You are on page 1of 24

H16

Losses in Piping
Systems
PE/djb/0501
i
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION
1-1
Description of the Apparatus 1-1
2 THEORY
2-1
Head Loss 2-1
Head Loss in Straight Pipes 2-1
Head Loss due to Sudden Changes in Area of Flow 2-1
Head Loss due to Bends 2-2
Head Loss due to Valves 2-2
Principles of Pressure Loss Measurement 2-2
Principles of Pressure Loss Measurement 2-2
3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE
3-1
Filling the Mercury Manometer 3-1
Experimental Procedure 3-1
4 TYPICAL SET OF RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS
4-1
Results 4-1
Identification of Manometer Tubes and Components 4-1
Experiment 1: Straight Pipe Loss 4-2
Experiment 2: Sudden Expansion 4-4
Experiment 3: Sudden Contraction 4-6
Experiment 4: Bends 4-8
Experiment 5: Valves 4-9
5 GENERAL REVIEW OF THE EQUIPMENT AND RESULTS
5-1
6 H16p ROUGH PIPE ASSEMBLY
6-1
Installation 6-1
Dimensions 6-2
Range of Experiments 6-2
Theory 6-4
Flow Rate 6-4
Experimental Procedure 6-4
Typical Test Results 6-4
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
ii
Page 1-1
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
One of the most common problems in fluid mechanics is
the estimation of pressure loss. This apparatus enables
pressure loss measurements to be made on several small
bore pipe circuit components, typical of those found in
household central heating installations. This apparatus is
designed for use with the TQ Hydraulic Bench H1,
although the equipment may be supplied from another
source, providing it has an accurate means of mass flow
rate measurement. All reference to the bench in this
manual refers directly to the TQ Hydraulic Bench.
Description of Apparatus
The apparatus shown diagrammatically in Figure 1.1,
consists of two separate hydraulic circuits; one painted
dark blue, one painted light blue, each one containing a
number of pipe system components. Both circuits are
supplied with water from the same hydraulic bench. The
components in each of the circuits are as detailed at
Figure 1.1.
In all cases (except the gate and globe valves), the
pressure change across each of the components is
measured by a pair of pressurised piezometer tubes. In
the case of the valves, pressure measurement is made by
U-tube Manometers containing mercury.
Figure 1.1 Arrangement of the apparatus
Dark Blue Circuit Light Blue Circuit
A) Straight pipe 13.7 mm bore E) Sudden expansion - 13.6 mm / 26.2 mm
B) 90 Sharp bend (mitre); F) Sudden contraction - 26.2 mm / 13.6 mm
C) Proprietary 90 elbow G) Smooth 90 bend 50.8 mm radius
D) Gate valve H) Smooth 90 bend 100 mm radius
J) Smooth 90 bend 152 mm radius
K) Globe Valve
L) Straight Pipe 26.4mm
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 1-2
Page 2-1
SECTION 2 THEORY
Figure 2.1
For an incompressible fluid flowing through a pipe the
following equations apply:
Q V A V A = =
1 1 2 2
(Continuity)
Z
p
g
V
g
Z
P
g
V h
1
1 1
2
2
2
2
2
1 2
2
+ + = + + +


L
(Bernoulli)
Notation:
Q Volumetric flow rate (m
3
/s);
V Mean velocity (m/s);
A Cross sectional area (m
2
);
z Height above datum (m);
p Static pressure (N/m
2
);
h
L
Head loss (m);
Density (kg/m
3
);
g Acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s
2
).
Head Loss
The head loss in a pipe circuit falls into two categories:
a) That due to viscous resistance extending throughout
the total length of the circuit
b) That due to localised effects such as valves, sudden
changes in area of flow and bends.
The overall head loss is a combination of both these
categories. Because of mutual interference between
neighbouring components in a complex circuit the total
head loss may differ from that estimated from the losses
due to the individual components considered in
isolation.
Head Loss in Straight Pipes
The head loss along a length, L, of straight pipe of
constant diameter, d, is given by the expression:
h
f LV
gd
L
=
4
2
2
where f is a dimension constant which is a function of
the Reynolds number of the flow and the roughness of
the internal surface of the pipe.
Head Loss due to Sudden Changes in Area of
Flow
i) Sudden Expansion
The head loss at a sudden expansion is given by the
expression:
( )
h
V V
g
L
=

