You are on page 1of 25

Experimental

Determination of Pipe and Pipe Fitting Losses


ME333, Introduction to Fluid Mechanics
Date Performed: 11 March 2010
Date Submitted: 19 March 2010
Group Members:
Chris Chapman_________________________
Joy Ann Markham_______________________
Sean Elliott Stoker_______________________
Trevor Crain____________________________

Table of Contents
Executive Summary: .................................................................................................................................... 3
A. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4
hL major ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
hL minor ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
B. Procedure ............................................................................................................................................ 6
C.

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 7

C.1. Pipe A: 90 Degree Elbow Fitting ........................................................................................................ 7


C.2. Pipe A: T-Bend Fitting .......................................................................................................................... 8
C.3. Combined Results ............................................................................................................................... 10
D. Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix A: Raw Data and Measurements .............................................................................................. 12
Appendix B: Normalized and Converted Data .......................................................................................... 16
Appendix D: Determination of Roughness, ............................................................................................ 21
Appendix E: Moody Chart ......................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix F: Determination of KL values ................................................................................................... 23
Appendix G: References ........................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix I: Individual Statements of Contribution .................................................................................. 25

Executive Summary:
The goal of this experiment was to determine the loss coefficients for pipe system components
and the roughness values for straight pipes using experimental data. The effects of Reynolds
number on the friction factors in straight pipes were also investigated. To perform this
experiment, a pipe system consisting of two pipe segments connected perpendicular to one
another with a 90 elbow component or a T-Bend fitting was used. Air was pumped through the
pipes at a designated flow rate and the pressure readings along the pipes were recorded using
taps connected to a digital manometer. The flow rates were determined from a set of three
Reynolds numbers to be tested. For this experiment the Reynolds numbers of 15000, 25000, and
35000 were used to determine the flow, all of which were considered turbulent. From the
pressure values obtained at these three Reynolds numbers the friction factor and roughness for
the straight pipe as well as the loss coefficient for the bend fittings were calculated. The average
friction factors for the 90 elbow and T-Bend configurations were 0.0242 and 0.0296
respectively. The 90 elbow fitting was found to have an average loss coefficient of 0.737 and
the T-Bend was found to have a coefficient of 0.873. This indicated that the 90 elbow
component is a better choice for use in a 90 angle setup as it had the lowest loss coefficient.
The resulting friction factors at different Reynolds numbers did not conclusively show how these
values change with Reynolds numbers. The values did not generally increase or decrease with
an increase in Reynolds number; according to the Moody chart, however, they should have
decreased with increasing Reynolds numbers. For the roughness, measured values were obtained
using equation D.1 and theoretical values were gathered from the Moody chart. Error
calculations showed that the results for roughness were acceptably accurate with maximum
errors of only 13% for the T-Bend. The data also showed that the higher the Reynolds number,
correspond to more accurate the roughness calculations, with an error of only 2.5% for the TBend at a Reynolds number of 35000.

A. Introduction
Turbulent pipe flow tends to be very difficult to quantitatively understand from a purely
theoretical standpoint, so experimental analysis is necessary to place some solid numerical
backing behind this theory. This lab was intended to explore the effects of various flow rates
(and consequently velocity and Reynolds number) on pressure drops through a fixed diameter
pipe system with replaceable joints. This system is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Pipe system


Within a pipe system, there are two types of losses. The first is a Major Loss, and consists of the
head losses due to viscous effects in straight segments of pipe in the system. This will be
hereafter referred to as hL major. The second type is a Minor Loss, and is comprised of losses
generated within components of the pipe system other than the straight pipes themselves. This
will be hereafter referred to as hL minor.

hL major
The viscous effects mentioned earlier are a result of the shear stresses that exist due to interaction
between the pipe wall and the fluid flow. The pressure drop through these systems is known to
be dependent of a number of other parameters, such that:
! = !(!, !, !, !, !, !)
Here V is average velocity, D is the pipe diameter, l is the length of pipe being considered, is
the roughness of the given pipe, is the dynamic viscosity, and is the fluid density.
Two other important quantities for understanding turbulent pipe flow are the Reynolds Number,
hereafter denoted Re, and the roughness to diameter ratio, known as relative roughness, and
calculated as /D. These quantities are used in conjunction with a Moody Chart (Figure E.1) to
generate a true value for the friction factor, f, which is ultimately used to calculate the hL major.
Once the true value for the friction factor has been obtained, the calculation for hL major is:
! !"#$% = !

