Major and Minor Losses and Their Effects on

Fluid Flow
Ian Schlosser
Group 1
BSEN 3310
Abstract: Major and minor losses play a large role in designing a flowing fluid system. The
mere geometry of a pipe or duct will alter the velocity and pressure of the contained fluid.
Experiments were done to determine the effect that pipe length and diameter have on the head
loss of the fluid. Experiments were also done to determine the effect that different pipe fittings
had on the head loss of the fluid. These two experiments studied major loss and minor loss
respectively. It was determined that the friction factor is inversely proportional to the velocity of
a fluid in a pipe and that decreased pipe diameter increases the effect of friction. Also, it was
determined with great accuracy (percent error = 3.64%) that a right angle bend has the greatest
effect on the pressure of the fluid. A sudden expansion has the least effect on the pressure of the
fluid but only because its velocity decreases due to the increased diameter of the pipe. When
velocity is high, a long sweep bend will alter the pressure of the fluid the least with an
experimental loss coefficient of 0.333. This K value is confirmed with moderate accuracy since it
has a percent error of 33.2%. This explains why most commonly seen pipes have smooth bends
to reduce the effect on pressure.

W
hen fluid flows through a horizontal pipe it experiences a loss of pressure due to
friction that is known as head loss (hL). This unit of this value is meters and it
reflects the hypothetical height of fluid that would create the same value as the
loss of pressure due to the head loss. These losses, which typically occur in
straight sections of pipe, are called major losses. This phenomenon must be
accounted for when designing fluid systems. The friction of a pipe or duct can be represented
numerically by the friction coefficient (f). Both values are described as they apply to fluid motion
through a pipe by the following equation from Fasina (2018):
𝑓𝐿𝑉 2 (1)
ℎ𝐿 =
2𝑔𝐷
Where hL = Head loss (m)
f = Friction coefficient
L = Length of the pipe (m)
V = Velocity of the fluid (m/s)
g = Gravitational acceleration constant = 9.81m/s2
D = Diameter of the pipe (m)
Equation 1 shows that head loss is a function of velocity and that the loss of pressure rises with
velocity. In a steady state system, the volumetric flow rate (Q) is constant. Experiments, which
will be discussed in subsequent sections, were performed to determine the effect that velocity has
on head loss. The relationship between velocity and volumetric flow rate is described by the
following equation from Cengel & Cimbala (2006):
(2)
𝑉 = 𝑄/𝐴𝐶
Where V = Velocity (m/s)
Q = Volumetric flow rate (m3/s)
Ac = Cross-sectional area of the pipe (m2)

In equation 2 it is shown that the velocity is primarily a function of the cross-sectional area in a
steady-state system, since Q is constant. Since Ac or a circular pipe is a function of the diameter
of the pipe, it is reasonable to say that much of the major losses of a fluid can be accounted for
by the diameter of the given pipe. This shows that the geometry of the system also affects how
the pressure is affected over time. Different types of bends and elbows in ducts and pipes that go
unnoticed to the average person are actually very important design decisions made by engineers.
Losses that are caused by these different geometries are called minor losses, because they
typically have a smaller effect on the pressure of the fluid than the major losses. In the lab
experiment which this report concerns, tests were done to quantify the effects that different pipe
geometries have on the head loss of a fluid and comparisons were made to the theoretical effects
of the geometries. These different geometries will hereafter be referred to generically as
“fittings” in accordance with Fasina (2018).

Objectives
The objective of the experiments and this corresponding paper are to quantify the effect
that velocity, cross-sectional area, and different fittings have on the head loss of a fluid in
motion.

