Experiment #4

Discharge Through an Orifice Meter

Course: ENME312 Fluid Mechanics Lab

Section: Number One

Students’ Names:

Date of Experiment: February 7, 2013

Date of Submission: February 14, 2013

Abstract: The objective of the experiment was to find the discharge through a sharp

orifice meter. In this experiment, the utilization of various measurements such as

velocity, height, flow rate, and mass flow rate as well as many coefficients, we found the

discharge of the through the orifice. Results show that the coefficient of velocity has a

high value (with respect to 1) and that the coefficient of contraction can be used with it to

find the discharge coefficient of the sharp orifice. With much research, the conclusion

was more backed on references rather than experimental values due to incorrect readings,

which led to unreasonable coefficients. Based on further research into the experiment, the

partakers of the orifice experiment would have done many things differently as well as

correcting much of the errors that were visible afterwards when looking at true values of

coefficients.

Objective: To find the discharge through a sharp orifice meter and to calculate the

velocity and contraction coefficients as well.

2
Calculations:
Part 1:

***See Table 1 & Table 2

1) Cu = (Uc) / (Ua) = √(Hc/Ho) = √(376/384) = 0.9895< 1 o.k

2) Cc = ac/ao =( dc)2 /( do)2 = (12/13)2 = 0.8521 < 1 o.k
3) Cd = Cu*Cc = 0.9895*0.8521 = 0.8432

Average Cd = 0.93

Part 2:

Sample Calculations:
1- m1 = mass / time = 12/38 = 0.32 kg/s

2- Q1 = m/p = 0.32/1000 = 0.00032 m3/s *10^6 = 320000 mm3/s

3- Cd 1= (Q )/(Ao*√2gHo) = (320000)/(π*13^2/4)*√2*9810*342) = 0.93

Slope of the curve = 17371 according to the equation above the chart

But , Q= Cd * ao *√2g *√Ho……Therefore:

17371= Cd *(π*13^2)/4 *√ (2*9810) → Cd = 0.93 (experimental value) ***See Chart 1

Results: Results show that the coefficient of discharge is 0.93, the coefficient of velocity

is 0.9895, and the coefficient of contraction is 0.8521. Our objective was complete by

finding all the coefficients and the discharge of the sharp orifice. All tables and charts

were used to come to the conclusion preceding this section.

HO = 384 mm do = 13 mm Weight =4kg*3 = 12kg

Hc = 376 mm dc = 12 mm Time = 37.41 sec.

Table 1: Vena Contract, Weight, Time, and Heights

3
 Run Time (sec) Ho (mm) √Ho m ( mass Q= m/p Cd
flow rate mm3/s
kg/sec)
1 38.00 342 18.49 0.32 320000 0.93
2 39.00 322 17.94 0.31 310000 0.93
3 39.47 310 17.61 0.30 300000 0.92
4 42.63 259 16.09 0.28 280000 0.94
5 44.65 247 15.72 0.27 270000 0.92
6 50.15 202 14.21 0.24 240000 0.91
7 51.25 190 13.78 0.23 230000 0.90
8 55.25 155 12.45 0.22 220000 0.95

Weight = 12 Kilograms

Table 2: Flow Rate and Mass Flow Rate and Coefficient of Discharge

Q vs √Ho
350000
300000 f(x) = 17370.69 x − 2968.04
250000
200000
Q mm3/s
150000
Q vs √Ho
100000 Linear (Q vs √Ho)
50000
0
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
√Ho mm

Chart 1: Discharge Vs Head

4
Discussion of Results: Our results show that the coefficient of discharge based on the graphical

observation was 0.93, which is reasonable compared to the experimental value of 0.8432. The

coefficient of contraction was 0.8521 and the coefficient of velocity was 0.9895. The graphical

relationship, as shown in chart 1, has a somewhat linear relationship with the slope being the

average flow rate through the orifice meter. By using this relationship we solved for the

coefficient of discharge (its experimental value) and then compared it to the true value. Simply by

multiplying the coefficient of contraction with the coefficient of velocity we can further

understand the reasonability of our results. According to engineering references online (see

references), we found that true values for the coefficient of velocity are between 0.95 and 0.99,

which was very relatable to our results. We for sure had no problem there. However, for a sharp

orifice, according to references, the coefficient of contraction must be around 0.62, which makes

our results completely incorrect. The reason for that is because the technique we used to measure

the vena contracta was very inaccurate and the measuring tool was not even working properly.

That led to the incorrect values for the coefficient of discharge, which depends highly on our

results of the coefficient of contraction. A typical true value for the coefficient of discharge

should be between 0.60 and 0.70. Our number was completely off based on true values and that

was due to the incorrect measurement of the vena contracta in our opinion. In our opinion the

timing of the weights being raised by the hydraulic bench also causes for some error. Also the

varying value of H as we waited to measure the amount of time it took to raise the weights and

stop the timer.

Conclusion: One of the few discoveries we made during this experiment is that when decreasing

the flow rate with the red knob we were increasing the time it would take to have the balancing

weights react to the water being filled within the hydraulic bench. Decreasing the flow rate

increased the time thus decreasing the mass flow rate in return. The coefficients of velocity,

contraction, and discharge were all found according to their given formulas. We found that the

5
coefficient of velocity was very accurate when compared with true values. The coefficient of

contraction was completely inaccurate; it should have been around 0.62 rather than 0.852, which

is completely far from the true value. This led to incorrect coefficient of discharge results. The

coefficient of discharge was of course not spot on due to many errors during the experiment. In

our opinion the lab equipment should be reassembled and have minor issues repaired in order for

there to be more precise readings in future experiments. The pitot tube at the bottom that we used

to measure the vena contracta must be replaced or a new measuring technique must be used, we

suggest a caliper. These errors in measurements not only with the vena contract but maybe even

the mass flow rate, caused visible discrepancies in the coefficients since these values are so

sensitive because of their miniscule magnitude and level of dependency on the experimental

values.

References:

 http://www.codecogs.com/reference/engineering/fluid_mechanics/orifice/introduction.ph
p
 http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/tech/fluids/orifice.htm