You are on page 1of 11

University Tenaga Nasional

College of Engineering
Department of Civil Engineering
CEWB121 Fluids Mechanics Laboratory
Laboratory Experiment (5)

(HF 135 HEAD LOSS DUE TO FRICTION IN ROUND SMOOTH PIPES)

Name: Jubair Ahmad Musazay


ID: CE081471
Section: 01
Group Number: 2
Group Members:

1. Wong Sau Ying CE080785


2. Vijayeswary A/P Rangasamy CE081491
3. Man Yin Loh CE081477
4. Young Jack Hon CE081494
5. Soh Ru Vern CE081489
6. Suleiman Zakari Abdulsalam CE080903
7. Yap Cui Yi CE081492

Date of Laboratory session: 12/ 01/ 2009


Date of Report submission: 19/ 01/ 2009

Laboratory Instructor Name: Ms. Faezah Hanum Binti Mansor


No. Reports Allocated Achieved Totals
(%) (%)
1 Performance 5
2 Cover Page 1
3 Table of content 4
4 Objective 5
5 Theory 10
6 Anticipated results 10
7 Apparatus 5
8 Procedure 5
9 Analysis/Results 20
10 Discussion 15
11 Conclusion 10
12 Critique 5
13 References 2
14 Appendix 3
15 Jubair Ahmad Musazay
Table of content

No. Title/ Subject Page

1. Cover Page . 1
2. Table of content . 2
3. Objective 3
4. Theory 3
5. Anticipated Results .. 4
6. Apparatus . 4
7. Procedures 5
8. Results ... 5
9. Discussion . 8
10. Conclusion 8
11. Critique 9
12. References ... 9
13. Appendix .. 10

2
Objective:
The objective of this experiment is to verify that Darcy-Weisbach equation can be used to
predict the head loss due to the friction with flow of water through a smooth bore pipe.

Theory:

For water flowing through a circular pipe, the head loss due to the friction can be
calculated using Darcy-Weisbach equation.

4 2
=
2
Or

2
=
2

Where:
L= Length of pipe between tapping (m) = 1.25m for all pipes
d= Internal diameter of the pipe (m)
v= Mean velocity of water through the pipe (m/s)
g= 9.81 (acceleration due to gravity, m/s2)
f= Pipe friction coefficient (British 4f = [American])

Having established the value of Reynolds number Re for the flow in the pipe, the value of
f can be determined from the Moody diagram.


=

Where:
= Molecular = 1.15 x 10-3 Ns/m2
= Density = 999 kg/m3 at 15C

3
Anticipated Results:

In this experiment, since we are using smooth pipes with different diameters, logically,
one of the things that we can expect is, that flow rate might decrease when we increase
the size of the diameter of the pipe. And since based on the theories, the size of the
diameter of the pipe is inversely proportional with the head loss; we can also expect a
direct proportionality between flow rate and head loss.

Apparatus:

The apparatus which is used to perform this experiment is called HF 135 Piping Loss
Test Set. Figure 5.1 shows a typical diagram of this apparatus.

Figure 5.1: Piping Loss Test Apparatus Diagram

4
Procedure:
1. The flow control valve and the inlet isolating valve were fully opened. The outlet
flow control valve was let open to release trapped air.
2. The isolating valve for test pipe No.1 was opened.
3. The two manometer tubes were inserted into the tapings points. Then the taping
valve was turned into open position. The air was released by opening the air vent
of the manometer.
4. The pump was turned on.
5. The drain was closed and a stopwatch was used to time the amount of water
flowing into the measuring tank.
6. The reading on the manometer was noted down.
7. Once it was done, the drain was opened and the water was left to flow out.
8. The flow of water was changed by regulating the outlet flow control valve.
9. Again, the flow of water and the manometer reading was measured.
10. At least six readings were obtained for various flow rates.
11. The pump was turned off; the isolating valve and taping valve for test pipe No.1.
Were shut down.
12. The manometer tube was inserted into taping point for test pipe No.2 and both the
taping and isolating valve were opened.
13. The pump was run and all the relevant readings were taken.
14. Repeat the above procedures for test pipe No.3.
Results:
PVC Pipe No: 1: Diameter = 1 inch = 0.0254 m

