Swinburne University of Technology

School of Engineering

MEE20003 Fluid Mechanics

Semester 1, 2019

Lab Sheet: Flow through a Venturi Meter

Name: SHEHAN
Student ID: 7664613
Group Number: THURSDAY 10.30-12.30PM
Date performed experiment: 21/03/2019
Lab supervisor: Gayan , Email: gweerakkodydayarathn@swin.edu.au,
2. Description of Apparatus

Fig. 1 shows the arrangement of the Venturi meter, which is manufactured in clear plastic material.
Water is admitted from the bench supply valve and passes through a flexible hose into the meter.
Beyond the control valve, which is mounted just downstream of the meter, a further flexible hose
leads to the measuring tank. The piezometer tappings in the wall of the Venturi tube are connected
to vertical manometer tubes, mounted in front of a scale marked in millimetres. The manometer
tubes are connected at their top ends to a common manifold, in which the amount of air may be
controlled by a small air valve at one end. The whole assembly is supported on a base mounted on
adjusting screws which serve to level the equipment. A schematic and list of components of the
apparatus can be seen below.

Fig.1

Arrangement of Venturi meter apparatus

1. Assembly board
2. Single water pressure gauge
3. Discharge pipe
4. Outlet ball cock
5. Venturi tube with 6 measurement points
6. Compression gland
7. Probe for measuring overall pressure (can be moved axially)
8. Hose connection, water supply
9. Ball cock at water inlet
10. 6-fold water pressure gauge (pressure distribution in Venturi tube)

3. Theory of the Venturi Meter

Consider flow of an incompressible, inviscid fluid through the convergent–divergent Venturi tube
shown in Fig. 2. The cross sectional area at the upstream section 1 is A1, at the throat section 2 is
A2, and at any other arbitrary section n is An. Piezometer tubes at these sections register h1, h2
and hn above the arbitrary datum shown. Note that, although the tube may have any inclination,
the datum must by necessity, be horizontal. Assume that both the velocity and the piezometric
head are constant over each of the sections considered. This amounts to assuming the flow to be
one dimensional, so that the velocity and the piezometric head vary only

The equation of continuity is

in which Q denotes the rate of volume flow or discharge. Substituting in Equation (1) for u1 from
Equation (2), gives

And solving this for the velocity u2 in the throat leads to

The rate of flow Q is found by multiplying the throat velocity u2 by the cross sectional area A2 at
the throat, giving

This is the ideal discharge rate, obtained by assuming inviscid, one-dimensional flow. In practice, there is
some loss of head between sections 1 and 2. Also, the velocity is not absolutely constant across either of
these sections. As a result, the actual values of Q fall a little short of those given by Equation (3). It is
customary to allow for this by writing
Sample Calculations
 Experimental Data

TABLE:1
SECTION A B C D E F
DIAMETER 20.75 17.22 10.38 14.71 18 20.75

TABLE:2
hA hB
Volume (L) Time to Fill (s) (mm) (mm) hC (mm) hD (mm) hF (mm) hE (mm)
1 10 54.96 285 265 10 175 210 220
2 10 58.34 270 255 20 170 200 215
3 10 59.25 260 245 25 165 190 205
4 10 61.25 250 235 27 160 185 200
5 10 65.06 240 225 30 155 180 190
6 10 67.5 220 210 35 140 165 175
7 10 70 210 200 35 140 160 170
8 10 75.65 200 185 35 130 150 155
9 10 76.5 180 180 190 125 145 150
 TABLE3

Q measured/actual Q(ideal) h1 - h2 (m) C

0.000182 0.000203022 0.275 0.896211575

0.000171 0.000193574 0.25 0.885497197

0.000169 0.000187677 0.235 0.899293251

0.000163 0.000182822 0.223 0.89302804

0.000154 0.000177413 0.21 0.866363034

0.000148 0.000166518 0.185 0.889680318

0.000143 0.000161955 0.175 0.882077117

0.000132 0.00015726 0.165 0.840567734

0.000131 0.00015242 0.155 0.857622834

Measured Theoretical
Difference difference Loss ( Theoritical - Measured)
hB - hA -0.015 -0.00259305 0.012406951
hC - hA -0.235 -0.19955564 0.035444356
hD - hA -0.095 -0.03739527 0.057604728
hE - hA -0.07 0.006440506 0.076440506
hF - Ha -0.055 0.038272247 0.093272247

C vs Q
0.910

0.900

0.890

0.880

0.870
C

0.860

0.850

0.840

0.830
0.000100

0.000110

0.000120

0.000130

0.000140

0.000150

0.000160

0.000170

0.000180

0.000190

Q (m^3/s)
Discussion

1. In a perfect scenairo, the discharge cofficient and the flow rate shoud be the same in the 1st point
where the liqid is entering and the last point where the liquid is flowing out, on the graph above aslo
taking to consideration the experimental data, we can clearly see that the discharge cofficient varies
within each flowrate, however in an ideal experiment the discharge cofficient should remain a
constant, by observing the experimental data the difference in cofficient compared to the highest to
the lowest is 0.059 of a difference, this mostly due to the friction that is present in the pipes being
used also form of resistance to flow is due to the viscosity of the liquid

2. The largest losses were generated at on the second and the last point, this is mostly due to as
mentioned above, friction that is present on the material, also human error would have played
factor, such as parallax error when reading the measurement, equipment error, in order to
obtain a better more accurate results, the human error that influenced on the experimental data
need to be removed as much as possible, one recommendation would be to obtain the data
would be to have it computerised to avoid any error that may occur because of the reaction
time of stopping the stop watch and parallax error, another recommendation would be instead
of using the material as a plastic which has a higher frictional coefficient, compared to a metal
like steel or copper.