EXPERIMENT 2: FRICTION IN PIPES

INTRODUCTION
In engineering practice, it is frequently necessary to estimate the head loss incurred by a fluid
as it flows along a pipeline. In this experiment scientific knowledge gained in classwork was
applied to investigate Frictional losses experienced by a fluid as it flows through a pipe.

Experiment set up

Figure 1: pipe friction apparatus

Image source: lab manual

METHOD

Pipe friction apparatus was set up as shown above and flowrate set using the dark blue gate
valve(D)
Readings were then taken using the Gravimetric Bench and Heights of piezometers 3 and 4
recorded as shown below.
 RESULTS

Friction in Pipes Results:

Pipe length: 914mm =0.914m

Pipe Diameter: 13.6mm =0.0136m

Mass of water Time hf(h3-h4) Friction (Re)

collected (Kg) (s) (m) factor(f)
H3(mm) H4(mm)
6 23.61 400 200 0.200 0.0191 23800

6 28.22 435 237 0.198 0.0274 19856

6 30.29 438 265 0.173 0.0316 18496

6 35.81 440 295 0.145 0.0441 15640

6 39.08 440 315 0.125 0.0520 14416

6 45.65 442 348 0.094 0.0714 12294

Sample calculations

L= 0.914 m
π ( d) 2
Cross-sectional area, A=
4
π (13.6 ×10−3)2
A= =1.453 ×10-4 m2
4
volume collected
flow rateQ=
elapsed time
6.0 ×10−3 m3
(i); Q= =2.541×10-4 m3/sec
23.61 sec
6.0 ×10−3 m3
(ii); Q= =2.126 ×10-4 m3/sec
28.22 sec
 6.0 ×10−3 m3
(iii) Q= =1.981×10-4 m3/s
30.29 sec
6.0 ×10−3 m3
(iv); Q= =1.676 ×10-4 m3/sec
35.81 sec
6.0 ×10−3 m3
(v); Q= =1.535 ×10-4 m3/sec
39.08 sec
6.0 ×10−3 m3
(vi) Q= =1.314 ×10-4 m3/s
45.65 sec
flowrate Q
velocity= (equation 5)
Area
m3
2.541 ×10−4 ( )
sec
v 1= =1.75 m/s
1.453× 10−4 m2

0.2 (13.6 × 10−3 ) 2 ×9.81

therefore f = =0.0191
0.914 (1.75)2
m3
2.126 ×10−4 ( )
sec
v 2= =1.46 m/ s
1.453× 10−4 m2
0.2 (13.6 × 10−3 ) 2 ×9.81
therefore f = =0.0274
0.914(1.46)2
m3
1.981 ×10−4 ( )
sec
v 3= 2
=1.36 m/ s
1.453× 10−4 m
0.2 (13.6 × 10−3 ) 2 ×9.81
therefore f = =0.0316
0.914( 1.36)2
m3
1.676 ×10−4 ( )
sec
v 4= =1.15 m/ s
1.453× 10−4 m2
0.2 (13.6 × 10−3 ) 2 ×9.81
therefore f = =¿ 0.0441
0.914 (1.15) 2
m3
1.535 ×10−4 ( )
sec
v 5= =1.06 m/ s
1.453 ×10−4 m2
0.2 (13.6 × 10−3 ) 2 ×9.81
therefore f = =0.0520
0.914( 1.06)2
 m3
1.314 ×10−4 ( )
sec
v 6= =0.904 m/ s
1.453 ×10−4 m2
0.2 (13.6 × 10−3 ) 2 ×9.81
therefore f = =0.0714
0.914(0.904)2