Exp. Head Theo. Error


Q Q h1 h2 loss Pipe Velocity Re head loss (%)
(L/m) (m/s) (m) (m) Hexp diameter V (m/s) Htheo
(mH2O) (m) (mH2O)

20 0.000333 0.023 0.005 0.018 0.0254 0.658 14519 0.0288 0.0313 42.5
25 0.000417 0.085 0.060 0.025 0.0254 0.822 18144 0.0272 0.0461 45.8
30 0.000500 0.155 0.120 0.035 0.0254 0.987 21773 0.0260 0.0635 44.9
35 0.000583 0.220 0.174 0.046 0.0254 1.151 25402 0.0250 0.0831 44.6
40 0.000667 0.290 0.234 0.056 0.0254 1.316 29030 0.0242 0.1051 46.7
45 0.000750 0.375 0.298 0.077 0.0254 1.480 32659 0.0235 0.1291 40.4

5
PVC Pipe No: 2: Diameter = (3/4) inch = 0.0192 m

Exp. Head Theo. head Error


Q Q h1 h2 loss Pipe Velocity V Re loss Htheo (%)
(L/m) (m/s) (m) (m) Hexp diameter (m/s) (mH2O)
(mH2O) (m)

25 0.000417 0.134 0.032 0.102 0.0192 1.439 24003 0.0254 0.175 41.7
30 0.000500 0.210 0.075 0.135 0.0192 1.727 28804 0.0243 0.240 43.7
35 0.000583 0.285 0.113 0.172 0.0192 2.015 33604 0.0233 0.314 45.2
40 0.000667 0.375 0.158 0.217 0.0192 2.303 38405 0.0226 0.468 53.6
45 0.000750 0.460 0.195 0.265 0.0192 2.590 43205 0.0219 0.487 45.6
50 0.000833 0.563 0.233 0.330 0.0192 2.878 48006 0.0213 0.585 43.6

PVC Pipe No: 3: Diameter = (1/2) inch = 0.0127 m

Exp. Head Theo. head Error


Q Q h1 h2 loss Pipe Velocity V Re loss Htheo (%)
(L/m) (m/s) (m) (m) Hexp diameter (m/s) (mH2O)
(mH2O) (m)

15 0.000250 0.120 0.020 0.100 0.0127 1.974 21773 0.0260 0.297 66.3
20 0.000333 0.217 0.038 0.179 0.0127 2.631 29030 0.0242 0.840 78.7
25 0.000417 0.325 0.053 0.272 0.0127 3.289 36288 0.0229 1.243 78.1
30 0.000500 0.430 0.065 0.365 0.0127 3.947 43546 0.0219 1.711 78.7
35 0.000583 0.555 0.072 0.483 0.0127 4.605 50803 0.0210 2.234 78.4
40 0.000667 0.670 0.075 0.595 0.0127 5.263 58061 0.0204 2.835 79.0
Sample of calculations and graphs:
Sample of calculations are based on the Pipe No. 1 with a diameter of 0.0254m. The rest
of the data in the tables are also calculated based on the following manners.
Pipe diameter = 1 in = 0.0254m
0.0013 1 3 3
= 20 = 3.333 104 = 0.000333
1 60

= 1 2 = (0.023 0.005) = 0.018

4 4(0.000333 3 )
= = = = 0.658
2 ((0.0254)2 )

(999 0.658 0.0254)


= = = 14519
(0.00115)

= 4 And since the flow is >4000 and is turbulent flow, then

6
0.079 0.079 0.079
= = > = 4 ( 0.25 ) = 4 (145190.25 ) = 0.0288
0.25

2 0.02881.25(0.658)2
= = = 0.0313
2 (29.810.0254)

0.03130.018
% = | 100| = | 100| = 42.5%
0.313

0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
Lamda

0.015
0.01
0.005
0
14519 18144 21773 25402 29030 32659
Reynolds Number

Figure 5.2: Graph of Lambda versus Reynolds Number (d = 0.0254m)

0.026
0.025
0.024
0.023
Lamda

0.022
0.021
0.02
0.019
24002.98734 28803.58481 33604.18227 38404.77974 43205.37721 48005.97468
Reynolds Number

