Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 28 (2012) 57–66

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Flow Measurement and Instrumentation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/flowmeasinst

On the pressure losses through perforated plates

Stefano Malavasi a, Gianandrea Messa a,n, Umberto Fratino b, Alessandro Pagano b
a
Dip. IIAR, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 32-20133 Milano, Italy
b
Dip. Ingegneria delle Acque e di Chimica, Politecnico di Bari, Via Orabona, 4-70125 Bari, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Perforated plates are widely used in pipeline systems either to reduce flow nonuniformities or to
Received 22 February 2012 attenuate the onset and the development of cavitation. This experimental work aims at investigating
Received in revised form the dependence of the pressure losses through sharp-edged perforated plates with respect to the
18 July 2012
geometrical and flow key parameters. The data, collected in two large experimental campaigns carried
Accepted 22 July 2012
out on different pilot plants, are reported and discussed. Several plates with different geometrical
Available online 17 August 2012
characteristics were tested. More precisely, perforated plates whose equivalent diameter ratio varies
Keywords: between 0.20 and 0.72; relative hole thickness between 0.20 and 1.44; and number of holes between
Perforated plates 3 and 52. Experimental data from literature are also considered in order to ensure the reliability of the
Pressure loss coefficient
parametric investigation. The dependence of the pressure loss coefficient upon the Reynolds number,
Parameters
the equivalent diameter ratio, the relative thickness, and the number and disposition of the holes is
studied. A comparison to different empirical equations, as available by the technical literature, and to
the standard ISO 5167-2 single-hole orifice is also provided.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Perforated plates are commonly used for the control and the
maintenance of the efficiency of pressurized systems, being
preferred over other hydraulic devices for their simple geometry
and low cost. Generally, perforated plates are installed upstream
to flowmeters to remove swirl and correct a distorted flow profile
or, coupled with a control valve, used for preventing cavitation
phenomena, assuring safe operating conditions (Tullis and Di
Santo et al. [1,2]).
The hydraulics of perforated plates was largely investigated in
the technical literature, and most of the researches were aimed at
investigating their functionality as flow conditioners. Laws and
Ouazzane [3] focused their attention on the use of such devices
for pre-conditioning a disturbed flow, whereas Schluter and
Merzkirch [4] measured, by means of PIV techniques, the time-
averaged axial velocities downstream perforated plates for opti-
mizing their geometry. A similar analysis was recently carried out
by Xiong et al. [5].
Few investigations deal with the dissipation characteristics of
perforated plates, being mostly focused on the occurrence and
development of the cavitation phenomena (Govindarajan [6];
Tullis and Govindarajan [7]; Kim et al. [8]; and Testud et al. [9]).
Tullis [1] investigated the pressure losses through different
perforated plates and the pressure profile downstream them.
Gan and Riffat [10] determined the pressure drop through a
perforated plate in a square pipe by means of experimental tests
and numerical simulations. Erdal [11] performed a numerical
investigation of the parameters affecting the performance of a
multi-hole plate used as flow conditioner, and discussed about its
dissipation characteristics. Weber et al. [12] made a review of
literature data about the pressure losses through perforated plates
in circular and rectangular pipes, reporting data from different
authors (Dannenberg; Kolodzie and Van Winkle; Wang et al.). In
addition, some experimental tests on perforated plates and flat bar
screens in a large rectangular pipe were discussed. Fratino [13]
studied experimentally and numerically the flow through multi-
hole orifices in circular pipes, and proposed a formula to estimate
the pressure drop. Similar investigations are reported in Malavasi
et al. [14], Macchi [15], and Malavasi et al. [16], where the
dependence of the pressure losses upon the most significant
geometrical and flow parameters is considered. Zhao et al. [17]
studied the dissipation characteristics of several multi-hole ori-
fices of 2 mm thickness, and reported an empirical formula for
estimating the pressure drop. Holt et al. [18] analyzed the
dissipation and cavitation efficiency of baffle plates in circular
pipes, introducing a method for evaluating the pressure losses in
no cavitating conditions.
The dissipation characteristics of perforated plates are usually
quantified by means of the pressure loss coefficient, defined as

P U P D
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 02 2399 6287. Eu ¼ ð1Þ
E-mail address: gianandrea.messa@mail.polimi.it (G. Messa). 1=2rV 2

