglect of calibration for the different sensors might have lead to
wrong pressure head readings.
measured exactly. Hence the flow chosen might not have been exact.
30

6.3 Bend Loss Trials

Table 14 - Bend Loss Coefficient Error Calculations
Trial 𝒌𝒃 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒌𝒃 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 % Error
1 0.343 0.350 2.00
2 0.354 0.350 1.14
3 0.518 0.350 48.0
4 0.492 0.350 40.6
The errors are due to several factors that are listed below:
1) 𝑟 𝑑 value is considered to be exactly 1.
2) The bend angle is considered to be exactly right.

3) Major head losses are neglected.
4) The readings on the PC screen are assumed to be piezometric heads and might not be totally exact.
5) Other common factors are also prominent in the experiments related to bend fittings, like the
inconsistency between the measured and chosen flows.
measured exactly.
8) Hence the flow chosen might not have been exact.
31

7 Conclusion

In conclusion, the error in calculating the friction factor when considering the major head losses
due to the contact between the fluid, water, and the inner walls of the pipe, is as high as
approximately 60%. This is due to the factors affectingthe value of Ks which changes normally
even between two consecutive readings. As for the minor losses, when calculating the contraction
coefficient, the results showed that the experimental coefficients are on average 13 times greater
than the theoretical ones. And upon calculating the bend coefficients, the results were sometimes
accurate and others inaccurate. The instrumental errors, like the wrong calibration of the sensors,
as well as the assumptions of constant temperature and perfect geometry, might have affected the
results immensely. It if thus safe to say that when the theoretical values are being agreed upon, all
the factors that change the readings and setting are taken into consideration and are noted and
studied thoroughly.
32

Acknowledgments

A special thanks is dedicated to Dr. Liliane Malaeb, the CIVE 440 instructor, for giving the
lectures regarding pipe flow and teaching the students the related concepts, and for assisting the
students whether in class or in her office
Also, a special thanks is dedicated to Ms. Dima Hassanieh, the CIVE 440 lab instructor, who did
her best to help in the comprehension of the methodology that should be adopted to carefully
execute and finish the laboratory experiment on time and efficiently.
References

• Basha, H., Hydraulics and Laboratory - Class Notes, February 2014.
th
• Finnemore, E. J., & B. Franzini, J., Fluid Mechanics with Engineering Applications, 10 ed.,
McGraw Hill, New York, 2002.
• Crowe, C.T., Elger, D. F., Williams, B.C., Roberson, J. A., Engineering Fluid Mechanics,
th
10 ed., chapter 10, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2013.
th
• Munson B.R., Young D.F., Okiishi T.H., Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, 5 ed., Iowa, 2006
33

Appendix

Moody’s Diagram
Figure 3 - Moody's Diagram

Minor Loss Coefficients for Pipes
Figure 4 - Contraction loss coefficient
Figure 5 - Bend loss coefficient
34

Cive 440 Lab Report Serge (Repaired)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Cive 440 Lab Report Serge (Repaired)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Table of Contents

Figure 1- Equipment Board ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Table 1 -Major (Friction) Loss Measured Data .............................................................................................. 11

2 Theory and Assumptions

2.1 Underlying Principle

2.2 Governing Equations

Just as a reminder, in the above equations,

A is the cross sectional area at the cross-section of interest;

vis the velocity of the fluid at the point of interest;

Q is the flow inside the pipe system.

2.2.2 Energy Equation

𝑃is the piezometric pressure;

𝛾is the specific weight of the fluid;

ℎ! is the head supplied to the system by a pump;

ℎ! is the head given by the system to a turbine;

ℎ! is the major head loss due to friction mainly;

Major Losses: Head loss due to fluid friction:

ℎ! is the major head loss due the friction;

𝑓is the friction factor;

L is the total length of the pipe;

D is the diameter of the pipe;

𝑣is the velocity at any point in the pipe;

𝑔is the gravitational acceleration.

The friction factor can be calculated using equation 1.2.3.2. as:

𝑘! is the roughness constant;

𝐷is the diameter of the pipe;

There are two ways to find Reynold’s number:

1) Through equation 1.2.3.3.

2) Through Moody’s Diagram (refer to the Appendix).

2.2.3 Minor losses: Head loss due to pipe fittings

ℎ! is the head loss due to factors mentioned in the paragraph above;

Figure 1- Equipment Board

Figure 2 – PC Software Screen

4 Data and Measurements

4.1 Friction Loss Readings For The Rough Pipe

Table 1 -Major (Friction) Loss Measured Data

Reading Chosen Flow Measured Upper Head Lower Head

1 48.0 5L/4.37s = 68.6 572 417

2 38.0 10L/13.12s = 366 264

3 27.0 10L/20.82s = 173 119

4 20.0 10L/25.78s = 90.0 57.0

Length (m) Diameter Roughness Other Data

1.00 17.0 1.00 T = 20oC

4.2 Friction Loss Readings for the Smooth Pipe

Table 2 - Measured Data for the Smooth Pipe

Reading Chosen Flow Measured Upper Head Lower Head

1 44.0 5L/4.80s = 62.5 438 338

2 36.0 10L/14.98s= 298 226

3 27.0 10L/21.56s = 152 111

4 20.0 10L/28.02s= 78.0 52.0

Length (m) Diameter Other Data

1.00 16.5 T = 20oC

4.3 Contraction Minor Head Loss Readings

Table 3 - Minor Loss (Due to Contraction) Measured Data

Reading Chosen Flow Measured Upper Head Lower Head

1 41.0 5L/5.44s = 55.1 302 277

2 35.0 5L/8.28s= 36.2 205 190

3 26.0 10L/19.29s = 107 97.0

4 19.0 10L/25.34s= 50.0 45.0

Diameter 1 Diameter 2 Roughness Other Data

40.0 25.0 1.00 T = 20oC

4.4 Bend Minor Head Loss Readings

Table 4 - Minor Loss (Due to Bend Fitting) Measured Data

Reading Chosen Flow Measured Upper Head Lower Head