Average f= ( 0.0191+0.0274+ 0.0316+0.0441+0.0520+0.0714

6 )=0.0409
ρVD
ℜ=
µ
1000× 1.75× 13.6 ×10−3
( i ) ℜ= =23800
1 ×10−3

1000 ×1.46 ×13.6 × 10−3

( ii ) ℜ= =19856
1 ×10−3

1000× 1.36 ×13.6 ×10−3

( iii ) ℜ= =18496
1× 10−3

1000 ×1.15 ×13.6 × 10−3

( iv ) ℜ= =15640
1×10−3

1000 ×1.06 × 13.6 ×10−3

( v ) ℜ= =14416
1× 10−3

1000 × 0.904 ×13.6 ×10−3

( vi ) ℜ= =12294
1× 10−3

Average Re= ( 23800+19856+18496+15640+14416+

6
12294
)=¿17417
 Fig 2: Moody chart showing the Reynolds number, friction factor and estimation of pipe
roughness factor

Image source: lab manual

CONCLUSION
From the results and sample calculations above, pipe roughness factor was found to be 0.01
while Reynolds number was found to be 17417 with frictional factor of 0.409 indicating that
the flow was turbulent.
DISCUSSION
In industrial systems energy loss through friction in the length of pipeline reduces
productivity and efficiency due to downtime for repairs. It is therefore, important that when
designing the system, factors such as pipe roughness, frictional factor and Reynolds value of
the fluid should be considered to avoid operation challenges and to ensure maximum
efficiency of the system.
EXPERIMENT 3: VENTURIMETER

INTRODUCTION
In this experiment various flow meters were analyzed including orifice meter, variable area
flow meter and the venturi meter and used to find the flowrate which is an essential practice
in engineering.
EXPERIMENT SET UP

Image source: lab manual

METHOD
 The apparatus was set up as shown above and all the connections made. The values were
then collected by adjusting the flow meter valves to show readings of 50,80, 110 and 140
mm and readings of water levels in tubes A, B, C (Venturi meter), E, F (Orifice plate)
recorded.

Venturi Meter Results

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

Analysis A: Measurement of Flow Rate

 Fig: Graph 1 Rotameter Calibration Curve
Image source: lab manual

FLOAT METER (MM) FLOAT METER(L/min)

50 7
80 11
110 15
140 20

FLOAT METER (L/min) FLOW RATE QF (×10-6m3/s)

7 1.1944
11 3.056
15 4.167
20 5.556

1.0× 10−3 m 3
1 L/min=
3600 sec

7.0× 10−3 m 3
(i) Qf = =1.944×10-6 m3/sec
3600 sec
11× 10−3 m 3
(ii) Qf = =3.056×10-6 m3/sec
3600 sec
15× 10−3 m 3
iii) Qf = =4.167 ×10-6 m3/sec
3600 sec
 20× 10−3 m 3
iv) Qf = =5.556×10-6 m3/sec
3600 sec

Determining QC = vol/time
VOLUME (×10-3 m3) TIME (sec) Qc (×10-4 m3/s)
6 44.2 1.357
6 29.4 2.041
6 21.78 2.755
6 17.62 3.405
12 35.72 3.359

QC = vol/time
6.0 ×10−3 m3
(i) Q C= =1.357×10-4 m3/sec
44.2 sec

6.0 ×10−3 m3
(ii) Q C= =2.041×10-4 m3/sec
29.4 sec

6.0 ×10−3 m3
(iii) Q C= =2.755×10-4 m3/sec
21.78 sec

6.0 ×10−3 m3
(iv) Q C= =3.405×10-4 m3/sec
17.62 sec

6.0 ×10−3 m3
(v) Q C= =3.359×10-4 m3/sec
35.72 sec

Flow rate QV by venturi

2 g(hA−h B)
Cd AB √
QV=CdABVB= AB
1− ( )
AA
2

π (d) 2
A=
4
π (26.0× 10−3)2
AA ¿ =5.309×10-4 m2
4
 π (16.0× 10−3)2
AB ¿ =2.0106×10-4 m2
4

