20 views

Uploaded by Mayisha Fabliha

Fluids Report

- MAEG 3030 Topic 1_v1
- Pressure Drop in Pipe Fittings and Valves
- Pressure Drop Calculation
- Huldra Initial Experiences in Real-Time Multiphase Pipeline Modelling
- 1. Mechanical - IJMPERD - Inertia Effect Under Couple Stress Fluid in Porous Journal Bearing
- Reynolds Number
- SPE-71074-MS
- 10.11648.j.ijepe.20150404.14
- Laminar Pipe Flow
- t12_s03
- Mezcla liquida
- Eme
- CFD Calculation of Turbulent Flow With Arbitrary Wall Roughness
- Reference Manual.pdf
- 8 pipe note 3
- Lab 402222 to Submit
- moody.xls
- 2005022300974 Kah
- Forced and Natural Convection
- lab.docx

You are on page 1of 25

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.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.

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

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

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

Figure A.1 displays a schematic of the experimental 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

26.5

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

experiment.

12

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))

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

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

Reynolds Number

15000

25000

35000

20

33

46

Tap Number

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

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

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

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

Reynolds Number

15000

25000

35000

0.0051

0.0084

0.0117

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

theoretical values of relative roughness.

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

22

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

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

- MAEG 3030 Topic 1_v1Uploaded byJohn Choi
- Pressure Drop in Pipe Fittings and ValvesUploaded bymxjoe
- Pressure Drop CalculationUploaded byEbby Onyekwe
- Huldra Initial Experiences in Real-Time Multiphase Pipeline ModellingUploaded bysaifoa
- 1. Mechanical - IJMPERD - Inertia Effect Under Couple Stress Fluid in Porous Journal BearingUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- Reynolds NumberUploaded byLuqman Yusof
- SPE-71074-MSUploaded byRamanamurthy Palli
- 10.11648.j.ijepe.20150404.14Uploaded byephrem
- Laminar Pipe FlowUploaded byFlyNarutoFly27
- t12_s03Uploaded bytheeta88
- Mezcla liquidaUploaded byAlejandro Castillo Vélez
- EmeUploaded byBernard Baluyot
- CFD Calculation of Turbulent Flow With Arbitrary Wall RoughnessUploaded bygorot1
- Reference Manual.pdfUploaded byBárbara Voltarelli
- 8 pipe note 3Uploaded byAnastasia Monica Khunniegalshottest
- Lab 402222 to SubmitUploaded byvictor
- moody.xlsUploaded byJF CM
- 2005022300974 KahUploaded bymekoxxx
- Forced and Natural ConvectionUploaded byamin
- lab.docxUploaded byshags
- Pipe FlowUploaded byPatrickAndrade
- VEERESH FUSKELEUploaded byVeeresh Fuskele
- fluid lab 4Uploaded byHusni N. Abdulhadi
- TutorialCAElinuxUploaded byBibin Mathew Jose
- Calcul des réseausx aeroliquesUploaded bynadjib62
- H.K. Moffatt- Magnetic eddies in an incompressible viscous fluid of high electrical conductivityUploaded byYokdm
- WCEE2012_0638Uploaded byDavid Rocha
- Jurnal Sfc a Study on the Onset of Turbulent Conditions With SfcUploaded bylia farmasi
- 3_cherry.pdfUploaded byManu Chakkingal
- kypipe reference manual.pdfUploaded byOmnia Elbaz

- WHMIS LabVersion Aug2012 %5b4 Pages%5dUploaded byMayisha Fabliha
- Final InfographicUploaded byMayisha Fabliha
- DAN 6 ExampleUploaded byMayisha Fabliha
- Introduction to Conformal MappingUploaded byBrian Pinto
- Home Cmplab HTML Bbs Data Pds0085 2Uploaded byChristian Huerta Solano
- 6106_03_msc_20090206Uploaded byMayisha Fabliha
- Midterm 2 F09Uploaded byMayisha Fabliha
- Fundamentals of Aerodynamics - John d. Anderson, Jr. - Insructor's Solution ManualUploaded byspatra8
- Chap 5Uploaded bySantosh S Dengle
- MATH317 Notes After MidtermUploaded byMayisha Fabliha
- MECH 383-Lab 1Uploaded byMayisha Fabliha
- Lecture 9 - CNC Technology and Economics of Machining-W15Uploaded byMayisha Fabliha
- Lecture 10 - Abrasive Machining and Finishing Operation-W15Uploaded byMayisha Fabliha
- InertiaUploaded byMayisha Fabliha
- A 3 Social NetworkUploaded byMayisha Fabliha
- 1.2 How Does the CLS Synch Rot Ron WorkUploaded byMayisha Fabliha
- ocr_7770_sam_gce_unit_f325Uploaded byMayisha Fabliha

- Cancer ElectrotherapyUploaded bymich
- 0805.2440Uploaded byDhavala Bhargav
- Offer and AcceptanceUploaded byPonnilavan Sibi
- Labuan IBFC Business Guide2Uploaded byiori42
- 5 DIRECTED WRITING (HOPs 2).pdfUploaded bymmustasari
- Broadband Wireless Communication Systems_Channel ModelingUploaded byDasun Srimal Athukorala
- Document 2 (Support for Plaintiff's motions)Uploaded byBarbara Allen
- 1 arnes.pdfUploaded byAnonymous goIn6wA3K
- Symposium on Revelation2Uploaded byzcapt
- A Guide to the Pompeii ExcavationsUploaded bydin
- 05. Measurement Theory and Accounting Measurement System (Part II) - 26 Mar 2015 - GSLCCCCCCCCUploaded byNovi Somerhalder
- Cathodic Protection - Quality Control ProcedureUploaded byAhmed Gomaa
- Munsat chapter6Uploaded byProfessor Stephen D. Waner
- Proceedings The 3rd International Language and Language Teaching Conference - LLTC 2016Uploaded byyuli wirawan
- HungarianUploaded byJunaid Ahmed
- Chapter 11 Evans BermanUploaded bythesimple
- 1. Consigna vs. PeopleUploaded byElreen Pearl Agustin
- Book review - Delivering HappinessUploaded byHiral Patel
- Stupidest happiness mistake is knowing what is happy and yet not choosing it.docxUploaded byShweta Chavan
- Translated by Annie Besant - The Bhagavad-gita or the Lord's Song-london and Benares Theosophical Publishing Society (1903)Uploaded byharoldpsb
- RefractionUploaded byAman Lilani
- Honor KillingsUploaded byAisha Khawar Butt
- Image Identification SystemUploaded bySwathi As
- TDSB Equity Inclusive Curriculum - See Page 10 !Uploaded byAngie Reid
- Ecology of the Microbiome of the Infected Root Canal System a Comparison Between Apical and Coronal Root SegmentsUploaded byJing Xue
- Asis vs AsisUploaded byAnonymous 5MiN6I78I0
- SAGE Open Article Editor Quick Start GuideUploaded bydondon
- Complete Winter WheelsUploaded bydomedc
- Computational Information Design by Ben FryUploaded byDustin Cook
- Q4 Scimagojr 2016 Subject Category - MultidisciplinaryUploaded byAna Nurganah Ch