0955-5986/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2012.07.006
58 S. Malavasi et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 28 (2012) 57–66

where PU and PD are, respectively, the pressure upstream and to the Reynolds number. The occurrence of cavitation causes Eu to
downstream of the device, V is the pipe bulk-mean velocity, and r increase suddenly with the Reynolds number. The threshold value
is the fluid density (Fig. 1). As it will be discussed later, the of Reynolds number at which a given device is subjected to
reference sections U and D are defined in different ways by the cavitation depends on the plant pressure.
existing standards. Different formulas for evaluating the pressure loss coefficient
When no cavitation occurs, the pressure loss coefficient is in the self-similarity region with respect to RD (region (2) in Fig. 2)
influenced by the geometry of the plate, defined, for a square- are available. All of them express Eu as a function of the
edged plate with holes of uniform size, by the following char- equivalent diameter ratio b and, in some cases, the relative
acteristics: (1) the porosity of the screen, i.e. the ratio of the open thickness t/dh and the friction factor l, therefore assuming that
area to the overall pipe section, usually expressed by means of its the effect of number and disposition of the holes is negligible.
square root b (equivalent diameter ratio); (2) the plate thickness t, Some of them are derived for the single-hole orifice case and said
usually taken into account by the relative thickness t/dh, dh being to be applicable to the perforated plate case. Among them, more
the hole diameter; (3) the number of holes nh; (4) the distribution attention is given to that of Idelcick [19], valid for Rh 4105 and
of the holes, usually quantified by the pitch P, i.e. the minimum t/dh 40.015:
distance between two adjacent holes. The dimensionless groups 2 2 2
0:5ð1b Þ þ tð1b Þ1:5 þð1b Þ2 þ lt=dh
P/dh and P/D are considered in Weber et al. [12] and Zhao et al. Eu ¼ ð2Þ
4
[17] respectively, D being the diameter of the circular pipe. b
The losses are also influenced by the friction factor of the holes in which is t is a tabular coefficient depending on t/dh, and to that
l, but such dependence, in the present work, was found to be of Miller [20]:
absolutely negligible. 2
An important role is played by the Reynolds number char- C 0 ð1C C b Þ2
Eu ¼ 4
ð3Þ
acteristic of the phenomenon, whose definition is still controver- C 2C b
sial. Some authors (Fratino [13]; Malavasi et al. [14]; Malavasi
in which C0 is a coefficient depending on t/dh, while CC is the
et al. [16]; Zhao et al. [17]) make reference to the pipe Reynolds
contraction coefficient of the jets. As reported in Fratino [13], C0
number Rp ¼VpD/n, defined in terms of pipe diameter D and pipe
can be calculated by the following empirical expression, assumed
bulk mean velocity Vp; other authors (Weber et al. [12]; Idelcick
valid for 0.1 ot/dh o3:
[19]) considered the hole Reynolds number Rh ¼Vhdh/n, defined in
terms of hole diameter dh and hole bulk mean velocity Vh (there- 0:178
pffiffiffiffiffi C 0 ¼ 0:5 þ ð4Þ
fore, Rp ¼ Rh nh b); in Gan and Riffat [10] and Holt et al. [18] a 4ðt=dh Þ2 þ 0:355
Reynolds number R ¼DVh/n expressed in terms of pipe diameter
while CC can be evaluated by
D and hole bulk-mean velocity Vh is introduced. R is linked to Rp
by the following relationship Rp ¼ b2R. Whatever Reynolds num- C C ¼ 0:596 þ 0:0031eb=0:206 ð5Þ
ber is considered, the dependence between the pressure loss
Empirical equations for estimating the pressure loss coefficient
coefficient Eu and the Reynolds number is qualitatively sketched through perforated plates are reported in ESDU [21], Zhao et al.
in Fig. 2. Under no cavitating conditions, as Reynolds increases
[17], and Holt et al. [18]. The first, said to be valid for Rh 4104, is
two different regions can be identified: a low-Reynolds region (1), ( 4
in which Eu is affected by the Reynolds number; and a self- K 0 b la t=dh o 0:8
Eu ¼ ð6Þ
similarity region (2), in which Eu is almost constant with respect 4
K 0:8 b lb t=dh 4 0:8

where K0 and K0.8 are given as function of b while la and lb

depend on b and t/dh. All coefficients are provided in a graphical
form. Zhao et al. [17] expressed Eu as a function of b using the
following equation, valid for b ranging from 0.25 to 0.45:
4:448
Eu ¼ Pm ðb 1Þ ð7Þ
where
4 3 2
Pm ¼ 160:325ð71:467b 100:300b þ 52:021b 11:801b þ1Þ ð8Þ
At the end, according to Holt et al. [18], the pressure loss
coefficient Eu can be evaluated as
8  2 
Fig. 1. Geometrical sketch of the system and identification of the reference > 0:4 0:8 0:4
sections U and D.
>
< 2:93:79 dth b þ 1:79 dth b K LA dt b o0:9
h
Eu ¼   ð9Þ
>
>
: 0:876 þ 0:069 dt b0:4 K LA d
t
b0:4
40:9
h h

where KLA is the pressure loss coefficient of a single-hole orifice as

estimated by means of a theoretical model for reattached flow:
!
2 2 1 1
K LA ¼ 1 2 þ 4 1 þ ð10Þ
b b C C 2C 2C

