3.0K views

Original Title: lab report 4 major minor losses

Uploaded by api-340528322

- Fluid Mechanics_Impact of Jet Vanes_experiment
- Lab report. pressure loss in pipe systems
- Lab Report 2- Head Loss in Pipe & Bends
- Major and Minor Losses in Pipes
- FRICTION LOSSES IN STRAIGHT PIPE
- FRICTION LOSSES IN PIPES CONSISTING OF BENDS AND ELBOWS
- Minor losses in bends lab report.docx
- Energy Loss in Pipes
- Pipe Flow
- IMPACT OF A JET report
- Experiment 1 - Friction Losses in Pipes-report
- Minor Losses in pipes
- Flow Over a Broad-crested Weir Exp4
- Bernoulli’s theorem Experiment
- LAB REPORT Flowmeter
- FRICTION LOSSES IN PIPES
- SERIES & PARALLEL PUMP TEST
- Experimental Determination of an Orifice Discharge Coefficient
- Efficiency of the Centrifugal Pump-lab Report
- Hydrostatic Force Final

You are on page 1of 7

Roger Smith

Team 3

Abstract. In pipes, major loss in straight sections is caused by friction and minor loss is caused

by fittings, both resulting in a drop in pressure. Major and minor losses can substantially affect

the effectiveness and efficiency of a given fluid transport system. Experiments were performed to

measure the effect of diameter on the Darcy friction factor (f) in two five-foot copper pipe

sections using a Technovate fluid circuit system and the effect of fitting type on the minor loss

coefficient (" ) for a long elbow, sudden enlargement, sudden contraction, medium elbow, short

elbow, and right-angle fitting using a Edibon Energy Losses in Bends Module FME05. Friction

factors obtained ranged from 0.0023 to 0.0192 for the smaller (9.53-mm-diameter) pipe section

and from 0.0005 to 0.0260 for the larger (12.7-mm-diameter) pipe section, with values that most-

closely reflected theoretical values occurring with higher pressure drop readings and velocity

squared values. The highest minor loss coefficients were also observed at higher velocity

squared values and pressure drop readings, with average values ranging from a low of 0.08 for

the sudden enlargement fitting to a high of 0.46 for the right-angle fitting.

Keywords: Major loss, minor loss, Darcy friction factor, minor loss coefficient, Colebrook

equation

Introduction

A pressure drop occurs when a flow experiences friction in a straight pipe section, and this loss is

referred to as major loss. Pressure loss that occurs when a fluid encounters fittings, such as

values, bends, inlets, outlets, expansions, or contractions is (typically, although not always) less

substantial when compared to frictional effects and, as a result, referred to as minor loss. The

properties and effects of major and minor losses apply to numerous man-made and natural

phenomena, ranging from large-scale industrial systems to microscopic biological systems and

compose a significant consideration when designing fluid transport systems. The design of

nuclear reactors, for example, involves a very careful development of such systems and the

losses involved, as piping geometry and loss-of-coolant play a very important role in the overall

effectiveness and safety of the system (Bowden and Yang, 2016).

This lab seeks to develop a deeper understanding of major and minor losses and the physical

properties related to each.

Objectives

The objectives of these experiments were to (1) measure the effect of pipe diameter on friction

factor (major loss) and (2) measure the effect of fittings (minor loss) in pipes with flowing fluid.

1

Materials and Methods

Equipment

The equipment used for this lab was a Technovate fluid circuit system for the major loss portion

and an Edibon Energy Losses in Bends Module FME05, pictured below, for the minor loss

portion.

Procedure

Major Loss

Two five-foot pipe sections with diameters of 9.53 mm and 12.7 mm were observed. The flow

rate of the system was controlled with a valve, and six readings for pressure drop across the

orifice and pipe section were recorded. The data collected began in full flow and became more

restricted as the valve was tightened following each incremental reading taken.

Pressure drop across the orifice was used to determine the volumetric flow rate (), while

pressure drop across the pipe () was used to calculate the friction factor (). The pressure drop

across the orifice was multiplied by water density of 998.3 kg m-3 and gravity to arrive at

pressure loss value in pascal units. The pressure drop across the pipe was kept in terms of head

loss (m). The data obtained was entered into Microsoft Excel for analysis and evaluated with

theoretical equations listed below. The properties of water at room temperature of 20C were

used for all calculations.