! !!
! 2!

hL minor
Minor losses are not necessarily minor in relation to major losses. Depending on the exact
configuration of the pipe system in question, they can actually be more significant than the major
losses. These minor losses are generated in components such as elbows, 180-degree bends, tees,
valves, and reducers. As the calculation of hL minor is difficult through traditional means, it is best
to analyze the losses through these elements by computing an equivalent straight pipe length,
denoted KL, which simulates the same reduction in flow energy as the complex element would.
This value is experimentally obtained, and is then used in the calculation of the head loss, hL
minor, through the given element. See Appendix A for detailed values of KL.
Once the correct value for KL is selected, it can be used in a formula similar to that used for
major losses, specifically:
! !"#$% = !!

!!
2!

B. Procedure

1. Initial Measurements and calculations
1.1. Read the barometric pressure prior to conducting experiment
1.2. Determine the temperature of the ambient air
1.3. Record each of the dimensions listed in Figure 1
1.4. Using calipers, measure the ID of the pipe system, and calculate the area from this value
1.5. Calculate the heights, h, on a manometer necessary to achieve a Re value of 15000,
25000, and 35000 through the pipe system.
2. Setup
2.1. Activate the manometer 1 hour prior to testing
2.2. position the yellow dump valve so that the handle is parallel to the pipe it is attached to
(this is fully open)
2.3. Press the green start button to begin running the supply fan and air conditioner
2.4. Calibrate the thermostat at the flow bench to match the temperature recorded previously
2.5. Set the multipoint selector switch set to position 1, and verify that the temperature
displayed on the thermostat still agrees with the ambient reading.
3. Calibration of Instruments and Pipe Flow rate
3.1. To zero the manometer:
3.1.1. Set the three position filter switch to OFF
3.1.2. Set the scale knob to position X1
3.1.3. Use the zeroing knob to adjust manometer until it reads 0.
3.1.4. Move three position filter switch from OFF to HI
3.2. Adjusting flow rate:
3.2.1. position the yellow dump valve so that the handle is parallel to the pipe it is
attached to (this is fully open)
3.2.2. Verify that the valve is open by placing a hand in front of the opening following
the valve, and noting the presence of airflow.
3.2.3. Use the blue dial valve to adjust the flow within the system so that the height, h,
on the manometer reads the appropriate value calculated in step 1.5. Note that if the
correct reading cannot be achieved, slowly close the yellow dump valve until the
reading on the manometer is above the desired reading, then bring back down using
the blue dial valve
4. Pipe A: 90 Degree Elbow Fitting
4.1. Adjust flow until the manometer reads the height that corresponds to Re = 15000, using
the techniques listed in steps 3.2.1 -3.2.3
4.2. Set the knob labeled HP, the high pressure source, to PIPE A
4.3. Set the knob labeled LP , the low pressure source, to R1

4.4. Verify that the position of the handle on the ball valve for pipe A is parallel to the pipe
(fully open), and that the handle on pipe B is perpendicular to the pipe (fully closed)
4.5. Set the selector knob for Pipe A to position 1
4.6. Record the differential pressure displayed on the electronic manometer.
4.7. Repeat steps 4.5 and 4.6 for ports 2-11
5. Pipe A: 90 Degree Tee Fitting
5.1. Replace the 90 degree fitting the with the capped Tee fitting. Verify that the joints are
properly sealed by feeling for any airflow around the joints
5.2. Repeat steps 4.5 -4.7 for this fitting.
6. Shut Down
6.1. Press the red stop button for the fan and air conditioner unit
6.2. Close the blue dial valve completely

