Table of Contents.

Contents
Abstract. ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction. ............................................................................................................................... 5

Objectives. ............................................................................................................................. 5

Hypothesis.............................................................................................................................. 5

Theory. ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Theory for specific experiment. ............................................................................................. 6

Free body diagrams. ............................................................................................................... 7

Assumptions........................................................................................................................... 7

Equations................................................................................................................................ 8

Sample calculations. .............................................................................................................. 9

Facility and apparatus. ............................................................................................................. 10

Procedure. ................................................................................................................................ 13

Results. ..................................................................................................................................... 14

Raw data............................................................................................................................... 14

Data analysis. ....................................................................................................................... 15

Statement of uncertainty. ......................................................................................................... 17

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 18

Recommendations/improvements. ........................................................................................... 18

References. ............................................................................................................................... 19

2
3
Abstract.

Problem statement.

During this experiment we are to find the head loss when a jet of water or fluid flows through

a set of joints that are used in plumbing. During the next part of the experiment we were to

find the effect of differential head devices in the measurement of flow rate and velocity of the

fluid/water travelling through the pipe.

Short summary.

Both of the experiments were performed using the C6-MKII-10 apparatus to collect data

about the flow and all of these data was recorded and noted using a computer software. For

part b of the experiment the head loss in the pipe of different bends were found. The bends

were 90o long and short bends. The head loss over different other joints were found too. As

for part D the venture and orifice plates were used to measure the flow rate of the fluid.

4
Introduction.

Objectives.

During the first part of the experiment the objective was to measure the head loss of a jet of

water/fluid as it moves through certain joints and bends.

For the second part of the experiment the objective was to show the use of head devices used

to measure the velocity and flow rate of the water moving through the experimental pipe.

Hypothesis

The hypothesis for the first part of the experiment is that if we know that the head loss is

proportional to the velocity of the flow then the head loss should be equal to the velocity of

the flow multiplied a constant K which represents the ‘loss factor ‘therefore if we know the

flow velocity then we can find the head loss. Provided we account for the effects of gravity

on the flow.

For the second part the hypothesis is that if we have many different methods/devices to

measure the flow rate through the pipe then if we find the flow rate/head loss using one

method this should be equal to the measurements obtained using the other methods.

5
Theory.

Theory for specific experiment.

During the first part the head loss in a standard pipe fitting is to be measured. The head loss

of a pipe is proportional to the speed at which the water/fluid flows through the pipe. Since

the head loss is proportional to the velocity of the flow, we can say that the head loss is equal

to the velocity of the flow squared multiplied by a constant ‘k’ which represents the loss

factor and the whole thing is divide by ‘g’ which is the acceleration due to gravity multiplied

by 2.

For experiment 2 where an orifice plate or venturi is used the flow rate and the differential

head is related by Bernoulli’s equation which a small modification which is the addition of a

discharge coefficient which is used to account for the losses during the flow. When using a

pitot tube the deference of the head loss measured between the total and static tapping is

equal to the velocity of the head of the fluid moving through the pipe.

6
Free body diagrams.

Figure 1 Velocity profile over an elbow joint

Assumptions.

The flow was assumed to be steady

Any unsteady effected were assumed negligible.

The flow was assumed to be incompressible.

The temperature was assumed to be 22oc.

Pressure was assumed to be 1atm.

7
The density of water was assumed to be a constant 999kg/m^3.

-experimental and ambient conditions.

Equations.

Part B

Flow rate was found using 10−3 (1)

this relationship: 𝑄=𝑉∗
𝑇
The velocity through the 4𝑄 (2)
pipe was found using: 𝑢=
𝜋 𝑑2
The velocity head was found 𝑢2 (3)
using ℎ𝑣 =
2𝑔
Measure head loss was ℎ = ℎ𝑐 − ℎ𝑜 (4)
found using:
The fitting factor k was ℎ (5)
found using: 𝐾=
ℎ𝑣

Part D

The calculated flow rate for (6)

2𝑔 . Δℎ
this part of the experiment 𝑄 = 𝐶𝑑 . 𝐴0
was found using. √ 𝐴0 2
(𝐴 ) − 1
1

The velocity of the head of 𝑢2 (7)

the fluid was found using; = (ℎ1 − ℎ2 )
2𝑔
After further simplification 𝑢 = √2𝑔(ℎ1 − ℎ2 (8)
we get:
Experimental flow rate is 10−3 (9)
found using: 𝑄=𝑉∗
𝑇
Head loss is found using ℎ𝑙 = ℎ𝐴 − ℎ𝐵 (10)