The authors suggest setting the contraction coefficient of the jets

Fig. 2. Qualitative trend of Eu as a function of Reynolds number. For a given
device, the Reynolds number at which cavitation occurs depends on the plant
pressure.
CC equal to 0.72.
The purpose of the present work is to investigate the dissipa-
tion characteristics of a multi-hole orifice under no cavitating
conditions. The results of experimental campaigns performed in
two different pilot plants are reported and discussed. Data from
 S. Malavasi et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 28 (2012) 57–66
literature are made comparable and primarily checked for their
consistency. Afterwards, they are added to our experimental data
to create a large database for achieving a better awareness about
the dependence of the pressure loss coefficient upon the most
significant geometrical and flow parameters. A comparison with
the above described formulas and to the standard ISO 5167-2 [25]
orifice is also reported.
2. Experimental setup
Tests were carried out by research groups of Polytechnic
School of Milan and Polytechnic School of Bari.
Experiments of the former group were conducted in a pilot
plant located at Pibiviesse S.r.l, Nerviano, Italy. The rig, shown in
Fig. 3, consists of 1000 and 1200 steel pipes, supplied by a pump able
to guarantee pressures up to 10 bar at the reference section
upstream the orifice. Control valves placed upstream and down-
stream the test area allow setting the proper fluid-dynamic
conditions in each experimental test. Pressure drop was measured
with a series of absolute and differential pressure transducers in
reference sections located 2D upstream and 6D downstream the
device, according to ISA-RP75.23 standard [22]. Other measure-
ment points were placed at 1D upstream and 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D,
6D, and 7D downstream the plate. Flow rate was measured by a
1000 electromagnetic flow-meter, placed upstream the test section.
During the tests, the water temperature was measured in order to
monitor values of density, viscosity and vapor pressure of the
fluid. The tests have been performed maintaining constant pres-
sure at the upstream reference section PU and decreasing the
downstream pressure PD in order to increase the discharge and
consequently the Reynolds number.
Complementary experimental tests have been performed by
the research group of Bari in the Laboratory of the Department of
Ingegneria delle Acque e Chimica at Polytechnic School of Bari. The
laboratory setup, sketched in Fig. 4, is composed by 100 mm and
200 mm steel pipes, supplied by a pump able to guarantee
pressures of about 9.0 bar and flow rates up to 100 l/s.
Fig. 3. Sketch of the test rig (Polytechnic School of Milan research group).
59
The pressure taps for evaluating the gross head drop were located
1D upstream and 10D downstream the device, but other measure-
ment points were placed at 0.5D, 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D, 7D down-
stream the device. The pressure drop was measured by a mercury
differential manometer and by Burdon tube pressure gauges,
whereas the flow rate was evaluated by a flow measuring pipe
orifice and by a volumetric tank. Even during this experimental
campaign, the water temperature was measured in order to
monitor the values of density, viscosity and vapor pressure of
the fluid. Different pressure values, generally equal to 0.25, 0.5 and
1 bar, have been fixed downstream the plate to make the results
independent from possible uncertainties due to the pressure scale
effects in case of cavitation occurrence (Fratino [13]).
It is worth mentioning that the different positions of the
pressure taps in the two experimental pilot plants is related to
laboratory constraints and arrangements and it can be verified that
it has no influence on the reliability of the experimental data. In
confirmation of it, the ISA-S39.2 standard [23] on testing proce-
dures for estimating control valve capacity states that the location
of the upstream pressure tap is between 0.5D and 2.5 D upstream
the device. On the other hand, the difference in the downstream
pressure tap locations is negligible, as in both cases the pressure
recovery is completed and there are distributed friction losses
without any significance over such a small pipe length.
Considerations about the estimate of the uncertainty of mea-
surements are reported in Appendix A.
Several plates were tested in the two campaigns. Their
geometrical characteristics, reported in Table 1, are different in
terms of equivalent diameter ratio b (from 0.20 to 0.72); relative
thickness t/dh (from 0.20 to 1.44); number of holes nh (from 3 to
52); and distribution of the holes.
3. Results and discussion
Comments on the influence of geometrical and flow para-
meters on the dissipation characteristics of perforated plates are
60 S. Malavasi et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 28 (2012) 57–66

Fig. 4. Sketch of the test rig (Polytechnic School of Bari research group).

Table 1
Geometrical characteristics and result obtained for all the plates tested (M-Series: tests of Polytechnic School of Milan research
group; B-Series: tests of Polytechnic School of Bari research group).