C. Results

The raw data and Reynolds number calculations are listed in Appendix A. The pressure at each
tap along with the geometry of the test setup was used to analyze the flow of air through the pipe
and 90 degree elbow and T bends.
C.1. Pipe A: 90 Degree Elbow Fitting
The normalized raw data found in Appendix B was used to create a plot of pressure versus length
along pipe seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Plot of Pressure versus length along pipe for 90-degree elbow setup.
7

The friction factor for each Reynolds number and average friction factor are listed in Table 1.
Details of the calculations of the friction factor are contained in Appendix C.
Table 1. Friction factors for the 90 degree elbow bend setup
Reynolds Number

Friction Factor,

15000
25000
35000
Average

0.0239
0.0266
0.0221
0.0242

Table 2 contains values for the theoretical and measured relative roughness and roughness for
each Reynolds number and the percent error between the theoretical and measured roughness
values. Appendix D contains details of the roughness calculations.
Table 2. Theoretical and measured values of /D and for the 90 degree elbow bend
Reynolds Estimated /D
Number
15000
25000
35000

0 (Smooth)
0.00080
0 (Smooth)

Calculated /D

Theoretical
(mm)

Measured
(mm)

Percent
Error (%)

-0.0185
0.00090
-0.00019

0.0
0.0212
0.0

-0.0490
0.0238
-0.00500

--12.3
---

The calculated values of the loss coefficient for the 90 degree elbow bend are contained in
Table 3. Details of these calculations can be seen in Appendix E.
Table 3. Loss coefficient values for the 90 degree elbow bend
Reynolds
Number

Measured Loss
Coefficient, KL

15000
25000
35000
Average

0.500
0.839
0.873
0.737

C.2. Pipe A: T-Bend Fitting


Figure 3 displays a plot of pressure versus length along pipe for the T-bend setup. Data for this
plot can be found in Appendix B.

Figure 3. Plot of Pressure versus length along pipe for T bend setup.
The friction factor for each Reynolds number and average friction factor are listed in Table 4.
Details of the calculations of the friction factor are contained in Appendix C.
Table 4. Friction factors for the T bend setup
Reynolds Number
15000
25000
35000
Average

Friction Factor,
0.0325
0.0266
0.0296
0.0296

Table 5 contains values for the theoretical and measured relative roughness and roughness for
each Reynolds number and the percent error between the theoretical and measured roughness
values. Appendix D contains details of the roughness calculations.
Table 5. Theoretical and measured values of /D and for the T bend setup
Reynolds Estimated /D
Number
15000
25000
35000

0.0025
0.00080
0.0030

Calculated /D

Theoretical
(mm)

Measured
(mm)

Percent
Error (%)

0.00281
0.00089
0.00308

0.0663
0.0212
0.0795

0.0745
0.0237
0.0815

12.9
11.8
2.52

The calculated values of the loss coefficient for the T bend are contained in Table 6. Details
of these calculations can be seen in Appendix E.
Table 6. Loss coefficient values for the T bend
Reynolds
Number

Measured Loss
Coefficient, KL

15000
25000
35000
Average

0.707
1.09
0.835
0.878

C.3. Combined Results


The combined results from both 90 degree elbow and T bend setups are listed in Table 7.
These results include the overall average friction factor for the pipe, the range of roughness
values, and the average loss coefficients, KL, for each pipe fitting.
Table 7. Average and of pipe and KL of each pipe fitting
Component

Friction Factor,

Roughness, (mm)