8
Sample calculations.

Part a

Flow rate 1.03

𝑄= = 0.00103 (𝑚3 /𝑠 )
1000
Flow velocity 4𝑄 4 ∗ 0.00103
𝑢= 2
= = 4.54𝑚/𝑠 2
𝜋𝑑 π ∗ 0.0172

Velocity head 𝑢2 4.542

ℎ𝑣 = = = 1.05 𝑚𝐻2 𝑂
2𝑔 2 ∗ 9.81

Measured head loss ℎ = 2.238 𝑚𝐻2 𝑂

‘K’ factor ℎ 2.28
𝐾= = = 2.18
ℎ𝑣 1.05

Part b

Discharge coefficient 𝑐𝑑 = 0.98

Flow rate 𝑄 = 0.00074

Differential head ℎ = 1.32 𝑚𝐻2 𝑂

Throat area π𝑟 2 (π ∗ 0.022 )
𝐴0 = = = 0.0003𝑚2
4 4
Area of the pipe π𝑟 2 (π ∗ 0.022 )
𝐴1 = = = 0.0003𝑚2
4 4

*all numbers used above are arbitrary numbers used for the purpose of showing how the calculations were carried out

9
Facility and apparatus.

Figure 2 Overview of the apparatus used

1. barbed connector
2. Inline strainer.
3. sudden contraction
4. 45o “Y”
5. 45o elbow
6. Long radius 90o bend.
7. Roughened pipe.
8. Smooth bore pipe of different diameter
9. Smooth bore pipe of different diameter
10. Smooth bore pipe of different diameter
11. Smooth bore pipe of different diameter
12. ball valve
13. 90o “T” junction.
14. 90o sharp bend

10
 15. short radius 90o bend
16. sudden enlargement
17. pipe section made of clear acrylic with a Pitot static tube
18. Venturi made of clear acrylic
19. Orifice meter made of clear acrylic.
20. Globe valve
21. Gate valve
22. 90o elbow
23. Exit tube.
24. Test pipe.
25. Control valves.

On the left is a labeled hydraulics bench

that was used. To pump in the fluid

through the pipe fittings, venturi and

orifices.

Figure 3 Hydraulics bench

On the left is the

layout of the valve

and the fitting that

were tested.

Figure 4 Apparatus used to measure the head loss

11
 On the left is the

pressure sensor that

was used to measure

the head losses over

the fittings.

Figure 5 Pressure sensor

12
Procedure.

Part B

Make sure the apparatus (C6-MKII-10) is connected to the hydraulics bench.

Fit the pressure sensor before and after the fitting that is being tested.

Make sure that the Data logging accessories are connected to the console and that they are

powered on.

Make sure the software for the console is up and running in the computer system.

Close all unwanted valves and open only the required valves to make sure the flow goes

through the test fitting.

Start up the hydraulics bench and let the flow go through the fitting.

Make sure to log the flow rate through the software.

Use the program that is loaded to measure the head tapping’s on each fitting using the

pressure sensor that are plugged in before and after the fitting.

Repeat the same procedure until all fitting have been tested out.

Part D

Similar process for part b was followed.

Open all the ball vales in the network to make sure that there a minimum restriction to the

flow.

Make sure the data logging equipment is properly connected and powered up.

Wash put the pipe with water.

13
Open the required value to make sure the water flows through the sensors.

Use the software to obtain different readings from the venturi and orifice plates.

Vary the flow rate using the hydraulics bench from the minimum tot eh maximum.

For every trial measure the head loss, the head difference and the volume flow rate across the

sensors.

For more details on the procedure refer to the lab manual.

Results.

Raw data.

-include calculations and plots

Flow rate K'

AVG Head Loss Flow rate (m^3/s) Velocity (U) Velocity head factor angle
0.550 1.00 0.00100 4.4056732 0.989294398 0.5560 45
0.224 1.01 0.00101 4.4497299 1.009179215 0.2220 45
0.671 1.00 0.00100 4.4056732 0.989294398 0.6783 45
2.283 1.03 0.00103 4.5378434 1.049542427 2.1752 90
2.438 1.03 0.00103 4.5378434 1.049542427 2.3229 90
0.504 0.74 0.00074 3.2601981 0.541737612 0.9303 90
1.077 0.75 0.00075 3.3042549 0.556478099 1.9354 90
0.705 0.74 0.00074 3.2601981 0.541737612 1.3014 90
8.331 0.51 0.00051 2.2468933 0.257315473 32.377 180
3.071 0.51 0.00051 2.2468933 0.257315473 11.935 180
Table 1 Table representing data for the part 1