Plate label b [-] t/dh [-] nh [-] Distribution of the holes Eu [-]

M1 0.40 0.24 13 53.6 7 1.0

M2 0.40 0.45 13 72.8 7 2.0

M3 0.40 0.73 13 38.8 7 0.8

M4 0.40 0.73 13 42.1 7 2.1

M5 0.40 1.00 13 50.7 7 2.7

M6 0.40 1.00 26 35.4 7 0.7

M7 0.40 1.40 13 37.8 7 1.2

M8 0.51 0.73 13 15.3 7 0.7

M9 0.51 1.00 26 15.8 7 0.8

M10 0.72 1.00 52 2.25 7 0.11

 S. Malavasi et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 28 (2012) 57–66 61

Table 1 (continued )

Plate label b [-] t/dh [-] nh [-] Distribution of the holes Eu [-]

B1 0.20 0.69 3 787 7 88

B2 0.20 0.89 5 693 7 70

B3 0.20 1.06 7 741 7 68

B4 0.20 1.23 9 712 7 69

B5 0.20 1.32 11 588 7 40

B6 0.20 1.44 13 633 7 34

B7 0.40 0.35 3 69.4 7 4.3

B8 0.40 0.45 5 71.1 7 3.6

B9 0.40 0.53 7 71.3 7 1.8

B10 0.40 0.60 9 51.9 7 0.9

B11 0.40 0.72 13 35.5 7 1.6

Fig. 5. Trend of the pressure loss coefficient Eu as a function of the pipe Reynolds number RD (lower horizontal axis) and the hole Reynolds number Rh (upper horizontal
axis) for the following plates: (a) Milan: b ¼0.40, nh ¼ 26, t/dh ¼ 1.00; (b) Milan: b ¼ 0.40, nh ¼13, t/dh ¼ 1.00; (c) Bari: b ¼0.40, nh ¼ 13, t/dh ¼ 0.72.

reported in the following. The effect of the Reynolds number is
considered first.
The dependence of the pressure loss coefficient Eu on the pipe
Reynolds Rp (or the hole Reynolds number Rh) was found to be
similar to the one qualitatively reported in Fig. 2. As an example,
the experimental trend of the pressure loss coefficient Eu as a
function of both Rp (lower horizontal axis) and Rh (upper hor-
izontal axis) is depicted in Fig. 5 for three different plates. Since
the present paper focuses on the pressure losses under non-
cavitating conditions, we first had to remove from the series all
62 S. Malavasi et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 28 (2012) 57–66
the data subjected to cavitation, which, as remarked above, produces
a sudden increase in Eu. As already noticed by Malavasi et al. [16],
the dependence of Eu upon Rp (or Rh) in region (1) is not univocal; as
the geometry of the plate changes, Eu can increase or decrease as Rp
(or Rh) increases. Similar behavior results from the data of Zhang
et al. [17]. The lower limit of the region of self-similarity with
respect to the Reynolds number does not seem to depend signifi-
cantly on the testing pressure, unlike the upper one, corresponding
to the inception of cavitation.
Hereafter, we will refer to Eu as the average among the values
within the region of self-similarity with respect to the Reynolds
number (region (2) in Fig. 2). Since the identification of that
region from the dataset collected is not always unequivocal, the
values of Eu will be considered together with an estimation of
their uncertainty. A summary of experimental pressure loss
coefficient collected data is in the last column of Table 1.
The dependence of the pressure loss coefficient in the Eu upon
the equivalent diameter ratio b in the region of self-similarity
with respect to the Reynolds number is discussed. Fig. 6 shows
the trend of Eu as a function of b in which our experimental
results are represented with other experimental data collected
from technical literature. For all the experimental data, the shape
of the pipe section (circular/rectangular) can be inferred from that
of the marker points (the data about the rectangular pipe case are
depicted using a square marker). In Fig. 6, the values of Eu
obtained from the previously described literature formulas are
reported too; since all the models, except that of Zhao et al. [17]
(Eq. (6)), take the dependence upon the relative thickness into
account, for clarity in Fig. 6 the curves with t/dh ¼0.5 only are
drawn. The results confirm that the equivalent diameter ratio b is
the dominant geometric characteristic affecting the losses (see
Tullis [1]; Idelcick [19]; and Miller [20]), even if a significant
dispersion can be detected, especially for low values of b. The
dispersion of the experimental data could be related primarily to
t/dh, nh and disposition of the holes, but also, as noticed by Weber
et al. [12], by inaccuracies in the measurements of the pressure
drop across the plate and of the geometrical characteristic of the
device. Nevertheless, when examined at a large scale as in Fig. 6
with Eu plotted on a log axis, the behavior of the points seems
fairly homogeneous; in particular, the shape of the pipe section
(circular/rectangular) does not seem to have noticeable effect. At
first sight, all the literature curves, even if referred to the arbitrary
case of t/dh ¼0.5, appear able to catch the gross dependence of
Eu upon b for the whole dataset, whatever the value of t/dh.
However, a more detailed analysis reveals that the deviation
Fig. 6. Trend of the pressure loss coefficient Eu as a function of the equivalent
diameter ratio b: comparison between our experimental data, experimental data
from other authors, and literature formulas.
between calculated and experimental data can be significant,
reaching up to about 40%, even considering correct values of t/dh.
The influence of the parameters other than the equivalent
diameter ratio b upon the pressure loss coefficient Eu is investi-
gated. To better highlight the effect of the relative thickness t/dh,
we need to use only the data characterized by the constant values
of equivalent diameter ratio b, number nh and disposition of the
holes. The comparable data set came from our tests M1–M2–M4–
M5–M7, Kolodzie and Van Winkle (in [12]), and Holt et al. [18].
Unfortunately, no information about the disposition of the holes
in the plates is reported in the last two references. Fig. 7 shows
the trend of Eu as a function of t/dh for the above discussed data,
highlighting as, in the investigated range, Eu decreases as t/dh
increases, whatever the values of b and nh, although not always
monotonically. These results may be explained considering the
effect of t/dh on the flow behavior; in fact, if t/dh is low, the jets
remain separated from the inner wall of the holes; if t/dh is high,
they reattach to the inner wall of the holes and then expand to the
pipe (Malavasi et al. [16]). On the other hand, as reported by
Miller [20], for t/dh between 0.1 and 0.8 flow instabilities can
occur because of intermittent reattachment, and this may be the
cause of the non-monotonous dependence of Eu upon t/dh.
The effects of number and disposition of the holes should be
considered together, as both parameters determine the curvature
of the streamlines passing through the plate, and, as a conse-
quence, influence the pressure losses. However, the role of these
parameters is hard to investigate because of the difficulties in
describing the distribution of the holes by means of few key
parameters and because of the lack of detailed information about
the disposition of the holes of the plates tested by the other
authors. However, a preliminary approach aiming at analyzing the
effect of nh on the pressure loss coefficient Eu is made. Among all
the data considered, the only comparable ones, characterized by
constant values of b and t/dh, are those reported in Table 2. Despite
the uncertainties due to the fact that the data were collected by
different authors and that the distribution of the holes were not
considered because of the lack of information available, the results
highlight that in most cases Eu decreases if nh is increased, and
Fig. 7. Dependence of the pressure loss coefficient Eu upon the relative thickness
t/dh, the equivalent diameter ratio b and the number of holes nh being kept
constant.
 S. Malavasi et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 28 (2012) 57–66 63