1 2
2
2
Figure 2.2 Expanding pipe
ii) Sudden Contraction
Figure 2.3 Contracting pipe
The head loss at a sudden contraction is given by the
expression:
h
KV
g
L
=
2
2
2
where K is a dimension coefficient which depends
upon the area ratio as shown in Table 2.1. This table
can be found in most good textbooks on fluid
mechanics.
A2/A1 K
0 0.50
0.1 0.46
0.2 0.41
0.3 0.36
0.4 0.30
0.6 0.18
0.8 0.06
1.0 0
Table 2.1 Loss coefficients for sudden
contractions
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 2-2
Head Loss due to Bends
The head loss due to a bend is given by the expression:
h
K V
g
B
B
=
2
2
where K is a dimensionless coefficient which depends
upon the bend radius/pipe radius ratio and the angle of
the bend.
NOTE
The loss given by this expression is not the total
loss caused by the bend but the excess loss above
that which would be caused by a straight pipe
equal in length to the length of the pipe axis.
See Figure 4.5, which shows a graph of typical loss
coefficients.
Head Loss due to Valves
The head loss due to a valve is given by the expression:
h
KV
g
L
+
2
2
where the value of K depends upon the type of valve and
the degrees of opening. Table 2.2 gives typical values of
loss coefficients for gate and globe valves.
Globe valve, fully open 10.0
Gate valve, fully open 0.2
Gate valve, half open 5.6
Table 2.2
Principles of Pressure Loss Measurement
Figure 2.4 Pressurised piezometer tubes to
measure pressure loss between two points at
different elevations
Considering Figure 2.4, apply Bernoullis equation
between 1 and 2:
z
p
g
V
g
p
g
V
g
h + + = + +
1 1
2
2 2
2
2 2
L
(2-1)
but:
V V
1 2
=
(2-2)
Therefore
( )
h z
p p
g
L
= +

1 2

(2-3)
Consider piezometer tubes:
( ) [ ]
p p g z x y = + +
1

(2-4)
also
p p gy =
2

(2-5)
giving:
( )
x z
p p
g
= +

1 2

(2-6)
Figure 2.5 U-tube containing mercury used to
measure pressure loss across valves
Consider Figure 2.5; since 1 and 2 have the same
elevation and pipe diameter:
p p
g
h
1 2

H O
L
2
(2-7)
Consider the U-tube. Pressure in both limbs of U-tube
are equal at level 00. Therefore equating pressure at 00:
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 2-3
( ) p g x y g x p g y
2 1 1 1
+ =
H O Hg H O
2 2
(2-8)
giving:
( )
p p xg
1 2
=
Hg H O
2
(2-9)
hence:
( )
p p
g
x s
1 2
1