Loss Coefficient

Pipe
T-Bend
90 Degree Elbow

0.0269
-----

0.0 0.0815
-----

--0.878
0.737


D. Discussion

The goals of this lab were to determine the effects of Reynolds number on the friction factor for
straight pipes and to find the loss coefficients for both a 90 elbow and T-bend fitting. The
roughness for the straight pipe was also calculated. The calculated results for the roughness were
fairly accurate with the results obtained from the literatures Moody Chart, with errors less than
13%. The results were inconclusive as to what effect increasing the Reynolds number had on the
friction factor. According to the Moody chart, the friction factor should decrease with increasing
Reynolds numbers; however, the calculated friction values from the experiment increased from
15000 to 25000 and then decreased from 25000 to 35000. This discrepancy from the behavior
predicted in the literature was most likely due to the many sources of error present in the
experiment.
One possible source of error came from the pressure readings. The pressure readings at the
reference point for each component and each flow was some value greater than zero (Tables A.5
and A.6), but the problem was that all the reference point readings should have been zero
regardless of the set up. The reason for this discrepancy remains undetermined, however it is
suspected that there was a problem with the machines manometer. This theory was supported
by the fact that when taking readings at the various reference taps, the manometer value never
10

stabilized; instead, it would often slowly decrease, increase, or bounce around randomly.
Readings were taken when the pressure value shown appeared the most stable, however no
reading was ever truly stable. Despite this problem, the data obtained was still used, and to
account for the reference pressure not being zero, the data was normalized (Table B.1 and B.2).
The P values obtained from the data should still be the same, with or without normalizing, so
the high reference pressure should not affect the friction factors calculated. The real problem
with having incorrect reference pressures was the aforementioned implication that the
manometer took incorrect readings. That combined with the unstable pressure readings is where
the error would come from. It is hard to say precisely in what matter or how significantly these
incorrect readings affected the results and the values calculated from the results since the
pressure readings were not consistently incorrect. For instance, when the pressure readings
constantly decreased at one reference tap, then the overall P was probably higher than it should
have been for that section, but if the pressure readings were constantly increasing, then the P
would be smaller than it should have been, making the friction factors higher and lower for each
case respectively. It is likely that this problem caused the bulk of the error of the data, perhaps
causing as much as 50% of the error for the lab.
Another source of error came from the connections between the two different branch
components, the T-bend and the 90 elbow. When components were changed it was necessary to
attempt to perfectly line up both Pipe A and the pipe segment after the branch component with
the openings of the branch component. However, these connections did not line up perfectly
every time, which may have caused small air leakages at the connections. These small leaks
would lead to a greater pressure drop across the component than the ideal situation. According to
equation F1, KL is proportional to P, which means that the increased P across the elbow or Tbend would have resulted in a KL value that was higher than expected. However, the connections
were inspected before each test to verify that no air could be felt escaping from the pipes. This
ensured that any leaks from the connection points were very small, so it is possible that this error
source did not contribute to more than 30% of the errors in our KL values.
The misaligned branch component would also have caused an increase in P because parts of the
pipe ends would be jutting into the airstream at the connection points. These protrusions into the
airstream would have obstructed some of the flow, leading to an increased drop in pressure
across the branch component. As stated above, this greater value for P would have resulted in a
higher experimental KL value. It is difficult to ascertain whether this source of error or the
leakages contributed more to the higher-pressure drops measured, though due to the fact that no
obvious leaks were observed it can be predicted that a greater amount of the error in the KL
results was due to the misalignment of pipes.

11

Appendix A: Raw Data and Measurements


Figure A.1 displays a schematic of the experimental setup.

Figure A.1. Schematic of the experimental piping setup.


Table A.1 contains the measurements of the pipe setup as defined in Figure 1.
Table A.1. Measurements of pipe setup
Interval

Length (mm)

L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
LU
LD
Tap Spacing

25
840
940
840
25
940
253
251
10

Pipe Diameter, D (mm)

26.5

Table A.2 contains the measurements of atmospheric pressure and temperature at the time of the
experiment.
12

Table A.2. Atmospheric pressure and temperature


Atmospheric Pressure
(mm Hg)

Atmospheric
Pressure (kPa)

Ambient
Temperature (F)

Ambient
Temperature (K)

