This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Summary The aim of this experiment is to measure the system curve of a 54.8 ft long and 0.085 ft diameter system of pipework. It is also desired to establish a calibration curve. The study has been done on liquid water at room temperature. The system curve indicates how much energy is lost in the system in function of the flow rate .In order to determine it two approaches are used in this experiment. One method is realized by measuring physicals properties of the system such as pipe length, pipe diameter flow velocity etc... The other one is derived from conservation of mechanical energy. The pipe roughness builds up on the surface of the duct within time and can lower the overall performance of the system. This parameter has been estimated then reevaluated throughout our work in order to reduce the difference between estimated head loss and measured one. We generate a calibration curve so one can calibrate the measured flow rate to the predicted one and hence predict the head loss. After plotting measured and predict system curve, both curves underlie each others. In consequence the model and actual measure fit well in this experiment. Finally we will determined the head loss of the system at regime that has not been measured during the experiment. Theory and Analysis In this experiment the fluid studied is water at room temperature (68°F to 77 °F). At this condition water can be assume to be an incompressible flow. We can get some physical properties (density, viscosity…) of water at this state. A mechanical energy balance applied on the system helps determine the head loss. By applying (eq 4.74) in Unit Operation of Chemical Engineering (McCabe and Smith):
Paρ+ gZa+αaVa2+ηWp=Pbρ+ gZb+αbVb2+hf (eq 4.74).
Pa and Pb are the pressure at point “a” and point “b” or as an example between inlet and outlet. Pressure at inlet can be determined from pressure transmitter PT03 and the pressure at the outlet is supposed to be atmospheric pressure (14.7 psi). “η” is the pump efficiency; however no shaft works (Wp) is done on the fluid so the term ηWp is set equal to zero. The elevation height between inlet and outlet ΔZ is about 5.5 ft. Initial velocity (Va) can be assumed to be equal to zero and final velocity is measured by gravimetric flow rate. Alpha is a correction factor for kinetic energy and its value is estimated to be 1.05 however, for simplifying our analysis we will consider it equal to 1. The data needed to apply eq 4.74 are available in table 1.
Having those data, we can estimate the head loss (hf) of the system. Head loss can be understood as the part of energy that gets irreversibly lost due to friction and changes in momentum of the fluid streamline. Another method (theoretical) consists to determine friction factor which is function of pipe roughness, pipe diameter and Reynolds number (dimensionless number). Reynolds number is a ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces and can be used as a good indicator for fluid regime (laminar or turbulent). For the different regime we had Reynolds number varied between 9158 and 9210. So all regime here are turbulent. Knowing or guessing the pipe roughness we can determine the friction factor from the Colebrook equation for turbulent flow (eq 8-50) in Cengel and Cimbala:
1f=-2.0logε/D3.7+2.512.51Ref (eq 8-50).
In this equation f is the friction factor, D is the pipe diameter and ε is pipe roughness. This equation is valid only for turbulent flow which corresponds to the regime we having in this experiment. Another way to determine the friction factor is by using the Moody chart and it is suitable for Reynolds number ranging between 103 to 108. Now that we can determine the friction factor, we can calculate the major loss. Minor losses are due to fittings and are also taken in account when total head loss is determined. Fittings disturb streamline and create eddies. The fittings attached to our system are listed in table 1.
Source of K
er of Fitting s Pressure Transmitter (PT03) Pressure Transmitter (PT07) Flow Transmitter (FT02) Flow Transmitter (FT03) 1 1 1 1
K 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.27 Calculated by in the Project Calculated by in the Project Calculated by in the Project Calculated by in the Project Calculated by in the Project Textbook Textbook Textbook Calculated by Textbook using Table and Equations given using Table and Equations given using Table and Equations given using Table and Equations given
using Table and Equations given Flow Transmitter (FT04) 1 0.23 1 inch Pipe Union 5 0.08 90 Degree Bend 11 2.5 45 Degree Bend 2 2.5 Fully Open Gate Valve 2 0.2 using Table 7.3 in annex Fully Open Ball Valve 1 0.05 T - Junction Straight Through Flow 3 0.2 Textbook T - Junction Exit flow at 90 degrees 2 1 Textbook T - Junction Inlet flow at 90 degrees 1 1 Textbook Rotameter 1 3 Given in Project Problem Statement Table 1: number of fittings and K value coefficients (minor losses) for the system of pipework.
