This is an experiment realize to develop a model suitable to predict friction effect on a system of pipe work.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

1.4K views

This is an experiment realize to develop a model suitable to predict friction effect on a system of pipe work.

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- FRICTION LOSSES IN STRAIGHT PIPE
- Fluid Friction Apparatus FINAL!!
- Fluid Friction
- Fluid Friction
- FRICTION LOSSES IN PIPES CONSISTING OF BENDS AND ELBOWS
- Pipe Flow
- Expt 1 - Friction Loses in Pipes
- FLUID LAB Friction
- Fluid Friction
- Fluid Properties - Density & Surface Tension
- Flow Over Weirs
- Head Loss Due to Pipe Fitting
- Lab 4 Contamination Test FAIZUAN
- 22293861 California Bearing Ratio Report
- FRICTION LOSSES IN PIPES
- Lab report
- Experiment 4 Stuructur
- Fluid Friction in Pipes
- Exp 5 Head Loss Due to Friction 2012
- Uniform Flow

You are on page 1of 8

Group I

Sessouh Akowanou

Jason Fields

Joe Mitchell

Shea Robinson

February 24 2010

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.

°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):

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.

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:

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.

er of

Fitting

s K

Pressure Transmitter Calculated by using Table and Equations given

(PT03) 1 0.36 in the Project

Pressure Transmitter Calculated by using Table and Equations given

(PT07) 1 0.36 in the Project

Calculated by using Table and Equations given

Flow Transmitter (FT02) 1 0.36 in the Project

Calculated by using Table and Equations given

Flow Transmitter (FT03) 1 0.27 in the Project

Calculated by using Table and Equations given

Flow Transmitter (FT04) 1 0.23 in the Project

1 inch Pipe Union 5 0.08 Textbook

90 Degree Bend 11 2.5 Textbook

45 Degree Bend 2 2.5 Textbook

Fully Open Gate Valve 2 0.2 Calculated by using Table 7.3 in annex

Fully Open Ball Valve 1 0.05 Textbook

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):

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.

Stand Standa

Head ard rd

Mean Volume Flow Loss Deviat Head Loss Deviat

Rate (ft^3/sec) (ft) ion (ft) theory ion

Flow

1 0.50 1.104 0.010 1.106806 0.001

Flow

2 0.802 2.678 0.044 2.671129 0.009

Flow

3 1.48 8.461 0.018 8.469375 0.007

Flow

4 0.397438 0.657 0.001 0.657411 0.000

From table 2, measured and theoretical system curves are plot for the

system of pipework studied during our experiment in figure 1.

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

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.

equation (eq.1) to the plot we obtained from head loss (estimated, measured

and mean) versus flow rate (see figure 3).

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:

and Application. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chemical Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Annex:

- FRICTION LOSSES IN STRAIGHT PIPEUploaded bywhoelse_i
- Fluid Friction Apparatus FINAL!!Uploaded byYara A. Valenzuela Quiros
- Fluid FrictionUploaded byVinay Kumar
- Fluid FrictionUploaded bycakhoa
- FRICTION LOSSES IN PIPES CONSISTING OF BENDS AND ELBOWSUploaded bywhoelse_i
- Pipe FlowUploaded byStephen Mirdo
- Expt 1 - Friction Loses in PipesUploaded byFauzi Helmi
- FLUID LAB FrictionUploaded byKazankapov Nurlan
- Fluid FrictionUploaded byLuqman Yusof
- Fluid Properties - Density & Surface TensionUploaded byStephen Mirdo
- Flow Over WeirsUploaded byfarahhanamejeni
- Head Loss Due to Pipe FittingUploaded bymhk001
- Lab 4 Contamination Test FAIZUANUploaded byfaizuanismail
- 22293861 California Bearing Ratio ReportUploaded bysijuwolaoluranti
- FRICTION LOSSES IN PIPESUploaded bykelechi24
- Lab reportUploaded byWilliam Liew
- Experiment 4 SturucturUploaded bymie9393
- Fluid Friction in PipesUploaded byMradul Yadav
- Exp 5 Head Loss Due to Friction 2012Uploaded byMohd Khairi
- Uniform FlowUploaded byNur Falini Mohd Sukkri
- Friction Loss in PipeUploaded bynextdarklord
- Experiment 2Uploaded bySyira Sofyan
- Lab 5 Thermo FluidsUploaded byAimiWani
- drilling fluid contamination testUploaded byHumaira Mirza
- Experiment 12 Fluid Friction (1)Uploaded byHadoosh27
- Fluids Lab Friction LossesUploaded byArvin Bhurtun
- Lab Mud solid content determinationUploaded byIngenieur Khairuddin Ngah
- Full Report Bernoulli Experiment TiqaUploaded byAtiqah Samad
- Impact of a JetUploaded byKamarul Yusri
- Exp ring n ballUploaded bySiti Aishah Sahul Hamid

- ANSI.ahri Standard 210.240 With Addenda 1 and 2Uploaded byJibrain Mazariego
- Altaeros Press Release032712Uploaded byKarbonKale
- Boiler 1Uploaded byAmanullah Khan
- Https Www.tcsion.com Online Uppcl HTML PDF Uppcl135d156 1706037 Uppcl135d156e1Uploaded byvanshaj
- Chap.-2 Welding ProcessesUploaded byRadhe Shyam Jaiswal
- Flow Over A Circular Cylinder.docxUploaded byMOFEEZALAM
- Plant Technology EnUploaded bykmilind007
- Svsu Mechanical Engineering Laboratory and Machine Shop PoliciesUploaded byhari0118
- 1. Jarle Hausberg - GRP Pipe Solutions in Hydro Power ProjectsUploaded bygc_pancha
- CNDI - Elections DAUploaded byAffNeg.Com
- XPM3m_ReflowPlatform_013113webUploaded byxguest2k
- Energy Efficiency Finance: Assessing the Impact of IFC's China Utility-Based Energy Efficiency Finance ProgramUploaded byWorld Bank Publications
- HGTG30N60B3Uploaded byLuis Carlos
- General Catalogue Push Fittings RC 0135ENUploaded bywodr
- Powerweare Eaton UPS1037G 9315 300 Install RelUploaded byEdmund Yoong
- 4 IR SpectroscopyUploaded byrajaraghuramvarma
- g484 module 3 4 3 3 thermal properties of materialsUploaded byapi-236179294
- Ls02_cap_bankUploaded bydelvin26
- MECH 1100 Quiz 4 practice.pdfUploaded byKloyd Eurolfan
- Fisher Scientific - Isotemp Microbiological IncubatorsUploaded byButton Davidson
- Lecture 02 Running EnergyPlusUploaded byJoanne Sia
- Atmospheric Discharge FinalUploaded byTon Phichit
- Uleiuri - A001063_00EUploaded byDiaconescu Lucian
- Mercedes Fuel Tank Class Action - Amended Complaint - FINALUploaded bymatt2548
- 634348580037553750.pdfUploaded bybacuoc.nguyen356
- H2 Physic 2008 A Level SolutionsUploaded byonnoez
- Zapi H2B Manual.pdfUploaded byJose Luis Herrera Manrique
- QDR-4000_TM_C_03Uploaded bydantenuevo
- Walter John a Case Study in Ref Energy Imp_Chevron ESUploaded byAlexey Dolgov
- Coilgun BlueprintsUploaded byjumpupdnbdj