,.

= (1)

r 56b7

where:

= cross-sectional area of orifice (m2)

2

89

r = density of water :;

= discharge coefficient of orifice

= pressure drop across orifice (Pa)

:;

= volumetric flow rate 89

:

b = orifice inner diameter to outer diameter ratio

:

The discharge coefficient ( ), inner orifice diameter and outer orifice diameter were provided

with values of 0.656, 0.015875 m, and 0.026035 m, respectively. The diameter ratio (b ) was

Once volumetric flow rate was known, the Darcy friction factor was obtained by rearranging the

following equation:

" ?@

=

(2)

> ,9

where:

= head loss across pipe section (m)

= friction factor

:

= gravity B@

:

= velocity B

Velocity () was calculated by dividing the volumetric flow rate by the cross-sectional area of

each pipe, using inner diameter values of 6.29 mm and 8.38 mm, per typical ratio diameter

values for copper pipes derived from the Engineering Toolbox online resource. Known values

for the equation were entered for each velocity squared ( , ) value, and theoretical values were

calculated using the Colebrook equation, using a pipe roughness () value of 0.0015 mm (Cengel

and Cimbala, 2011).

Minor Loss

The Edibon module contained the follow six fittings with corresponding tap numbers: long

elbow (tap 1 and 2), sudden enlargement from 20 to 40 mm (tap 3 and 4), sudden contraction

from 40 to 20 mm (tap 5 and 6), medium elbow (tap 7 and 8), short elbow (tap 9 and 10), and

right-angle miter (tap 11 and 12). All fittings were attached to a shared 20-mm base line.

A control valve was used to control flow rate, and six flow rate and pressure readings were taken

until the right-angle pressure drop nearly leveled-out. The reading intervals were spaced into 30-

second intervals. Because the flow rate volume (in liters) was measured for each interval, the

volumetric flow rate was obtained by dividing volume by each 30 s time interval.

The data obtained was again entered into Microsoft Excel, and the minor loss coefficient (" )

was obtained by rearranging the following equation:

3

?@

= "

(3)

,9

where:

= head loss (m)

:

= velocity B

:

= gravity

B@

The cross-sectional area used to determine velocity from volumetric flow rate reading was

calculated using a 20-mm diameter, because that was a pipe diameter that was shared and could

be applied across all fittings for the purposes of calculation.

Head loss () was then plotted across each fitting versus the square of velocity, and theoretical

resistance coefficient values provided by Fox et al were compared to the values calculated from

the data obtained. The minor loss coefficient data was further analyzed using relative error in

order to obtain insight into the magnitude of the difference between the experimental and

theoretical values.

The results and findings of the experiment and subsequent analysis are outlined in the following

section.

For the 9.53-mm-diameter pipe section, experimental and theoretical values displayed a

relatively wide discrepancy in value at lower velocity, but trended toward one another as squared

velocity increased. Velocity squared ranged from 8.58 m2 s-2 at full flow to 0.365 m2 s-2 at the

low flow and, correspondingly, the lowest level of pressure drop (62.2 Pa). The friction factor

tended to increase as velocity squared increased for the experimental data, while the friction

factor decreased for the theoretical data, although the highest experimental friction factor

(0.0192) occurred in the middle of the data set (fig. 1).

4

0.040

Experimental Theoretical

0.035

0.030

0.020

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

Figure 1. Experimental and Theoretical results for friction factor versus square of velocity for 9.53-mm-diameter five-foot pipe section.

In regard to friction observed and pressure loss, experimental and theoretical values suggest

friction values may be more accurately reflected when a higher level of pressure loss (and a

higher corresponding velocity squared value) is observed in the pipe.

For the 12.7-mm-diameter pipe section, experimental values, as with the smaller diameter pipe

section, displayed a larger discrepancy at lower squared velocity values but trended toward

equaling out as each increased, per figure 2. A higher velocity squared value also corresponded

with a higher pressure drop reading, again suggesting higher pressure loss readings may result in

more accurate friction factor values.

0.035

0.03

0.025

Friction Factor f

0.02

0.015

Experimental Theoretical

0.01

0.005

0

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Square of Velocity (m2/s2)

Figure 2. Experimental and Theoretical results for friction factor versus square of velocity for 12.7-mm-diameter five-foot pipe section.