Table 2
Dependence of the Euler number Eu upon the number of holes nh, the equivalent diameter ratio b and the relative thickness t/dh
being the same.

Reference b [-] t/dh [-] nh [-] Eu [-]

Zhao et al. [17] 6 423

Weber et al. [12] 0.30 0.33 13 273

Weber et al. [12] 0.50 13 237

0.30
Weber et al. [12] 0.52 33 227

Zhao et al. [17] 0.30 6 312

0.33
Weber et al. [12] 0.32 1119 124

Zhao et al. [17] (form 1) 6 113

Zhao et al. [17] (form 2) 0.40 0.24 6 117
M1 13 53.6 7 1.0

B8 0.40 0.45 5 71.1 7 3.6

M2 13 72.8 7 2.0

M5 13 50.9 72.7
M6 0.40 1.00 26 35.4 7 0.7

Weber et al. [12] 3052 21.0

0.48 0.48
Weber et al. [12] 7103 18.8

Weber et al. [12] 1948 10.8

0.57 0.32
Weber et al. [12] 4534 9.9

Weber et al. [12] 3048 2.4

Weber et al. [12] 0.71 0.32 7093 3.2

such behavior seems to be more evident for lower values of b and can be estimated from the following formula:
t/dh. A possible explanation of such phenomenon, shared by Erdal 2qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 32
4
[11], is that an increase in the number of holes reduces the size of 1b ð1C 2 Þ
Eu ¼ 4 15 ð11Þ
the recirculation zones between the holes and between the outer 2
Cb
holes and the pipe wall, resulting in a lower pressure drop.
However, much information about the position of the holes is where C is the discharge coefficient, i.e. the ratio of the actual flow
required to confirm this hypothesis. rate to the maximum theoretical flow rate. ISO 5167-2 [25]
A comparison between the experimental data and the existing prescribes to make use of the Reader-Harris/Gallagher correlation
above mentioned literature models, at a more detailed scale with for evaluating C:
respect to Fig. 6, is reported in Fig. 8, which depicts, for different !0:7
values of equivalent diameter ratio b, the pressure loss coefficient 2 8 106 b
C ¼ 0:5961þ 0:0261b 0:0216b þ 0:000521
Eu versus the relative thickness t/dh. The overall trend of Eu as a ReD
function of t/dh is generally well represented by the curves of "  0:8 # !0:3
Idelcick (Eq. (2)), Miller (Eq. (3)), ESDU (Eq. (6)), and Holt et al. 19000b 106
þ 0:0188 þ 0:0063 b3:5
(Eq. (9)), even if none of them is able to catch the non- Rp Rp
monotonous behavior observed in some cases (Fig. 7). On the 1:3
other hand, the correlation of Zhao et al. [17] (Eq. (7)), which 0:031ðM d 0:8M 1:1
d Þb þ ð0:043þ 0:08e10L1
"  0:8 #
takes into account only b, shows disagreement with the experi- 19000b b4
mental evidence. Probably, some geometrical peculiarities that 0:123e7L1 Þ 10:11 4
ð12Þ
Rp 1b
characterize the experiments of Zhao et al. [17] may contribute to
explain why their Eu values – and as consequence those derived in which the parameters L1 and Md are defined differently according
by the application of Eq. (7) – are considerably higher if compared to the pressure tap arrangement (corner, D D/2, flange) considered
to all other. However, the dispersion of the data, especially for low for the determination of the discharge coefficient. ISO 5167 [25]
values of b and t/dh, indicates that the number and the disposition leaves open the question of whether the discharge coefficient in Eq.
of the holes have some influence on the pressure losses, so (11) is Ccorner, CD D/2 or Cflange. As in Urner [26], we will show the
reducing the validity of all the existing literature formulas which, calculation for the first two tap arrangements. The values of L1 and Md
as remarked in Section 1, neglect the effect of these parameters. with flange tap arrangements depend on the pipe diameter; however,
The results reported in Fig. 7 and Table 2 show that the Cflange was found to lie between Ccorner and CD D/2 in the range of D
pressure loss coefficient decreases as both the relative thickness and b specified by the standard.
t/dh and the number of holes nh increase. This suggests that a very The estimated values of pressure loss coefficient for the values
thin single-hole orifice would have the maximum loss. Such of diameter ratio b considered in Fig. 8 are reported in Table 4,
behavior is investigated by making a comparison between the and indicate that, except for the case of b ¼0.72, the tap arrange-
Euler number of the multi-hole orifices reported in Fig. 8 and ment has a negligible effect on Eu. Moreover, although Eq. (12)
those of the standard single-hole orifices introduced in the ISO expresses the discharge coefficient C as a function of the pipe
5167-2 [25] normative, characterized by j ¼451þ151 and Reynolds number Rp, the trend of the pressure loss coefficient Eu
0.005D rt r0.02D (Fig. 9). evaluated by Eq. (11) as a function of Rp is qualitatively similar to
Specific constrains are then imposed on dh, D, and the that depicted in Fig. 2 for non-cavitating flows, with Eu almost
dimensionless parameters b and Rp; in particular, dh 412.5 mm, independent of Rp for Rp sufficiently high. The values of Eu
50 mmoD o1000 mm, and 0.10o b o0.75. According to the reported in Table 4 belong to the self-similarity region with
normative, the pressure loss coefficient of the single-hole orifice respect to Rp. Table 4 and Fig. 8 indicate that the pressure loss
64 S. Malavasi et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 28 (2012) 57–66

Fig. 8. Trend of the pressure loss coefficient Eu as a function of the relative thickness t/dh for different values of equivalent diameter ratio b; comparison between
experimental data and several proposed formulas.

Fig. 8 except for those of Zhao et al. [17], which, as already

noticed, are considerably higher than all others. At last, it is worth
noticing that the different positions of the pressure taps for the
evaluation of the gross pressure drop indicated by the ISO 5167-2
[25] standard, i.e. 1D upstream and 6D downstream the plate, do
not affect the reliability of the comparison, since the pressure
recovery is completed and the distributed friction losses are
absolutely negligible.

4. Conclusion

In this work the dissipation characteristics of perforated plates

under no cavitating conditions have been investigated on the
basis of the data collected in the experimental campaigns per-
formed by two research groups of Polytechnic School of Milan and
Polytechnic School of Bari. Data from literature, made comparable
and primarily checked for their consistency, were also considered.
The dependence of the pressure loss coefficient upon the most
significant parameters involved in the process, like the Reynolds
number, the equivalent diameter ratio, the relative thickness, and
the number and disposition of the holes was studied.
Fig. 9. The single-hole orifice defined in the ISO 5167 [25] normative. Based on our investigations, the following major conclusions
can be done:
coefficient of the sharp single-hole ISO 5167-2 [25] orifice is an
upper limit to those of multi-hole orifices with the same equiva-  The pressure loss coefficient is independent of the Reynolds
lent diameter ratio b. This appears true for all the data reported in number as long as this parameter stays in the self-similarity
 S. Malavasi et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 28 (2012) 57–66 65

