SCHOOL OF BUILDING & CIVIL

ENGINEERING
BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (HONORS) -
CIVIL
YEAR 2- SEMESTER 1
2021
CEB601– FLUID MECHANICS & HYDRAULICS
LAB No: 5
Fluid friction in pipes

Student Name : Divikesh Kumar

ID No. : 2020003287

Date Lab Conducted : 07/05/2021

Date Lab Submitted : 10/05/2021

Lab Instructor : Mr. Akshy Kumar

Lab No : 5
Title: FLUID FRICTION IN PIPES
Aim/Scope
To investigate the relationship between head loss and pipe discharge for a circular pipe when
the flow in the pipe is

a) laminar

b) critical

c) turbulent.

Introduction
This apparatus is designed to allow the detailed study of the fluid friction head losses which
occur when an incompressible fluid flows through pipes, bends, valves and pipe flow metering
devices. Friction head losses in straight pipes of different sizes can be investigated over a range
of Reynolds’ numbers from 10 3 to nearly 10 5 , thereby covering the laminar, transitional and
turbulent flow regimes in smooth pipes. In addition, an artificially roughened pipe is supplied
which, at the higher Reynolds’ numbers, shows a clear departure from the typical smooth bore
pipe characteristics. Pipe friction is one of the classic laboratory experiments and has always
found a place in the practical teaching of fluid mechanics. The results and underlying principles
are of the greatest importance to engineers in the aeronautical, civil, mechanical, marine,
agricultural and hydraulic fields.

Apparatus
 The TecQuipment pipe friction apparatus (H7)

 1000ml measuring cylinder

 Stop watch

 Bubble level
Procedure
With the supply valve fully open, slowly opened the needle valve and observed the levels in the
mercury manometer. The difference in the levels was increased with increasing discharge
reaching a maximum difference of about 205m as the needle valve was fully opened. This was
the maximum head loss which the bench supply was able to produce. However, the flow was
still too small to be measured using the weighing tank. The alternative method was used for
measuring the cylinder which collected a measured volume in a known period of time. The
required rate of flow had been established, removed the bucket and positioned the measuring
cylinder so that it collected the discharge from the pipe. As the water surface in the cylinder
passed a convenient point on the measuring cylinder started the stopwatch. Also noted the
reading on the cylinder. As water was collected in the measuring cylinder the surface raised.
Stopped the stopwatch as the surface passed the top of the scale. Noted the time on the
stopwatch and the Volume collected (i.e. the difference between the first and second scale
readings. The discharge or rate of flow was calculated by dividing the volume collected by the
time indicated on the stopwatch. Once the readings had been taken emptied the measuring
cylinder into the hydraulic bench and repeated the operation. The three sets of readings was
taken. This provided both improved accuracy and a check on the consistency of our
observations. Used the average of the three discharge values unless one value was obviously in
error. While the outflow was being collected, took the reading and noted the levels in the two
limbs of the mercury manometer. Reduced the flow by turning the needle valve until the
difference in the mercury levels was reduced about 40mm. Repeated the readings taking care
not to alter the level of the end of the plastic pipe. Continued reducing the discharge and the
readings were taken until the difference in levels h was reduced about 30mm. Collected
about six sets of readings in this series. This completed the first part of the experiment.
Repeated the experiment as for series A. As flow rate got smaller the time required to fill the
measuring cylinder was increased. If the time gets too long then the quantity collected can be
reduced. Noted the levels in the manometer tubes. The experiment was repeated gradually
reducing the flow rate until the difference in levels h was 10mm. h was reduced in quite
large steps [say 100mm] for the first few readings but then in progressively smaller steps as h
became small. Took about 10 readings in this series. Noted that in this series the reading was
greater than about 30mm were for turbulent flow and those below about 20mm were for
laminar flow. Took three to four readings in the laminar range which means for manometer
readings h which was less than about 20mm.
Readings & Observations

WATER MANOMETER MERCURY MANOMETER

VOL TIME H1 (mm) H2 (mm) VOL TIME H1 (mm) H2 (mm)

(mL) (S) (mL) (S)

84 10.56 524 90 76 6.03 200 126

89 11.86 510 106 91 7.80 198 127

75 9.63 493 129 86 7.53 195 129

91 11.79 474 151 72 6.49 194 132

74 9.59 455 171 67 6.42 190 135

60 8.73 427 204 79 8.26 188 138

62 10.17 397 241 74 8.32 184 141

63 12.59 382 261 76 9.45 181 144

49 12.58 368 278 62 7.74 177 148

43 15.97 356 293 58 7.80 173 152

37 19.32 348 304 60 8.85 169 155

Calculations
Sample calculation for water manometer
2
π D 2 π (0.003)
L = 524mm    Ө = 3mm A= = = 7.069×10-6
4 4

VOL 80 ×10−6 Q 7.955× 10−6

Q= = = 7.955×10-6m3/s V= = = 1.125m/s
TIME 10.56 A 7.069× 10−6

VD (1.125)(0.003)
ℜ= = = 3.38× 103 ΔH = H1 – H2 = 524 – 90 = 434mm
v 1 ×10−6
 Hf 0.434
Hf = ΔH = 434 mm = 0.434m I= = = 0.828
L 0.524