(i)QV=0.98 ×2.0106 × 10−4 m2

√2 ×9.81( 259.5−234.5) =4.715 ×10-3 m3/sec
1−0.1434

(ii)QV=0.98 ×2.0106 × 10−4 m2

√2 ×9.81( 245−191.5) =6.897 ×10-3 m3/sec
1−0.1434

(iii)QV=0.98 ×2.0106 × 10−4 m2

√2 ×9.81( 220−130.5) =8.921 ×10-3 m3/sec
1−0.1434

(iv)QV=0.98 ×2.0106 × 10−4 m2

√2 ×9.81(178−43) =1.096 ×10-2 m3/sec
1−0.1434

(v)QV=0.98 ×2.0106 × 10−4 m2

√2 ×9.81(178−46) =1.083 ×10-2 m3/sec
1−0.1434

Flow rate QO by Orifice

2 g(hE−h F)
Cd A F √
QO=CdAFVF= AF
1−( )
AE
2

π (20.0× 10−3)2
AE ¿ =3.142×10-4 m2
4
π (51.9× 10−3)2
AF ¿ =2.116 ×10-3 m2
4

(i)QO=0.62 ×2.116 × 10−3 m 2

√ 2× 9.81(254−230.5) =1.364 ×10-2 m3/sec
1−45.35

(ii)QO=0.62 ×2.116 × 10−3 m 2

√ 2× 9.81(236−184) =6.292 ×10-3 m3/sec
1−45.35

(iii)QO=0.62 ×2.116 × 10−3 m 2

√ 2× 9.81(208−116 ) =5.339 ×10-2 m3/sec
1−45.35

(iv)QO=0.62 ×2.116 × 10−3 m 2

√ 2× 9.81(160−18) =1.039 ×10-2 m3/sec
1−45.35

(v)QO=0.62 ×2.116 × 10−3 m 2

√ 2× 9.81(161−22) =1.029 ×10-2 m3/sec
1−45.35
 S.no QC(×10-4 QF(×10-6 %error QV(×10-3 %erro QO(×10-2 %error
m3/sec) m3/sec) m3/sec) r m3/sec)
1 1.357 1.944 1.43 4.715 2.88 1.364 0.994
2 2.041 3.056 1.50 6.897 2.96 0.6292 3.24
3 2.755 4.167 1.51 8.921 3.09 5.339 0.516
4 3.405 5.556 1.63 10.96 3.11 1.039 3.28
5 3.359 10.83 3.10 1.029 3.26

Theoretical difference in pressure head (m) at A and B

4.715 ×10−3 m3/ sec

(i) VA ¿ =8.88 m/sec
5.309× 10−4 m 2
4.715 ×10−3 m3/ sec
VB ¿ =23.45 m/sec
2.0109× 10−4 m 2
(23.45)2 (8.88)2
hA-hB = - =24.01 m
2 ×9.81 2× 9.81

6.897× 10−3 m 3/sec

(ii); VA¿ =13.0 m/sec
5.309× 10−4 m2
6.897× 10−3 m 3/sec
VB ¿ =34.30 m/sec
2.0109× 10−4 m2
(34.30)2 (13)2
hA-hB = - =51.35 m
2 ×9.81 2× 9.81

8.921× 10−3 m3 /sec

(iii VA¿ =16.80 m/sec
5.309 ×10−4 m2
8.921× 10−3 m3 /sec
VB ¿ =44.36 m/sec
2.0109 × 10−4 m2
(44.36)2 (16.80)2
hA-hB = - =85.91m
2 ×9.81 2 ×9.81
1.096× 10−2 m3 /sec
(iv) VA¿ =20.64 m/sec
5.309 ×10−4 m2
1.096× 10−2 m3 /sec
VB ¿ =54.50 m/sec
2.0109 ×10−4 m2
 (54.50)2 (20.64) 2
hA-hB = - =129.68 m
2 ×9.81 2 ×9.81
1.083× 10−2 m3 / sec
(v) VA¿ =20.40 m/sec
5.309 ×10−4 m2
1.083× 10−2 m3 /sec
VB ¿ =53.86 m/sec
2.0109 ×10−4 m2
(53.86) 2 (20.40) 2
hA-hB = - =126.64 m
2 ×9.81 2 ×9.81