Materials and Methods

A Technovate fluid circuit system, hereafter referred
to as “TFCS”, was used to study the major losses of the fluid.
The device used a pump to transmit water through a pipe of
the user’s choice, each of which had a different pipe diameter.
Group 1 used pipes of diameters of 0.010922m and
0.01994m, which will hereafter be referred to as pipe 1 and
pipe 3 respectively. These pipes were made of copper. Since
head loss is dependent on friction, the material of the pipe is
important, as shown in Figure 1 from G.U.N.T. Hamburg Figure 1. Pressure Loss versus Flow Rate for
(2009). Water would be pumped through these pipes, which Pipes of Various Materials from G.U.N.T.
Hamburg (2009)
were 1.52m long, and pressure readings would be taken at the
beginning and the end of the pipe in a manometer. A comparison of these readings yielded the
head loss over the length of the pipe. This data was used to find experimental values of the
friction factor. The next section of the TFCS measured the head loss created by a change in the
diameter of the pipe and velocity. The fluid was pumped through the pipe and its pressure
measured with a manometer before it entered an orifice with a reduced diameter. The diameter of
the pipe would immediately return to its previous diameter after the small orifice. The pressure
would be recorded again after the orifice by another manometer. The data retrieved from the
orifice part of the TFCS was used to find theoretical values of the friction factor using a solver.
The water would then be returned to the tank to be pumped back again. The flow rate of the
TFCS was controlled by turning a valve. One person would stand and chose a flow rate while
four others would take readings from the four manometers and other group members would
record them. The flow rate was quantified after the experiment using the following equation
from Fasina (2018):

2∆𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 (3)
𝑄 = 𝐴𝑜 𝐶𝑑 √
𝜌(1 − 𝛽 4 )

Where Q = Volumetric flow rate (m3/s)

Ao = Cross-sectional area of the orifice (m2)
Cd = Discharge coefficient
ΔPorifice = Difference in pressure before and after the orifice (Pa)
ρ = Density (kg/m3)
β = Diameter ratio

A total of seven sets of readings were taken, each with a different flow rate, one of which being
at a flow rate of zero.
The next portion of the lab was designed to find the effect that different fittings had on
the head loss of a fluid. An Edibon Energy Losses in Bends Module, hereafter referred to as
EELBM, was used to test all of the fittings simultaneously. The different fittings were as follows
in order of occurrence: a long sweep elbow, a section of sudden expansion, a section of sudden
contraction, a medium sweep elbow, a short sweep elbow, and a right angle turn (mitre).
Measurements of pressure were taken before and after each of these fittings for a total of twelve
readings of pressure. The diameter remained constant throughout, except for the section of
sudden expansion. These readings were used to calculate the loss coefficients (K) of each fitting.
The rate of flow was controlled in much the same way as the TFCS, but the method of
measurement was different. The volume of water that was pumped through the fittings was
recorded along with the time elapsed to get the flow rate. Six members of group 1 took two
readings of pressure a piece and the other group members recorded the data.
Results
The data retrieved from the TFCS is shown in table 1 with the units converted to meters.
The table is divided into two sections, each of which is color coded, one section for each pipe
that was used. There are also two vertical sections, one for the pressure readings taken before and
after the orifice and one for the readings taken before and after the 1.52m of pipe. The readings
from left to right are listed as they appear on the manometer of the TFCS. The larger readings,
the ones taken before the respective pressure loss
Table 1. Pressure Head sections, are on the right sides of the vertical sections.
Measurements in Meters This raw data was used to determine the experimental
friction factor.
Orifice Readings Pipe Readings
(m) (m) A comparison of velocity and the friction
-0.083 0.032 0.229 0.721 factor for pipe 1 and pipe 3 are found in figures 2 and
0.013 0.073 0.013 0.540 3 respectively. These figures show how the effect of
0.089 0.105 0.222 0.394 friction on the head loss is determined by the
velocity. The difference between the two colors of
Pipe 1 -0.108 0.022 -0.279 0.752
data points is rooted in the way that their values were
-0.022 0.060 -0.076 0.610
determined. The “experimental” friction factors data
0.108 0.111 0.273 0.356 was determined by using only equation 1 and the data
0.124 0.124 0.324 0.324 in table 1. The “theoretical” friction factors were
derived iteratively from the Colebrook equation
-0.289 0.279 0.159 0.356 found in Cengel & Cimbala (2006). The downward
slope of the data is most apparent in the experimental
-0.178 0.232 0.197 0.346
results. According to equation 1, there should be an
0.022 0.143 0.273 0.324 inverse relationship between velocity and the friction
Pipe 3 -0.286 0.286 0.152 0.359 factor at a fixed amount of head loss, so the negative
-0.083 0.191 0.229 0.337 slope is expected. The theoretical values generally
0.111 0.117 0.311 0.318 trend downwards, but to the naked eye they appear
0.124 0.124 0.318 0.318
almost uniform as velocity changes. The change is
more obvious for the theoretical values in figure 3.
0.3
0.25
Friction Factor