758.4

101.1

75.2

297

Data was to be taken for flow with Reynolds values of 15,000, 25,000, and 35,000. In order to
determine the flow rates necessary to produce these values, the cross-sectional area of the pipe
and the necessary air velocity was calculated by Equations A.1 and A.2 respectively.
A.1
A.2
In these equations D is the pipe diameter, Re is the desired Reynolds number, and is the
kinematic viscosity of air determined by Equation A.3, known as the Sutherland Equation, and
Equation A.4.
A.3
A.4
In these equations is the dynamic viscosity of air, T is the temperature in Kelvin, is the
density of air, and C and S are constants. C and S were determined from known values of at
certain temperatures to be:

The density of the air was determined by the ideal gas equation in Equation A.5.
A.5
In this equation P is the atmospheric pressure in Pascals, T is the temperature in Kelvin, and R is
the gas constant of air. Table A.3 contains the value of R along with the density and kinematic
viscosity of air at the temperature and pressure the experiment was performed at.
Table A.3. Gas constant and Kinematic and dynamic viscosities of air
R (J/(kg*K))

Kinematic Viscosity, (m2/s)

Density, (kg/m3)

287.05

1.54*10-5

1.186

13

Once the values of velocity and area were determined, the flow rate, Q, was found from Equation
A.6.
A.6
The required flow meter pressure, measured in millimeters of mercury, was then determined
from the relationship in Equation A.7.
A.7

The values for velocity, flow rate, and flow meter pressure required for each Reynolds number
are contained in Table A.4.
Table A.4. Velocities, flow rates, and pressure for each Reynolds number
Reynolds Number

Velocity (m/s)

Q (m3/s)

H (mm Hg)

15000
25000
35000

9.21
15.19
21.17

0.0051
0.0084
0.0117

20.0
33.0
46.0

Tables A.5 and A.6 contain the raw data as recorded in the lab for the flow with each Reynolds
number for the 90 degree elbow bend and T bend setup respectively.
Table A.5. Raw data for the 90 degree elbow bend setup
Reynolds Number
Flow Meter, H (mm H2O)

15000

25000

35000

20

33

46

Relative Pressure (mm Hg)

Tap Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

1.10
1.05
1.00
0.96
0.92
0.92
0.56
0.52
0.49
0.46
0.44

2.66
2.55
2.45
2.33
2.25
2.15
0.77
0.65
0.54
0.45
0.35

14

2.66
2.55
2.45
2.33
2.25
2.15
0.77
0.65
0.54
0.45
0.35

Table A.6. Raw data for the T bend setup


Reynolds Number

15000

25000

35000

Flow Meter, H (mm H2O)

20

33

46

Tap Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Relative Pressure (mm Hg)


2.85
2.83
2.8
2.75
2.65
2.6
2.1
2.07
2.02
1.99
1.94

3
2.9
2.81
2.71
2.6
2.5
0.86
0.74
0.63
0.54
0.43

15

5.58
5.35
5.15
4.9
4.6
4.39
1.6
1.35
1.14
0.98
0.76

Appendix B: Normalized and Converted Data


In order to more easily analyze the raw data, the data was normalized so that the pressure reading
at each tap was taken with respect to a zero value of pressure at the eleventh tap. The pressure at
each tap was also converted to Pascals using Equation B.1 and the flow meter pressure to flow
rate, Q, using Equation A.7. Tables B.1 and B.2 contain the normalized raw data and the
distance from tap 1 of each following tap for each experimental setup.
B.1
In this equation PPa is the pressure in Pascals and PmmHg is the pressure in millimeters of mercury.
Table B.1.Normalized and converted data for the 90 degree elbow bend setup
Reynolds Number

15000

25000

35000

0.0051

0.0084

0.0117

Flow Rate, Q (m3/s)


Tap Number

Distance (m)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

0.00
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
1.004
1.104
1.204
1.304
1.404

Relative Pressure (Pa)