H O
2
(2-10)
Considering Equations (2-6) and (2-10) and taking the
specific gravity of mercury as 13.6:
h x
L
= 12 6 .
(2-11)
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 2-4
Page 3-1
SECTION 3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE
1. Connect the hydraulic bench supply to the inlet of
the apparatus, directing the outlet hose into the
hydraulic bench weighing tank.
2. Close globe valve, open gate valve and admit water
to the Dark Blue circuit, starting the pump and
opening the outlet valve on the hydraulic bench.
3. Allow water to flow for two to three minutes.
4. Close gate valve and manipulate all trapped air into
air space in piezometer tubes. Check that all
piezometer tubes indicate zero pressure difference.
5. Open the gate valve and by manipulating bleed
screws on the U-tube, fill both limbs with water
ensuring that no air remains.
6. Close gate valve, open globe valve and repeat the
above procedure for the Light Blue circuit.
Both circuits are now ready for measurements.
The datum position of the piezometer can be
adjusted to any desired position either by pumping air
into the manifold with the hand pump supplied, or by
gently allowing air to escape through the manifold
valve. Ensure that there are no water locks in these
manifolds as these will tend to suppress the head of
water recorded and so provide incorrect readings.
Filling the Mercury Manometers
Important
Mercury and its vapour are poisonous and
should be treated with great care. Any local
regulations regarding the handling and use of
mercury should be strictly adhered to.
Due to regulations concerning the transport of mercury,
TQ Ltd are unable to supply this item. To fill the
mercury manometers, it is recommended that a suitable
syringe and catheter tube are used (not supplied) and the
mercury acquired locally. Approximately 1Kg of
Mercury is sufficient.
Remove any items of gold or silver jewellery.
Unscrew the two caps at the top of the manometer.
Thread a suitable catheter tube into the manometer tube,
ensuring the catheter tube end touches the end of the
manometer column. Fill a syringe with 10 ml of mercury
and connect to the catheter tube. Slowly fill the
manometer using the syringe, and as the mercury fills
the columns, withdraw the tube ensuring there are no air
bubbles left. The optimum level for the mercury is
400 mm from the bottom of the U-tube.
When the manometer has the correct amount of
mercury in it, water should be added to the
reservoir, covering the mercury and preventing
vapour from escaping into the air.
Figure 7 Filling the manometers
Unscrew the caps at the top of the manometer to purge
any trapped air. Replace caps immediately.
Experimental Procedure
The following procedure assumes that pressure loss
measurements are to be made on all the circuit
components.
Open fully the water control valve on the hydraulic
bench. With the globe valve closed, open the gate valve
fully to obtain maximum flow through the Dark Blue
circuit. Record the readings on the piezometer tubes
and the U-tube. Collect a sufficient quantity of water in
the weigh tank to ensure that the weighing takes place
over a minimum period of 60 seconds.
Repeat the above procedure for a total of ten
different flow rates, obtained by closing the gate valve,
equally spaced over the full flow range.
With an accurate thermometer, record the water
temperature in the sump tank of the bench each time a
reading is taken.
Close the gate valve, open the globe and repeat the
experiment procedure for the Light Blue circuit.
Before switching off the pump, close both the globe
valve and the gate valve. This procedure prevents air
gaining access to the system and so saves time in
subsequent setting up.
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 3-2
Page 4-1
SECTION 4 TYPICAL SET OF RESULTS AND CALCULATIONS
Results
Basic Data
Pipe diameter (internal) 13.7 mm
Pipe diameter [between sudden expansion
(internal) and contraction]
26.4 mm
Pipe material Copper tube
Distance between pressure tappings for
straight pipe and bend experiments
0.914 m
Table 4.1
Bend Radii
90 Elbow (mitre) 0
90 Proprietary elbow 12.7 mm
90 Smooth bend 50.8 mm
90 Smooth bend 100 mm
90 smooth bend 152 mm
Table 4.2
Identification of Manometer Tubes and
Components
Manometer tube number Unit
1 Proprietary elbow bend
2
3 Straight pipe
4
5 Mitre bend
6
7 Expansion
8
9 Contraction
10
11 152 mm bend
12
13 100 mm bend
14
15 50.8 mm bend
16
Table 4.3
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 4-2
Experiment 1: Straight Pipe Loss
The object of this experiment is to obtain the following
relationships:
a) Head loss as a function of volume flow rate;
b) Friction Factor as a function of Reynolds number.
Specimen Calculations
From Table 4.4, test number 1
Mass flow rate = 18/63 = 0.286 kg/s
Head loss = 0.332 m water
Volume flow rate (Q) = Mass flow rate/density
=
0 286
10
3
.
= 286 10
6
m
3
/s
Area of flow (A) =

4
137
2
. = 147.3 mm
2
Mean velocity (V) =
Q
A
=
286 10
147 3 10
6
6

.
= 1.94 m/s
Reynolds number (Re) = V
d

For water at 23C = 9.40 19


7
m
2
/s
Therefore,
Re =
194 137 10
9 40 10
3
7
. .
.

= 2.83 10
4
Friction Factor (f ) =
h gd
LV
L
2
4
2
f =
0 332 2 9 81 137 10
4 914 10 194
3
3 2
. . .
.