range (Fig. 5). For lower values of the Reynolds number, the The effect of the distribution of the holes, the number of holes
pressure loss coefficient can either increase or decrease with being the same, seems to be instead minor (Table 3).
the Reynolds number. The lower limit of the self-similarity  The gross dependence of the pressure loss coefficient upon the
range depends on the geometry of the plate but not on the equivalent diameter ratio is well caught by all the considered
testing pressure, unlike the upper one. formulas (Fig. 6). However, at a more detailed scale, they
 A reduction of the equivalent diameter ratio – this being, as appear to be inadequate to describe all the characteristics of
well known, the dominant parameter affecting the pressure the phenomenon. Only the overall trend of the pressure loss
losses – causes the pressure loss coefficient to increase, and coefficient as a function of the relative thickness is generally
the effect of the other parameters to get more relevant (Fig. 6). quite well represented by the equations proposed by Idelcick
However, the general behavior of all collected data seems (Eq. (2)), Miller (Eq. (3)), ESDU (Eq. (6)), and Holt et al. (Eq. (9)),
quite homogeneous; in particular, the shape of the pipe which takes into account only the effect of equivalent dia-
section (circular/ rectangular) does not have significant influ- meter ratio and relative thickness. It is worth mentioning as all
ence on the value of pressure loss.
 The relative thickness has noticeable effect on the pressure
loss coefficient. The modification of the behavior of the jets
causes the pressure loss coefficient to globally decrease as the Table 4
relative thickness increases, if all other significant parameters Pressure loss coefficient Eu for the ISO-5167 [25] orifice, obtained by Eq. (11). The
are kept constant (Fig. 7). The dependence of the pressure loss discharge coefficient is evaluated by Eq. (12) for different tap arrangements. The
coefficient upon the relative thickness is often non-monotonic, values of Eu in the self-similarity region with respect to the pipe Reynolds number
are reported.
probably due to flow instabilities.
 Number and disposition of the holes influence the pressure b [-] Eucorner [-] EuD  D/2 [-]
losses. The analysis of comparable data revealed that in most
cases the pressure loss coefficient decreases if the number of 0.20 1668 1672
holes increases, due to a reduction of the size of the recircula- 0.30 307 308
0.40 87.0 87.4
tion zones between the holes. Such behavior is however 0.72 4.33 4.60
dependent upon the disposition of the holes (Table 2).

Table 3
Effect of the distribution of the holes upon the pressure loss coefficient Eu.

Reference b [-] t/dh [-] nh [-] Distribution of the holes Eu [-]