In regard to minor loss, the average value for all pressure loss readings was used to determine the

experimental loss coefficient for each fitting. The data suggested higher velocity values

translated into a higher loss coefficient (F ) values, and each progressed with a mostly-linear

5

trendline (fig. 3). The right-angle fitting displayed highest resistance coefficient (0.46), while the

sudden enlargement fitting displayed the lowest (0.08).

0.060

0.050 y = 0.0237x

Long Elbow

y = 0.0167x

0.040 Sudden Enlargement

y = 0.0142x

Head Loss (m)

Sudden Contraction

0.030

0.020

y = 0.0055x

Right Angle

0.010

Medium Elbow

y = 0.0043x

0.000

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Figure 3. Head loss versus square of velocity for short, medium and long elbow, enlargement, contraction, and right-angle fittings.

A comparison of experimental and theoretical loss coefficient values are outlined in table 1. All

values obtained reflect a high level of relative error, with values ranging from a high of 86.4%

for the sudden enlargement fitting to a low of 17.7% for the sudden contraction fitting.

Table 1. Minor loss in pipe fittings - experimental and theoretical loss coefficient values and corresponding relative error.

Theoretical

Experimental Loss

Fitting Loss Coefficient Coefficient Relative Error

(K) (K) (%)

In order to further analyze the minor loss coefficient data, the conditions under which the

experimental data most-closely resembled theoretical data were considered. The experimental

loss coefficient values for each fitting and corresponding flow velocities were compared to the

theoretical values, and the value that most-closely reflected the theoretical value was marked.

The results are displayed in table 2.

Table 2. Most-closely-related experimental and theoretical resistance coefficient values and corresponding relative error

and square of velocity values.

Fitting Experimental Loss Coefficient Theoretical Loss Coefficient Relative Error Square of Velocity

2 2

(K) (K) (%) (m s )

6

Long Elbow 0.25 0.25 1.00% 0.476

While square of velocity values ranged from a high of 2.21 m2 s-2 to a low of 0.138 m2 s-2,

experimental loss coefficient values most closely resembled theoretical values for the long

elbow, sudden contraction, and right-angle values when the square of velocity was at the mid-

range level of 0.476 m2 s-2. The experimental loss coefficient values most closely reflected

theoretical values for the sudden enlargement, medium elbow, and short elbow when the square

of velocity and head loss reached their lowest levels of 0.138 m2 s-2 and 0.001, 0.001, and 0.003,

respectively.

Conclusions

The major loss effect of pipe diameter on friction factor for two five-foot straight copper pipe

sections and the minor loss effect of a long elbow, sudden enlargement, sudden contraction,

medium elbow, short elbow, and right-angle fitting for flowing fluid was observed.

Major and minor loss values most-closely reflected theoretical values when higher pressure drop

readings and velocity squared values were observed. Friction factors for the 9.53-mm-diameter

and 12.7-mm-diameter copper pipe sections obtained ranged from 0.0023 to 0.0192 and from

0.0005 to 0.0260, respectively. Average values for minor loss coefficient values ranged from the

lowest value of 0.08 for the sudden enlargement fitting to the highest value 0.46 for the right-

angle fitting and progressed with a mostly-linear trendline as pressure loss and velocity squared

increased.

References

Bowden, R.; Yang, S. (2016). Experimental Investigation of Two-Phase Bubbly Flow Pressure

Drop Across a Horizon Pipe Containing 90 Bends. CNL Nuclear Rev., 6(1), 55-69.

Cengel, Y.; Cimbala, J. (2011). Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications (3rd ed.). New

York, NY: The McGraw-Hill Company.