Figure 5.3: Graph of Lambda versus Reynolds Number (d = 0.0192m)

7
0.03

0.025

0.02
Lamda

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
21772.78851 29030.38468 36287.98086 43545.57703 50803.1732 58060.76937
Reynolds Number

Figure 5.4: Graph of Lambda versus Reynolds Number (d = 0.0127m)

Discussions:
As we were performing this experiment to verify the usage of Darcy equation in getting
head loss, we used the equation and compared our results with our experimental obtained
data. As we see in the tables above, the differences between some of them are big, there
can be different reasons for why we could not get the results as theories. Some of
possible reasons can be as follows:

1. One of the main reasons for getting difference between experimental data and
theoretical data can be the defection of the pipes which connect to the manometer.
The pipes which connect to h1 and h2 in the manometer were leaking which
definitely will distort the reading in the manometer.
2. Not only those connector pipes, but some of other pipes in the system were also
leaking which that could also lead to difference in the experiment.
3. Human error, or in this experiment parallax error can also be one of the reasons
for differences in the experimental results.
4. One of the other reasons for the error can be the equipment failure.
5. Improper handling of equipment can lead to errors as well.
6. Not being consistent with the lab manual procedures and not following the
procedures accordingly and step by step, may lead to committing errors as well.

In addition, the shape of the graph of versus Reynolds number, Re is plotted are
almost similar to the moody diagram. The maximum value of for each pipe is 0.0288,
0.0254, and 0.0260 respectively. The average percentage of difference between the
experimental and theoretical for 3 pipes are 44.15% for pipe 1, 45.57% for pipe 2,
76.53% for pipe 3 which is probably due to errors during the experiment.

8
Conclusion:

According to the objective of this experiment which is to verify that Darcy-Weisbach


equation can be used to predict the head loss due to the friction with flow of water
through a smooth bore pipe, we performed the experiment and found out the relevant
data. First we calculated the head loss from the experimental data and then after that we
calculated to get the same data by using Darcy-Weisbach equation to verify the objective
of this experiment. We verified that we can calculate the theoretical loss by using Darcy-
Weisbach equation.

However, the data the we get using Darcy equation is somehow different from the
experimental data, but that is the percentage difference which is calculated for all of our
trials and are shown in the result part of this laboratory report.

Some of those percentage difference are quite high, but some possible reasons for why
getting a difference value from theory by the experiment is listed down in the discussion
part of this laboratory report.

Besides verifying the usage of Darcy-Weisbach in this experiment, since we used 3


different diameters for the same experiment, we also get to know that the size of diameter
of a pipe is inversely proportional to the head loss. As we see in our data, when we
decreased the size of the diameter of the pipe, the head loss start increasing.

Furthermore, in comparing the curve of the graphs of Lambda versus Reynolds number
that we plotted for each pipe with the curves in the Moody Diagram, we clearly see that
the curves in all three of our graphs are quiet similar with that of the moody diagram. We
can see that our graphs curves can fit into the range of the curves in the moody diagram.

Critique:
The information about the apparatus of this experiment is not sufficient in the
laboratory manual. Actually, only the name has been mentioned.
Pipes connected to reading gauge in this apparatus were all leaking and needed to
be replaced in order to increase the accuracy of the experiment.

Reference:
[1]. Robert L. Mott. Applied Fluid Mechanics. 2006. 6th Ed. SI Units. Singapore.
Pearson Prentice Hall

9
[2]. Manual of the Mechanics of Fluids Laboratory (CEWB121)

Appendix:
List of Symbols Used in the Mechanics of Fluids Laboratory Reports
Calculations
No. Symbol Name Unit
1 a Area
2 d Diameter m or mm

3 Distortive stress

4 g Acceleration due to gravity .

5 h Height m
6 m Mass kg or g

7 p Pressure

8 Pressure at base of liquid column

9 t Thickness m
10 v Velocity

11 V Volume
12 X Co-ordinate m
13 Y Co-ordinate m
14 F Force N
15 L Length m
16 Surface tension

17 Dynamic viscosity

18 Density ^

19 Density of manometer fluid ^

20 v Kinematic viscosity

10
11