The Total head loss is the sum of major and minor loss. The governing equation used to calculate head loss has been obtained from Unit Operation of chemical engineering (McCabe and Smith):
hf=(4f L/D+∑Kl)V2g2 (eq 8.59).
Kl is defined as loss coefficient and depends on the fittings, g is the acceleration due to gravity (32.17ft/s2), L is the pipe length and D the pipe diameter and v is the average fluid velocity.
In table 2 we summarize the data that we collected and processed from the laboratory to generate the system curve of our system of pipe work.
Mean Volume Flow Rate (ft^3/sec) Flow 1 Flow 2 Flow 3 Flow 4 0.50 0.802 1.48 0.397438
Head Loss (ft) 1.104 2.678 8.461 0.657
Stand ard Deviat ion 0.010 0.044 0.018 0.001
Head Loss (ft) theory 1.106806 2.671129 8.469375 0.657411
Standa rd Deviat ion 0.001 0.009 0.007 0.000
From table 2, measured and theoretical system curves are plot for the system of pipework studied during our experiment in figure 1.
When we analyze the system curves obtained in figure 1, we observe a deviation between predicted and measured values. This is mainly due to the guess we made to estimate the roughness of the pipe. In order to obtain the true roughness of the pipe, we minimize the sum of the squared error between measured and predicted values using excel’s solver tool. While minimizing the error, only the roughness cell is changed until its converges to a solution. The value converged to 0.0001049 in whereas our first estimation was 0.00123 in.
A calibration curve is added to the work so we can calibrate the flow rate measured by gravimetric measurement to the one measured by the orifice plate. To do so, volumetric flow rate calculated from the orifice plate is plot as a function of gravimetric flow rate. We obtained the following plot
In summary the experiment conducted to develop a suitable model to predict head loss trough the pipework system is fairly accurate within the
range of 0.40 cu_ft/s to 1.5 cu_ft/s. The mean deviation between predicted value and measured valued for a flow rate of 0.50 cu_ft/s in example, is 0.009 and 0.08 for a flow rate of 0.40 cu_ft/s. The difference between the prediction and the measurement arise from the fact that the water flow rate is not constant all along the experiment. Those variations induce changes in fluid streamlines and momentum. In addition change in pressure and temperature can explain the difference between our model and the actual values. Another source of deviation might arises from the fact that after collecting the data during the experiment, the recorded values obtained from pressure transmitter 3 and 5 (PT03 and PT05) have been corrupted and automatically rounded by the software to the nearest 1/1000. This might affect the accuracy of the measured data. According to the results it looks that the predicted values get close to the measured one at higher regime and the reverse phenomenon at lowest regime. Overall, theory and observations meet in this experiment. However no value have been taken out of the range studied, so we don’t know if the general trend obtained for the studied range will be kept out of the range studied. Thus we recommend collecting more data principally out of the range studied (0.3 ft3/min to 1.3 ft3/min) if time is available. In order to predict the head loss at different regime, we fit a quadratic equation (eq.1) to the plot we obtained from head loss (estimated, measured and mean) versus flow rate (see figure 3).
The quadratic equation relates head loss in function of flow rate: hl = 3.603V2 + 0.3829V (eq. 1) hl is the head loss in ft and V is the volumetric flow rate in ft3/s. According to eq 1, the expected head loss at 50 GPM (6.68 ft3/min) is to be 163.33 ft. To compensate the head loss one can add a pump which will compensate the calculated head loss (163.33 ft) to the system. When we calibrate the volumetric flow rate we obtained a head loss of 123.33 ft. By comparing both values it is better to choose a pump that will compensate 163.33 ft of head loss. In case that the work done by the pump is higher than what is needed one can still adjust the pump to deliver more head to the system. As we mentioned above it will be wise to obtained more value at different range of
volumetric flow rate so one can know the general trend of the system curve at a wider range.
References lists: Yunus A. Cengel, John M. Cimbala (2006). Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Application. New York: McGraw-Hill. Warren L. McCabe, Julian C. Smith, Peter Harriott (2005). Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.