Fox, R.; McDonald, A., Pritchard, P. (2012). Fluid Mechanics (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John

Wiley & Sons.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/copper-tubes-dimensions-d_357.html

- Fluid Mechanics_Impact of Jet Vanes_experimentUploaded byRavi Agarwal
- Lab report. pressure loss in pipe systemsUploaded byNidhin K
- Lab Report 2- Head Loss in Pipe & BendsUploaded byChris Ang
- Major and Minor Losses in PipesUploaded byanjalid91
- FRICTION LOSSES IN STRAIGHT PIPEUploaded bywhoelse_i
- FRICTION LOSSES IN PIPES CONSISTING OF BENDS AND ELBOWSUploaded bywhoelse_i
- Minor losses in bends lab report.docxUploaded byalex starrett
- Energy Loss in PipesUploaded byRo Win
- Pipe FlowUploaded byStephen Mirdo
- IMPACT OF A JET reportUploaded byKyra Claire Zaharr
- Experiment 1 - Friction Losses in Pipes-reportUploaded byKhairil Ikram
- Minor Losses in pipesUploaded byRam Krishna Singh
- Flow Over a Broad-crested Weir Exp4Uploaded byAhmad Ismail
- Bernoulli’s theorem ExperimentUploaded byT/ROX
- LAB REPORT FlowmeterUploaded byahlan wasahlan
- FRICTION LOSSES IN PIPESUploaded bykelechi24
- SERIES & PARALLEL PUMP TESTUploaded byEngr. Ikhwan Z.
- Experimental Determination of an Orifice Discharge CoefficientUploaded byAlbert Kaltenthaler V
- Efficiency of the Centrifugal Pump-lab ReportUploaded byEbutalib Allahverdiyev
- Hydrostatic Force FinalUploaded byChala1989
- Energy Loss in Pipe and FittingsUploaded byMuhd Fadhil Nazer
- Energy Losses in Pipe Exp-09Uploaded byAditya Mehta
- Head Loss Due to Pipe FittingUploaded bymhk001
- Bernoulli's Theorem ExperimentUploaded byMimi Hashim
- Bernoulli's Theorem Demonstration Lab Report UitmUploaded byMXR-3
- Observation and Analysis of Results, Conclusion, RecommendationUploaded byJerome Magno
- Lab 4-Friction Losses and Minor LossesUploaded byJJ Sean Cruz
- Impact of Jet on VanesUploaded byanil chejara
- Energy Losses in BendsUploaded byVikramSingh
- CALIBRATION OF A PRESSURE GAUGEUploaded byneutron_87

- Ravi Rate ListUploaded byRAVI BARTIA
- (BK16110189)_EXPERIMENT(8)_KM20701-1718-1(group5)Uploaded byMohd Afrizhan
- DUCT-SOX Manual Ingenieria y DiseñoUploaded byJeferson Binay-an
- Datasheet for Restriction OrificeUploaded bySujith Sekar
- Manifold Catalog June 02Uploaded byDavid Pabon
- TEST ON FLUID MECHANICS.docxUploaded byJonathan Green
- Manual de DestilacionUploaded bychispan
- Orifice Definition, Description, Equation, ApplicationUploaded byKenneth Agra
- ConvertUploaded byJoe Verghese
- Control-Oriented Model of a Common Rail InjectionUploaded byArman Hamidi
- Wet Gas Metering by Isokinetic Sampling (1)Uploaded byCRT Services
- Analysis of the Effects of Valve Propagated Pressure Surge on Pipe Flow.pdfUploaded bySantanu Karar
- Mechanics of Fluid November Am Rr212101Uploaded byNizam Institute of Engineering and Technology Library
- Handout 2012Uploaded bycemekaobi
- Safety Valve Desig1Uploaded byHalomoan Daniel
- 62005_14Uploaded byemadsafy
- FlowUploaded byDeshbhushan Sangale
- Hydraulic Servo Valve Construction Plus MoogUploaded byAnil Kumar
- Cavitation PreventionUploaded byLuisSilva
- Thumb Rules for Chemical EngineerUploaded byNallathambi
- LNG vapor dispersion from atmospheric relief valveUploaded bySOROUSH
- ASE-334Uploaded bymeesam.raza
- User_manual_HMG_3000_V03_E_2012-09-21Uploaded byVincent Coss
- Is a 106Uploaded byhespinoza_ar
- 42543.pdfUploaded byBalaji Bobade
- Rumus2 IUploaded byIlham Akbar
- FMDUUploaded byJoão Vitor Apolinário Ferreira
- Pneumatic Comparators (Metrology)Uploaded byLarry Smith
- FlowLabEOC2e_CH08Uploaded bytomekzawistowski
- Densitometer Intallation and OperationUploaded byMehmet Soysal