= 0.0065
Figure 4.1 shows the head loss - volume flow rate
relationship plotted as a graph of log h
L
against log Q.
The graph shows that the relationship is of the form
h
L
Q
n
with n = 1.73. This value is close to the
normally accepted range of 1.75 to 2.00 for turbulent
flow. The lower value n is found as in this apparatus, in
comparatively smooth pipes at comparatively low
Reynolds number.
Figure 4.2 shows the Friction Factor - Reynolds
number relationship plotted as a graph of friction factor
against Reynolds number.
The graph also shows for comparison the
relationship circulated from Blasiuss equation for
hydraulically smooth pipes.
Blasiuss equation:
f =
0 0785
1 4
.
Re
in the range 10 10
4 5
< < Re
As would be expected the graph shows that the friction
factor for the copper pipe in the apparatus is greater than
that predicted for a smooth pipe at the same Reynolds
number.
Test Time to collect 18 kg Piezometer tube readings (cm) water U-tube (cm) Hg
number water (s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gate-valve
1 63.0 51.0 14.0 49.5 16.3 86.9 29.2 29.4 28.6*
2 65.4 52.5 18.2 50.3 19.5 87.5 33.2 31.9 25.9
3 69.4 51.9 21.6 49.7 21.6 86.5 37.3 33.8 24.0
4 73.9 52.2 25.1 49.2 24.0 85.5 41.7 35.8 22.0
5 79.9 53.1 29.4 48.6 27.0 84.2 47.1 38.1 19.5
6 88.8 53.4 33.4 48.0 29.7 83.0 52.1 40.5 17.0
7 99.8 53.2 36.5 46.6 31.7 81.6 56.8 42.7 14.8
8 111.0 52.6 39.2 46.1 33.7 80.0 59.8 44.0 13.5
9 146.2 52.6 44.4 54.4 37.7 78.4 66.1 47.3 10.3
10 229.8 52.9 49.1 45.0 41.5 77.4 72.0 50.3 7.3
* Fully open;
Water temperature 23C
Table 4.4 Experimental results for dark blue circuit
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 4-3
Figure 4.1 Head loss versus volume flow rate
Figure 4.2 Friction factor versus Reynolds number
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 4-4
Experiment 2: Sudden Expansion
The object of this experiment is to compare the
measured head rise across a sudden expansion with the
rise calculated on the assumption of:
a) No head loss;
b) Head loss given by the expression:
( )
h
V V
g
L
=
1 2
2
2
Test
number
Time to collect 18 kg
water
Piezometer tube readings (cm) water U-tube
(cm) Hg
(s) 7 8 9 10 11 Globe valve
11 73.2 38.7 43.5 42.5 12.1 38.3 37.4 20.2*
12 76.8 39.2 43.5 42.5 22.1 38.5 38.5 19.0
13 82.6 39.1 43.0 42.2 24.5 38.3 40.2 17.4
14 95.4 39.4 42.0 41.5 28.5 38.3 43.0 14.7
15 102.6 39.7 42.2 41.7 30.2 38.0 44.0 13.6
16 130.8 40.0 41.5 41.1 33.8 37.3 46.5 11.7
17 144.6 40.4 41.5 41.2 35.2 37.5 47.5 10.1
18 176.9 40.7 41.4 41.2 37.0 37.3 49.1 8.6
19 220.8 41.0 41.5 41.4 38.6 37.4 50.2 7.5
20 227.8 41.2 41.6 41.6 39.6 37.5 51.4 6.5
Table 4.2(a) Experimental results for light blue circuit
Test
number
Time to collect 18 kg
water
Piezometer tube readings (cm) water U-tube
(cm) Hg
(s) 12 13 14 15 16 Globe valve
11 73.2 12.1 35.0 7.2 32.1 3.8 37.4 20.2*
12 76.8 14.1 34.9 9.7 32.5 6.0 38.5 19.0
13 82.6 17.0 34.9 12.6 31.6 8.6 40.2 17.4
14 95.4 22.0 34.5 17.6 31.5 13.7 43.0 14.7
15 102.6 23.6 34.2 19.4 30.7 15.2 44.0 13.6
16 130.8 28.0 33.4 23.7 29.6 19.5 46.5 11.7
17 144.6 29.7 33.4 25.5 29.8 21.4 47.5 10.1
18 176.9 31.9 33.2 27.7 29.4 23.5 49.1 8.6
19 220.8 33.6 33.3 39.4 29.5 25.4 50.2 7.5
20 227.8 35.0 33.4 30.9 29.5 26.8 51.4 6.5
Table 4.2(b) Experimental results for light blue circuit (continued)
Specimen Calculation
From Table 4.2 test number 11
measured head rise = 48 mm.
a) Assuming no head loss
( )
h h
V V
g
2 1
2
2
2
2
2
=