Theoretical difference in pressure head (m) at 6 and 7

1.364 ×10−2m 3/sec

(i) VE ¿ =43.41 m/sec
3.142×10−4 m2
1.364 ×10−2m 3/sec
VF ¿ =6.45 m/sec
2.116 × 10−3 m 2
(43.1)2 (6.45)2
hE-hF = - =93.93 m
2× 9.81 2× 9.81

6.292×10−3 m3 /sec
(ii); VE ¿ =20.03 m/sec
3.142×10−4 m2
6.292×10−3 m3 /sec
VF ¿ =2.97 m/sec
2.116 × 10−3 m 2
(20.03)2 (2.97)2
hE-hF = - =20.0 m
2 ×9.81 2× 9.81
5.339× 10−2 m3 /sec
(iii VE ¿ =169.92m/sec
3.142 ×10−4 m2
5.339× 10−2 m3 /sec
VF ¿ =25.23 m/sec
2.116 × 10−3 m 2
(169.92)2 (25.23)2
hE-hF = - =1439.16 m
2× 9.81 2 ×9.81
1.039× 10−2 m3 /sec
(iv) VE ¿ =33.07 m/sec
3.142 ×10−4 m2
1.039× 10−2 m3 /sec
VF ¿ =4.91 m/sec
2.116 × 10−3 m 2
(33.07)2 (4.91)2
hE-hF = - =54.51m
2 ×9.81 2× 9.81
 1.029× 10−2 m3 /sec
(v) VE ¿ =32.75m/sec
3.142 ×10−4 m2
1.029× 10−2 m3 /sec
VF ¿ =4.86 m/sec
2.116 × 10−3 m 2
(32.75)2 (4.86)2
hE-hF = - =53.47 m
2 ×9.81 2× 9.81

S.no Theoretical Experiment % S.no Theoretical Experiment %

pressure head pressure error pressure pressure error
(Venturi) head (hA-hB) head head (hE-hF)
(m) (m) (Orifice) (m)
(m)

1 24.01 25 4.13 1 93.93 23.5 74.98

2 51.35 53.5 4.19 2 20 52 160

3 85.91 89.5 4.18 3 1439.16 92 93.61

4 129.68 135 4.10 4 54.2 142 162

5 126.64 132 4.23 5 53.47 139 160

DISCUSSION
A huge error in differential pressure head of orifice meter is noticed on comparing it with
theoretical calculations. This may have accoutred due to experimental errors
On comparing the theoretical results of venturi-meter and experimental values, a slight
difference is noted and an error ranging from 4.10% and 4.23%
CONCLUSION
The experiment was carried out successfully and it enable one to apply the scientific
knowledge learned in classroom to solve real world problems and also to analyse the system
and find out its efficiency in terms of errors.
EXPERIMENT 1: PIN-JOINTED FRAMES
INTRODUCTION
Trusses and frames are used as simple skeletal structures and act as pin-joined frame.
Individual members of truss are subject to tensional and compressional forces without
bending moments. In this experiment we apply scientific knowledge learned to analyse
frames and find safety factor.

Fig 1: The Warren Girder structure

Image source: lab manual

Experiment set up

Fig 2: pin jointed frames

Image source: https://www.tecquipment.com/pin-jointed-frameworks

METHOD
The equipment was set up as shown and preload of 100 N and the load cell set to zero
A load of 500 N was Carefully applied and frame checked for stability and loads applied in
increments of 100 N, then strain readings for each member tabulated in Table 1a.