Zhao et al. [17] 0.40 0.24 6 113

Zhao et al. [17] 0.40 0.24 6 117

Zhao et al. [17] 0.40 0.30 9 95

Zhao et al. [17] 0.40 0.30 9 97

Zhao et al. [17] 0.40 0.30 9 98

Zhao et al. [17] 0.40 0.36 13 102

Zhao et al. [17] 0.40 0.36 13 103

M3 0.40 0.73 13 38.8 7 0.8

M4 0.40 0.73 13 42.1 7 2.1

B11 0.40 0.72 13 35.5 7 1.6

66
these equations appear to partially fail their prediction skill,
especially at low b and relative thickness values (Fig. 8), if the
number and the disposition of the holes became more
significant.
 The pressure losses of perforated plates appear to be lower than
those of a standard single-hole ISO 5167-2 [25] orifice (Fig. 9)
with the same equivalent diameter ratio. Therefore, an upper
limit to the pressure loss coefficient of multi-hole orifices with
a certain equivalent diameter ratio may be estimated from
Eqs. (11) and (12).
Appendix A. Pressure loss coefficient uncertainty
The estimate of the uncertainty of the pressure loss coefficient
Eu was provided in respect to the International Organization of
Standardization-GUM [24]. Application of the error combination
law on Eu yields
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s 2  2 
@Eu @Eu
uðEuÞ ¼ uðDpÞ þ uðrÞ þ
@Dp @r
where u(Dp), u(r), and u(Vp) are the absolute errors on pressure
drop, density and pipe bulk-mean velocity respectively.
For the experiments carried out by the research group of
Polytechnic School of Milan, u(Dp) was equal to 44 Pa, 155 Pa or
260 Pa depending on the used transducer. The density r was not
directly measured, but inferred from the fluid temperature T by
means of an empirical curve obtained by a fitting of experimental
data (Macchi [15]) and u(r) was found always lower than 2.2 kg/m3.
The uncertainty on the pipe bulk-mean velocity was assumed equal
to 0.002Vp, as indicated by the manufacturer of the used flowmeter.
The maximum relative error of the pressure loss coefficient u(Eu)/Eu
was found to be about 1.5% for the worst-case condition.
As far as the results of Polytechnic School of Bari are con-
cerned, u(Dp) was considered equal to 250 Pa, due to the accuracy
of the reading on the differential manometer. The uncertainty on
the density r was computed referring to the influence of both
fluid temperature (a potential variation between 7 1C and 25 1C
was considered) and compressibility, giving a result of about
3.5 kg/m3. At last, the uncertainty on the pipe bulk-mean velocity
was assumed equal to 0.25% of the full scale (10 m/s) of the
measuring device as indicated by the manufacturer. The relative
error of the pressure loss coefficient u(Eu)/Eu was found to be
2.5% at maximum.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Pibiviesse S.r.l. giving
us the possibility to perform the experimental tests in their pipe
plan and to support us in the work.
S. Malavasi et al. / Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 28 (2012) 57–66
References
[1] Tullis JP. Hydraulics of pipelines—pumps, valves, cavitation, transients.
New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1989.
[2] Di Santo A, Fratino U, Piccinni AF. Alcune considerazioni sui criteri di scelta
delle valvole di regolazione dei grandi adduttori. Baveno, IT, Italian:
Convegno A.I.I. sulle Macchine e Apparecchiature Idrauliche; 1993.
[3] Laws EM, Ouazzane AK. A further investigation into flow conditioner design
yielding compact installations for orifice plate flow metering. Flow Measure-
ment and Instrumentation 1995;8(2):61–76.
[4] Schluter T, Merzkirch W. PIV measurements of the time-averaged flow
velocity downstream of flow conditioners in a pipeline. Flow Measurement
and Instrumentation 1996;7(3-4):173–179.
[5] Xiong W, Kalkuhler K, Merzkirch W. Velocity and turbulence measurements