(Bernoulli)
since
AV A V
1 1 2 2
= (Continuity)
( )
( )
h h V
A A
g
2 1 1
2
1 2
2
1
2
=

( )
=

V
d d
g
1
2
2
4
1
2
( )
1
From the table,
V
Q
A
1
1
=
=


18
732 10 147 3 10
3 6
. .
= 167 . m/ s
therefore
( )
( )
h h
2 1
2
4
167
1 137 26 4
2 9 81
=

.
. .
.
= 0.132 m
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 4-5
Therefore head rise across the sudden expansion
assuming no head loss is 132 mm water.
b) Assuming
( )
h
V V
g
L
=

1 2
2
2
( )
h h
V V
g h
2 1
1
2
2
2
2
=

L
(Bernoulli)
( ) ( )
=


V V
g
V V
g
1
2
2
2
1 2
2
2 2
or rearranging and inserting values of d
1
= 13.7 mm
and d
2
= 26.4 mm, this reduces to
h h
V
g
2 1
1
2
0 396
2
=
.
which when
V
1
167 = . m/ s
gives
h h
2 1
0 0562 = . m
Therefore head rise across the sudden expansion
assuming the simple expression for head loss is 56 mm
water.
Figure 4.3 shows the full set of results for this
experiment plotted as a graph of measured head rise
against calculated head rise.
Comparison with the dashed line on the graph shows
clearly that the head rise across the sudden expansion is
given more accurately by the assumption of a simple
head loss expansion, rather than by the assumption of no
head loss.
Figure 4.3 Head rise across a sudden enlargement
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 4-6
Experiment 3: Sudden Contraction
The object of this experiment is to compare the
measured fall in head across a sudden contraction with
the fall calculated in the assumption of:
a) No head loss,
b) Head loss given by the expression:
h
KV
g
L
=
2
2
Specimen Calculation
From table 4.2 test number 11 measured head fall =
221 mm water.
a) Assuming no head loss: combining Bernoullis
equation and the continuity equation gives:
( )
( )
h h V
d d
g
2 1 2
2
2 1
4
1
2
=

/
= 0.927
V
g
2
2
2
Which when
V
2
= 1.67 m/s
gives
h
1
h
2
= 0.132 m
Therefore head fall across the sudden contraction
assuming no head loss is 132 mm water.
b) Assuming
h
KV
g
L
=
2
2
2
( )
h h V
d d
g h
2 1 2
2 2 1
4
1
2
=

+

/
L
( )
( )
=

+

V
d d
g KV g
2
2 2 1
4
2
2
1
2 2
/
/
From Table 2.1, when:
A
A
2
1
0 27 = .
K = 0.376
giving:
h h
V
g
V
g
1 2
2
2
2
2
0 927
2
0 376
2
= + . .
= 1303
2
2
2
.
V
g
Which when:
V
2
= 1.67 m/s
gives:
h
1
h
2
= 0.185 m
Therefore head fall across the sudden contraction
assuming loss coefficient of 0.376 is 18.5 cm water.
Figure 4.4 shows the full set of results for this
experiment plotted as a graph of measured head fall
against calculated head fall.
The graph shows that the actual fall in head is
greater than predicted by the accepted value of loss
coefficient for this particular area ratio. The actual value
of loss coefficient can be obtained as follows:
Let h
m
= measured fall in head and K = actual loss
coefficient, then:
h
V
g
K V
g
m
= +

0 927
2 2
2 2
.
hence
= K
hg
V
2
0 927
2
2
.
which when V
2
= 1.67 m/s gives K = 0.63
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 4-7

Figure 4.4 Head decrease across a sudden contraction
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 4-8
Experiment 4: Bends
The purpose here is to measure the loss coefficient for
five bends. There is some confusion over terminology,
which should be noted; there are the total bend losses
(K
L
h
L
)and those due solely to bend geometry, ignoring
frictional losses (K
B
, h
B
).
K
g
V
B
=
2
2
(Total measured head loss straight line loss)
i.e.
K
g
V
=
2
2
(Head gradient for bend - k head gradient for straight
pipe)
Where k = 1 for K
B
k
r
L
= 1
2