88.0
81.3
74.7
69.3
64.0
64.0
16.0
10.7
6.7
2.7
0.0

308.0
293.3
280.0
264.0
253.3
240.0
56.0
40.0
25.3
13.3
0.0

16

544.0
521.3
502.6
481.3
460.0
440.0
96.0
69.3
42.7
25.3
0.0

Table B.2.Normalized and converted data for the T bend setup


Reynolds Number

15000

25000

35000

0.0051

0.0084

0.0117

Flow Meter (m3/s)


Tap Number

Distance (m)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

0.00
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
1.004
1.104
1.204
1.304
1.404

Relative Pressure (Pa)


88.0
81.3
74.7
69.3
64.0
64.0
16.0
10.7
6.7
2.7
0.0

308.0
293.3
280.0
264.0
253.3
240.0
56.0
40.0
25.3
13.3
0.0

17

544.0
521.3
502.6
481.3
460.0
440.0
96.0
69.3
42.7
25.3
0.0

Appendix C: Determination of the Friction Factor,


The friction factor of the pipe was determined by performing a least squares approximation on
the normalized data. Equation C.1 describes the method of least squares approximation.
C.1
In this equation m is the slope of the line of best fit through N data points of pressure, P, versus
length, l. Plots of pressure versus length were created for each Reynolds number of each setup
using Microsoft Excel. Lines of best fit were inserted for taps 1 through 6 and taps 7 through 11
in order to eliminate the effect of the T bend or 90 degree elbow. The plots and the equations
for each line are displayed in Figures C.1 and C.2.

Figure C.1.Plots of pressure versus length for the 90 degree elbow bend setup.

18

Figure C.2. Plots of pressure versus length for the 90 degree elbow bend setup.
In this experiment the pipe flow between taps other than 6 and 7 (where the bend was located)
was modeled by Equation C.2.
C.2
The slope of an equation of a line of best fit corresponds to a value of since the plots are of
pressure versus length. Values of the friction factor, , were found by taking the average of the
slopes from each segment (taps 1 through 6 and taps 1 through 7) for each Reynolds number and
then dividing by (-V2)/(2D), where , V, and D are all known values. The average of theses
values was then taken to find the average friction factor. Table C.1 and C.2 contain values for
the slope of each line segment, the average slopes, the values of (V2)/(2D), and the friction
factors for each Reynolds number for each setup as well as the average friction factor.
19

Table C.1. Friction factors for 90 degree elbow bend setup


Reynolds
Number

Slope of
taps 1-6

15000
25000
35000

-50.7
-136.0
-207.2

Slope of
taps 7-11
-40.0
-138.7
-236.0

Average
slope, mavg

(-V2)/(2D)
(N/m3)

-45.3
-137.3
-221.6

-1897
-5165
-10036

0.0239
0.0266
0.0221

Average

0.0242

Table C.2. Friction factors for T bend setup


Reynolds
Number

Slope of
taps 1-6

Slope of
taps 7-11

Average
slope

(V2)/(2D)
(N/m3)

15000
25000
35000

-70.1
-133.3
-321.8

-53.3
-141.3
-273.3

-61.7
-137.3
-297.6

-1897
-5165
10036

0.0325
0.0266
0.0296

Average

0.0296

The overall average friction factor was found by averaging the average friction value from each
setup. This value was determined to be:
= 0.0269

20

Appendix D: Determination of Roughness,


The measured values of relative roughness, /D, and roughness, , for each Reynolds number of
each test setup was determined from the relationship between the friction factor and the
Reynolds number for turbulent flow (Re > 2100). Equation D.1 defines this relationship.
D.1
The measured values of for each Reynolds number of each setup were used in this equation to
calculate /D for each Reynolds number of each setup. The Moody Chart in Appendix E was
used to find theoretical values of /D for each Reynolds number and corresponding measured
value for each setup. The value for each Reynolds number of each setup is marked on the
Moody Chart. The theoretical and measured values of /D were multiplied by D to obtain values
of roughness. Tables D.1 and D.2 contain the theoretical and measured values of /D and and
the percent error, as determined by Equation D.2, between the measured and theoretical values of
for each setup.
D.2