downstream of flow conditioners. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation
2003;14(6):249–260.
[6] Govindarajan R. Cavitation size scale effect dissertation. Fort Collins (CO),
USA: Colorado State University; 1972.
[7] Tullis JP, Govindarajan R. Cavitation and scale effects for orifices. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, ASCE 1973;HY3:417–430.
[8] Kim BC, Pak BC, Cho NH, Chi DS, Choi HM, Choi YM, et al. Effects of cavitation
and plate thickness on small diameter ratio orifice meters. Flow Measure-
ment and Instrumentation 1997;8(2):85–92.
[9] Testud P, Massou P, Hirschberg A, Auregan Y. Noise generated by cavitating
single-hole and multi-hole orifices in a water pipe. Journal of Fluids and
Structures 2007;23(2):163–189.
[10] Gan G, Riffat SB. Pressure loss characteristics of orifice and perforated plates.
2ffi Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science 1997;14(6):160–165.
@Eu [11] Erdal A. A numerical investigation of different parameters that affect the
uðV p Þ ðA:1Þ
@V p performance of a flow conditioner. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation
1997;8(2):93–102.
[12] Weber LJ, Cherian MP, Allen ME, Muste, M. Headloss characteristics for
perforated plates and flat bar screens. Technical report. Iowa City (IA), USA:
Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Engineering, College of Engineering, University of
Iowa. Mar. Report no. 411; 2000.
[13] Fratino U. Hydraulic and cavitation characteristics of multihole orifices. In:
Proceedings of the hydraulic machinery and system 20th IAHR symposium;
2000.
[14] Malavasi S, Macchi S, Mereghetti E. Cavitation and dissipation efficiency of
multihole orifices. In: Prague CZ, Zolotarev I, Horacek J, editors. Proceedings
of the 9th international conference on flow-induced vibrations FIV2008
Prague. Institute of Thermomechanics Academy of Sciences of the Czech
Republic; 2008. p. 581–6.
[15] Macchi S. Analysis of multi-hole orifices and their use in a control device
[dissertation]. Milano, IT: Politecnico di Milano; 2009.
[16] Malavasi S, Messa GV, Macchi S. The pressure loss coefficient through sharp-
edged perforated plates. In: Farina W, editor. Atti del XXXII Convegno
Nazionale di Idraulica e Costruzioni Idrauliche. Dipt. of IIAA University of
Palermo; 2010. p. 193.
[17] Zhao T, Zhang J, Ma L. A general structural design methodology for multi-hole
orifices and its experimental application. Journal of Mechanical Science and
Technology 2011;25(9):2237–2246.
[18] Holt GJ, Maynes D, Blotter J. Cavitation at sharp edge multi-hole baffle plates.
In: Proceedings ot the ASME 2011 international mechanical engineering
congress & exposition IMECE2011; 2011.
[19] Idelcick IE. Handbook of hydraulic resistance. Washington (DC), USA: Hemi-
sphere; 1986.
[20] Miller DS. Internal flow system. Bedford, UK: Cranfield; 1990.
[21] Engineering Sciences Data Unit (ESDU). Flow of liquids. Pressure losses across
orifice plates, perforated plates and thick orifice plates in ducts. Technical
Report. London, UK: Internal Flow and Physical Properties Group; 1981 Nov.
Report no. 81039.
[22] Considerations for evaluating control valve cavitation. ISA-RP75.23-1995
[accessed 02.06.95].
[23] Control valve capacity test procedure for incompressible fluids. ISA-S39.2-
1972 [accessed August 1972].
[24] Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurements. ISO-GUM, Part
1-15; 1993.
[25] Measurement of fluid flow by means of pressure differential devices inserted
in circular cross section conduits running full. Part 2, ISO 5167-2; 2003.
[26] Urner G. Pressure losses of orifice plates according to ISO 5167-1. Flow
Measurement and Instrumentation 1997;8(1):39–41.