For either, h K
V
g
=
2
2
Plotted on Figure 4.5 are experimental results for K
B
and
K
L
for the five types of bends and also some tabulated
data for K
L
. The last was obtained from Handbook of
Fluid Mechanics by VL Streeter. It should be noted
though, that these results are by no means universally
accepted and other sources give different values.
Further, the experiment assumes that the head loss is
independent of Reynolds number and this is not exactly
correct.
Is the form of K
B
what you would expect? Does
putting vanes in an elbow have any effect? Which do
you consider more useful to measure, K
L
or K
B
?
Figure 4.5 Graph of loss coefficient
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 4-9
Experiment 5: Valves
The object of this experiment is to determine the
relationship between loss coefficient and volume flow
rate for a globe type valve and a gate type valve.
Specimen Calculation
h
KV
g
L
=
2
2
Globe Valve
From Table 4.2, test number 11.
Volume flow rate = 246 10
6
m
3
/s (valve fully open);
U-tube reading = 172 mm mercury.
Therefore h
L
= 172 12.6
= 2.17 m water
Velocity (V) = 1.67 m/s
Giving K = 2.17 2 9.81/1.67
2
= 15.3
Figure 4.6 shows the full set of results for both valves in
the form of a graph of loss coefficient against percent
volume flow.
Figure 4.6 Loss coefficient for globe and gate valves
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 4-8
Page 5-1
SECTION 5 GENERAL REVIEW OF THE EQUIPMENT AND RESULTS
An attempt has been made in this apparatus to combine
a large number of pipe components into a manageable
and compact pipe system and so provide the student user
with the maximum scope for investigation. This is made
possible by using small bore pipe tubing. However, in
practice, so many restrictions, bends and the like may
never be encountered in such short pipe lengths. The
normally accepted design criteria of placing the
downstream pressure tapping 30 - 50 pipe diameters
away from the obstruction i.e. the 90 bends, has been
adhered to. This ensures that this tapping is well away
from any disturbances due to the obstruction and in a
region where there is normal steady flow conditions.
Also sufficient pipe length has been left between each
component in the circuit, to obviate any adverse
influence neighbouring components may tend to have on
each other.
Any discrepancies between actual experimental and
theoretical or published results may be attributed to
three main factors:
a) Relatively small physical scale of the pipe work;
b) Relatively small pressure differences in some cases;
c) Low Reynolds numbers.
The relatively small pressure differences, although
easily readable, are encountered on the smooth 90
bends and sudden expansion. The results on these
components should therefore be taken with the utmost
care to obtain maximum accuracy from the equipment.
The results obtained however, are quite realistic as can
be seen from their comparison with published data, as
shown in Figure 4.6. Although there is wide divergence
even amongst published data, refer to page 472 of
Engineering Fluid Mechanics by Charles Jaeger and
published by Blackie and Son Ltd, it is interesting to
note that all curves seem to show a minimum value of
the loss coefficient K where the ratio r/d is between 2
and 4. It is important to realise and remember
throughout the review of the results that all published
data have been obtained using much larger bore tubing
(76 mm and above) and considering each component in
isolation and not in a compound circuit.
Normal manufacturing tolerances assume greater
importance when the physical scale is small. This effect
may be particularly noticeable in relation to the internal
finish of the tube near the pressure tappings. The utmost
care is taken during manufacturing to ensure a smooth
uninterrupted bore of the tube in the region of each
pressure tappings, to obtain maximum accuracy of
pressure reading.
Concerning again all published information relating
to pipe systems, the Reynolds numbers are large, in the
region of 1 105 and above. The maximum Reynolds
number obtained in these experiments, using the
hydraulic bench, H1, is 3 104 although this has not
adversely affected the results. However. as previously
stated in the introduction to this manual, an alternative
source of supply (provided by the customer) could be
used if desired, to increase the flow rate. In this case an
alternative flowmeter would also be necessary.
The three factors discussed very briefly above are
offered as a guide to explain discrepancies between
experimental and published results, since in most cases
all three are involved, although much more personal
investigation is required by the student to obtain
maximum value from using this equipment.
In conclusion the general trends and magnitudes
obtained give a valuable indication of pressure loss from
the various components in the pipe system. The student
is therefore given a realistic appreciation of relating
experimental to theoretical or published information.
TQ Losses in Piping Systems
Page 5-2