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Velocity Squared (m2/s2)

Theoretical Friction Factor versus Velocity Squared Experimental Friction Factor versus Velocity Squared

Figure 2. Friction Factor versus Velocity Squared for Pipe 1

 Another thing to note aboutt the difference between figures 2 and 3 is the values for the friction
factors when not compared to velocity. Note that the main difference between the date in figures
2 and 3 is the pipe diameter. Figure 2 represents pipe 1, which has a smaller pipe diameter than
pipe 3, represented by figure 3. The friction factors in figure 2 are, on average, greater than the
friction factors in figure 3, shown most clearly in the differences between the theoretical values.
This illustrates the fact that that the friction factor is greater with a smaller pipe diameter.

0.25

0.2
Friction Factor

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Velocity Squared (m2/s2)

Theoretical Friction Factor versus Velocity Squared Experimental Friction Factor versus Velocity Squared

Figure 3. Friction Factor versus Velocity Squared for Pipe 3

The data for the minor loss is shown in figure 4 and in tables 2 and 3. Table 1 shows the
head loss after each fitting as well as the volume and time, which was used to determine the rate
of flow. It is easy to see the effect that each fitting has on the pressure of the fluid. The higher the
head loss, the more the pressure of the fluid was reduced. The right angle had the greatest effect
on the pressure of the fluid and the sudden expansion had the least effect. The data in table 2 is
plotted against velocity squared in figure 4 in order to see how the velocity effects the pressure.

Table 2. Head Loss of Various Fittings with Data for the Rate of Flow

Head Loss at Head Loss Head

Head Loss Sudden at Sudden Head Loss Loss at Head Loss
at Long Expansion Contraction at Elbow Short at Right
Trial # Volume(L) Time (s) Bend (m) (m) (m) (m) Bend (m) Angle (m)
1 40 114 0.021 0.006 0.052 0.019 0.049 0.070
2 28 95 0.016 0.008 0.034 0.012 0.032 0.048
3 23 68 0.020 0.008 0.046 0.018 0.040 0.062
4 30 108 0.012 0.006 0.030 0.010 0.027 0.044
5 15 55.7 0.012 0.006 0.024 0.008 0.022 0.034
6 8 47.3 0.007 0.002 0.008 0.004 0.022 0.018
Figure 4 provides a clear picture of the relationship between velocity, pressure and
various fittings. As the value of head loss rises, so too does the amount by which the given fitting
reduced the pressure of the fluid. Also, head loss becomes greater when the velocity of the fluid
is increased, suggesting that velocity and pressure have an inverse relationship in a closed
system. The rankings of head loss in table 2 are more apparent in figure 4. However, there is an
abnormality in figure 4 that sets it apart from table 2. The velocity readings for the sudden
expansion fitting are very small. This is because the sudden expansion fitting has a greater cross-
sectional area than the other fittings, which causes velocity to be very small since, as has been
previously determined, velocity in a steady-state pipe is a function of pipe diameter. Also, as
stated by Idel'chick (1966), the velocity in an area surrounding a sudden expansion is non-
uniform, causing the oddness of the data in figure 4. Each fitting has its own linear trendline
along with its corresponding equation. These equations determine how much the velocity of fluid
affects the head loss for a given fitting. The equations also correspond to an equation found in
Fasina (2018), shown here:
𝑉2 (4)
ℎ𝑓 = 𝐾
2𝑔
Where hf = Head loss (m)
K = Loss coefficient
V = Velocity of the fluid (m/s)
g = Gravitational acceleration constant = 9.81m/s2