RESULTS

Load (N) Strain Strain Strain Strain Strain

Gauge 1 Gauge 2 Gauge 3 Gauge 4 Gauge 5

0 0 -3 -1 0 1

100 -21 -14 -6 13 12

200 -42 -28 -11 26 23

300 -64 -40 -15 39 35

400 -86 -51 -21 52 47

500 -109 -63 -27 64 60

TABLE 1a

SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

Analysis of pin jointed frame

JOINT D

∑ FY =0
FDCSIN60-500=0
 500
FDC= =577.35N
sin 60

∑ FX=0
FDB-577.35COS60=0

FDB=288.68N
JOINT B

∑ FY =0
FBCSIN60- FBASIN60=0

FBC=FBA=F=577.35N

∑ FX=0
577.35-2FCOS60=0

F=577.35N
JOINT C

∑ FY =0
Cy-2(577.35SIN60) =0

CY=1000N

∑ FX=0
FCA+577.35COS60-577.35COS60-288.68=0

FCA=288.68N

JOINT A

∑ FY =0
FABSIN60- FA=0

FA=577.35SIN60

FA=500N
 1 2 3 4 5
Theoretical Force, N 577.35 577.35 288.68 288.68 577.35
Experimental Force, N 647.78 374.41 160 380 356.58
Experimental stress, (MN/M2) 22.89 13.23 5.65 13.43 12.61

experimental force,

F=AEε

(I) F = 28.3 x 10−6 ×210 ×10 9 ×109 x 10−6 = 647.78N (C)

(ii) F = 28.3 x 10−6 ×210 ×10 9 ×63 x 10−6 = 374.41N (C)

(iii) F = 28.3 x 10−6 ×210 ×10 9 ×27 x 10−6 = 160N (C)

(iv) F = 28.3 x 10−6 ×2 10× 10 9 ×64 x 10−6 = 380N (T)

(v) F = 28.3 x 10−6 ×210 ×10 9 ×60 x 10−6 = 356.58N (T)

F
experimental stress: σ = (N/M2)
A

647.78
( i ) σ= =22.89 ×10 6 N / M 2
28.3 ×10−6

374.41
(ii) σ = =13.23× 106 N /M 2
28.3× 10−6

160
(ii) σ = =5.65× 106 N /M 2
28.3× 10−6

380
(iv) σ = =13.43× 106 N /M 2
28.3× 10−6

356.58
(v) σ = =12.61×10 6 N /M 2
28.3× 10−6
 Factor of safety of 500N

YIELD STRESS
S.F=
ACTUAL STRESS

400 ×106
(i) S.F = =¿17.5
22.89× 106

400 ×106
(ii) S.F = =¿30.2
13.23× 106

400 ×106
(iii) S.F = =¿70.8
5.65× 106

400 ×106
(Iv) S.F = =¿29.8
13.43× 106

400× 106
(v) S.F = =¿31.7
12.61×10 6

1 2 3 4 5

Strain(με) -109 -60 -26 64 59

Table 1b Increase in Strain, 500 N –0 N loading (με)

GRAPH
 STRAIN AGAINST LOAD
70

60

50
strain1
40 strain2
STRSIN

strain3
30 strain4
strain5
20

10

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
LOAD(N)

DISCUSSION

From data analysis a graph of load against strain gives a straight line passing through the
origin it shows that frames 1,2 & 3 are subjected to compression while 4 & 5 are subjected to
tension.

Comparing the experiment results to that of theoretical analysis a slight difference is seen,
this may have resulted due to the experimental errors.

From stress analysis the scientific-theory is confirmed that stress increase with increase in
load for a constant cross-sectional.
The level of safety for a load of 500N on each member is very high when Yield Stress of 400
MN/m2 is used therefore, ensuring user safety and longer lasting to the equipment.

CONCLUSION
After carrying out the experiment and data analysis of truss frames it is concluded that
analysis of every frame in construction design, is crucial and should be carried out effectively
to find out the stress that each frame is subjected to and there after recommend a safety factor
to avoid accidents due to collapse of the structures.

REFERENCES
B. R. Munson, D.F Young and T. H. Okiis shi,( 2010) Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
F.M White. (2013 October). Fluid Mechanics 3nd Edition. McGraw-Hill
S. Ramachandran and V.Saikrishnan. (2014). fluid mechanics and machinery (2nd Edition).
Wellington New Zealand.
Hill, A., & Ladson, C.M, (2013). Pressure distribution from high Reynold numbers. NASA
TM 100526
Mabie, H. H., Mechanisms and Dynamics of Machines

Prentice, J. M., Dynamics of Mechanical Systems.

Hamilton, H.M and Charles F.R., Mechanics and Dynamics of Machinery,

Shigley J. and Uicker, Theory of Machines and Mechanisms,