Table D.1. Measured and Theoretical values of /D and for 90 degree elbow bend
Reynolds
Number
15000
25000
35000

Theoretical
Measured
Relative
Relative
Roughness, /D Roughness, /D
0 (Smooth)
0.00080
0 (Smooth)

Theoretical
Roughness,
(mm)

Measured
Roughness,
(mm)

Percent
Error
(%)

0.0
0.0212
0.0

-0.0490
0.0238
-0.00500

--12.3
---

-0.00185
0.000897
-0.000189

Table D.1. Measured and Theoretical values of /D and for T bend


Reynolds
Number
15000
25000
35000

Theoretical
Measured
Relative
Relative
Roughness, /D Roughness, /D
0.0025
0.00080
0.0030

Theoretical
Roughness,
(mm)

Measured
Roughness,
(mm)

Percent
Error
(%)

0.0663
0.0212
0.0795

0.0745
0.0237
0.0815

12.9
11.8
2.52

0.00281
0.00089
0.00308

21

Appendix E: Moody Chart


Figure E.1 contains a Moody chart with experimental values marked on it used to determine the
theoretical values of relative roughness.

Figure E.1. Moody Chart to determine theoretical relative roughness


Source: http://www.ce.metu.edu.tr/~ce374/images/moodychart.jpg

22

Appendix F: Determination of KL values


The values of KL for the 90 degree elbow bend and T bend were determined from the
relationship between KL and pressure difference, P, as defined in Equation F.2.
F.1
Here P is equal to the pressure before the component minus the pressure after the component.
The pressure before the component was found by taking the pressure at tap 6 and subtracting the
head loss between it and the beginning of the bend. The head loss is equal lV2/(2D). This is
found taking the average slope of the two segments in the pressure versus length graph for the
desired Reynolds number and multiplying it by the length of LU. This operation is defined in
Equation F.2.
F.2
The pressure after the bend was found in a similar manner except that the head loss was added
instead of subtracted since the pressure at tap 7 is lower than the pressure at the end of the bend.
The determination of the pressure after the bend is detailed by Equation F.3.
F.3
Tables F.1 and F.2 contain the values of PBefore, Pafter, P, 2/(V ), and KL for each Reynolds
number of each setup as well as the average values for KL.
Table F.1. Pressure drop and Loss Coefficient values, KL, for 90 degree elbow bend
2

Reynolds
Number

PBefore (Pa)

PAfter (Pa)

P (Pa)

2/(V2)

KL

15000
25000
35000

52.5
205.2
383.9

27.4
90.5
151.6

25.1
114.8
232.3

0.0199
0.0073
0.0038

0.50
0.84
0.87

Average KL

0.74

Table F.2. Pressure drop and Loss Coefficient values, KL, for T bend
Reynolds
Number

PBefore (Pa)

PAfter (Pa)

P (Pa)

2/(V2)

KL

15000
25000
35000

72.4
241.2
408.7

36.8
91.8
186.7

35.6
149.4
222.0

0.0199
0.0073
0.0038

0.71
1.09
0.83

Average KL

0.88

23

Appendix G: References
Munson, Bruce Roy, Donald F. Young, and T. H. Okiishi. Fundamentals of Fluid
Mechanics. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley & Sons, 2009.

24

Appendix I: Individual Statements of Contribution


Sean Stoker:
I was responsible for the calculations, results, and appendices of the report. I also helped in
collectively editing and putting the report together.
Signature__________________________________________ Date________________
Chris Chapman:
-Cover Page
-Introduction
-Procedure
-Editing
Signature__________________________________________ Date________________
Joy Markham
-Executive Summary
-Discussion
-Formatting and Editing
Signature__________________________________________ Date________________
Trevor
-Executive Summary
-Discussion
-Formatting and Editing
Signature__________________________________________ Date________________

25