0.08
y = 0.0541x
0.07

0.06
y = 0.039x
0.05 Long Sweep Elbow
Head Loss (m)

Sudden Expansion
0.04 y = 0.0365x
Sudden Contraction
0.03 Medium Sweep Elbow
y = 0.017x Short Sweep Elbow
0.02
Right Angle (Mitre)
y = 0.0142x
y = 0.0412x
0.01

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Velocity Squared (m^2/s^2)

Figure 4. Head Loss versus Velocity Squared at Different Fittings

The K value in equation 4 determines how much the head loss is affected by the velocity in the
same way that the trendline equations in figure 4 do. In fact, it is possible to derive an
experimental value of K from the trendlines in figure 4 by multiplying the coefficient of the
trendline equation by 2*g (gravitational constant), since it represents the slope of the trendline,
which itself represents the rise in head loss divided by the rise in velocity squared. This
relationship comes from equation 4. These derived experimental values are shown along with
their theoretical counterparts in table 3.
Table 3. Comparison of Theoretical and Experimental Values of K

Long Right
Sweep Sudden Sudden Medium Short Sweep Angle
Row Names Elbow Expansion Contraction Sweep Elbow Elbow (Mitre)
Theoretical K
Value 0.25 0.591 0.4 0.5 0.74 1.1
Experimental
K Value 0.333 0.808 0.764 0.278 0.715 1.06
Percent Error
(%) 33.2 36.72 91 44.4 3.38 3.64

The experimental K values in table 3 are close to their theoretical counterparts, with all
but one having a relative percent error less than 50%. This suggests that the EELBM takes
accurate readings of head loss. The short sweep elbow and the right angle fittings have especially
low percent errors, suggesting that both the theoretical values and the EELBM are very accurate
for those particular fittings. However, the accuracy of the sudden contraction was very low
compared to the other fittings, with a relative percent error of 91%. This most likely suggests that
a different theoretical value should have been chosen or that the velocity became altered due to
the previous sudden enlargement.

Conclusion
The experiment using the TFCS to find the effects of major loss showed that the velocity
had a negative effect on friction. When considering equation 1 this was not surprising. The
theoretical values of the friction factor are too variant to yield as clear a trend as the experimental
values. However, the theoretical values did show that smaller pipe diameter causes friction to
have a greater effect on the pressure of the fluid. The experiment that used the EELBM to find
the effect of minor loss showed that a right-angle bend in a pipe the greatest effect on the head
loss of the fluid, with an experimental K value of 1.06. This K value was confirmed when
compared to the theoretical K value, which yielded a percent error of only 3.64%, suggesting the
experimental value was very accurate. The long sweep elbow had the lowest value of K when
considering both the theoretical and the experimental values, which were 0.25 and 0.333
respectively, suggesting that increases in fluid velocity have a minimal effect on the pressure of
the fluid. The minimum sweep elbow had the lowest experimental value of K (0.278), but
considering that the percent error was greater than that of the long sweep elbow (44.4%>33.2%)
it is safe to assume that that result is not as repeatable as the result of the long sweep elbow.
These conclusions regarding the right-angle bend and the long sweep elbow indicate why many
ducts and pipes have smooth bends rather than turning at a right angle so as to have minimal
effect on the fluid being transported. The sudden expansion fitting had the lowest effect on the
pressure of the fluid and also had the lowest velocity due to the increase in pipe diameter, which
was predicted by equation 2. This increase in pipe diameter might have also had an effect on the
sudden narrowing, which had a relatively high percent error of 91%, since the velocity around a
sudden expansion is non-uniform.

References
Cengel, Y. A., & Cimbala, J. M. (2006). Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications.
Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Fasina, O. O. (2018). BSEN 3310 Major and Minor Losses. Auburn, AL, United States:
Biosystems Engineering Department, Auburn University.
G.U.N.T. Hamburg. (2009, November). Pipe Friction Training Manual. Barsbuttel, Germany:
G.U.N.T.
Idel'chick, I. E. (1966). Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance: Coefficients of Local Resistance and
of Friction. Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientific Translations.