14
 Plot 1 'K' factor vs angle
Venturi orifice sensor
Pipe throat plate head flowmeter flowrate discharge inlet throat Theo flow
Device diameter diameter diameter loss flowrate (m^3/s) coefficient area area rate
Venturi 0.024 0.014 0.02 1.32 0.744 0.000744 0.98 0.000452 0.000154 0.002249187
Orifice 0.024 0.014 0.02 0.66 0.744 0.000744 0.62 0.000452 0.000314 0.000989474
Table 2 Data for part 2 of the experiment

Data analysis.

Theoretically the value for ‘K’ should be the same for one fitting irrespective of the flowrate.

From the graph shown above we can see that the value for ‘K’ is almost the same in every

fitting angle except for the contraction and enlargement fittings. In this case although the

angle is 180 in each case the k factor is significantly different from each other this is due to a

significant error. This error must have occurred during data analysis. As for the other

readings in the graph they are not the same due to minor errors that have been neglected or

assumed negligible.

15
For the second part of the experiment the theoretical value for flowrate was compared to the

experiment value for flow rate obtained by the sensors. As you can see from the table above

the only difference between the two devices are the discharge coefficients, throat area and the

head loss. As you can see from the table above the two theoretical flow rate are not even

close to the flowrate detected by the sensors. This anomaly could be dues to systematic error.

Since we don’t have an adequate amount of readings we cannot come to a conclusion about

the relationship between the flowrates and orifice /venturi plates neither can we come to a

conclusion about the relationship between the theoretical flow rates and experimental

flowrates as we only one data set for each device.

16
Statement of uncertainty.

The first part of the experiment was a success for the most part. As said above almost

all the values for k are the same in the 90o and 450 fittings. The only reason as to why they are

different, are because we made certain assumption such as steady flow, incompressible flow

and that the density of the fluid is a constant. These minor variations could be a result of

these assumptions combined with human error caused when rounding off certain values that

were used to analyze the data and form the graph. As for 180o fitting it’s not possible to say

which reading is the anomaly as only two readings were taken for that specific angle. There is

a possibility were both readings could be wrong. One of the main reasons that caused this

anomaly was human error that was caused when completing certain calculations.

The second part of the experiment was inconclusive mainly because there are

only two sets of data to look at. By looking at the two sets of data the experiment was not a

success. The experimental value for flowrate which was obtain from the sensors is 0.744 for

both the orifice and the venturi. At the same time the theoretical value for venturi is 0.000989

and the theoretical value for the orifice is 0.00225. Since both of these values when compared

to the experimental value for flow rate are off by a significant amount it is safe to say that the

experiment was a failure.

Error in the dynamic (11)

head

Error in pipe fitting (12)

head loss

Error in head loss (13)

Error in Reynolds (14)

number

17
 Error in flow rate (15)

Conclusion .
The first part of the experiment was a success except for the 180o fitting. It was proved that

the ‘K’ factor remains constant for a fitting with the same angle irrespective of the flow rate.

As for the second part of the experiment is was inconclusive, as there was only one data set

from one device which was not enough to come to a conclusion. Although the theoretical

value for flow rate was 0.00225 m3/s and 0.000989 m3/s for the orifice plate and the venturi

while the experimental flow rate was 0.744 m3/s.

Recommendations/improvements.

Velocity of the flow could have been detected using a set of sensors thus reducing human

error. The density of the fluid should have been measured at every trial to make sure it was

constant. The fluid should have no impurities to prevent this distilled water could be used.

The value for g should have been measured at the time of the experiment without assuming it

to be 9.81m/s2. The sensor should have been recalibrated after every trial to eliminate the

chance of systematic error. Certain values should not have been rounded off to certain

decimal points or significant values.

18
References.

Ref 1: Certain pictures were taken past labs and some during this lab.

Ref 2: Y.A. Cengel and J.M.Cimbala, Fluid Mechanics, 3rd Edition, 2014, McGraw-Hill.

Ref 3: C.S. Subramanian, MAE 3064 Fluid Mechanics Laboratory Manual, Version 5.0,2004,

Florida Tech.

Ref 4:

https://www.google.com/search?q=velocity+profile+in+pipes+with+bends&espv=2&biw=68

1&bih=652&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiTgoOT7I3QAhVD32MKHSs

uDW8Q_AUIBigB#imgrc=gP8qPjETOh6gzM%3A

19