2 gDi 2(9.81)(0.003)( 0.828)

f= = = 0.0385
v2 ( 1.125)2

Sample calculation for mercury manometer

2
π D 2 π (0.003)
L = 524mm    Ө = 3mm A= = = 7.069×10-6
4 4

VOL 76 ×10−6 Q 1.26× 10−5

Q= = = 1.26×10−5 m3/s V= = = 1.783m/s
TIME 6.03 A 7.069× 10−6

VD (1.783)(0.003)
ℜ= = = 5.349×103 ΔH = H1 – H2 = 200 – 126 = 74mm
v 1 ×10 −6

Hf 0.9324
Hf = 12.6(ΔH) = 12.6(74) = 0.9324m I= = = 1.78
L 0.524

2 gDi 2(9.81)(0.003)(1.78)
f= = = 0.0329
v2 (1.783)2

Results
WATER MANOMETER

VOL TIME Q m3/s V Re H1 H2 ΔH hf (m) Hydraulic Friction

(mL) (S) (m/s) (mm) (mm) (mm) Gradient Factor

84 10.56 7.955 x10-6 1.125 3.38 x103 524 90 434 0.434 0.828 0.0385

89 11.86 7.504 x10-6 1.062 3.19 x103 510 106 404 0.404 0.771 0.0402

75 9.63 7.788 x10-6 1.102 3.31 x103 493 129 364 0.364 0.695 0.0337

91 11.79 7.718x10-6 1.092 3.28 x103 474 151 323 0.323 0.616 0.0304

74 9.59 7.716 x10-6 1.092 3.28 x103 455 171 284 0.284 0.542 0.0268

60 8.73 6.873x10-6 0.972 2.92 x103 427 204 223 0.223 0.428 0.0265

62 10.17 6.096 x10-6 0.862 2.59 x103 397 241 156 0.156 0.298 0.0236

63 12.59 5.004x10-6 0.708 2.12 x103 382 261 121 0.121 0.231 0.0271

49 12.58 3.895 x10-6 0.551 1.65 x103 368 278 90 0.090 0.172 0.0333
 43 15.97 2.693 x10-6 0.381 1.14 x103 356 293 63 0.063 0.120 0.0487

37 19.32 1.915 x10-6 0.271 813 348 304 44 0.044 0.084 0.0673

MERCURY MANOMETER

VOL TIME Q m3/s V Re H1 H2 ΔH Hf (m) Hydraulic Friction

(mL) (S) (m/s) (mm) (mm) (mm) Gradient Factor

76 6.03 1.26 x10-5 1.783 5.349 x103 200 126 74 0.9324 1.78 0.0329

91 7.80 1.16 x10-5 1.641 4.923 x103 198 127 71 0.8946 1.71 0.0374

86 7.53 1.14 x10-5 1.613 2.839 x103 195 129 66 0.8316 1.59 0.0359

72 6.49 1.11 x10-5 1.570 4.710 x103 194 132 62 0.7812 1.49 0.0356

67 6.42 1.04 x10-5 1.471 4.413 x103 190 135 55 0.693 1.32 0.0359

79 8.26 9.56 x10-6 1.352 4.056 x103 188 138 50 0.63 1.20 0.0386

74 8.32 8.89 x10-6 1.258 3.774 x103 184 141 43 0.5418 1.03 0.0383

76 9.45 8.04 x10-6 1.137 3.411 x103 181 144 37 0.4662 0.89 0.0405

62 7.74 8.01 x10-6 1.133 3.399 x103 177 148 29 0.3654 0.70 0.0321

58 7.80 7.44 x10-6 1.052 3.156 x103 173 152 21 0.2646 0.50 0.0266

60 8.85 6.78 x10-6 0.959 2.877 x103 169 155 14 0.1764 0.34 0.0218

Graphs-
Graph for Water Manometer

Graph for MERCURY Manometer

Discussion-
The study, given its high level of experimental difficulty, gave results that were representative and
coherent. The frictional coefficients which were determined experimentally, were closely related to the
theoretical ones which were obtained from a Moody diagram. The ¾-inch old pipe had the best
correlation with a divergence of less than 6% while the 2 other pipes’ Darcy-Weisbach coefficients
diverged about 30% from the Moody data. The parallel flow analysis gave results that were highly
conclusive: The maximal divergence between the experimental and theoretical head losses was about
13%. The closest correlation data was obtained from the values that were obtained while testing with a
10 PSI pipe pressure – the divergence was less than 7%. The 4 PSI test was nearly as correlative with a
divergence of about 8%.

Conclusion
In this experiment, the fluid flow was assumed to be at steady state, incompressible, in viscid
and frictionless at the bell mouth. By doing so, the static pressure and the velocity of the fluid
inside of the pipe can be calculated. The friction factor was a little higher for the pipe with the
larger diameter when compared to the one for the pipe with the smaller diameter. From the
obtained values, it can be seen that fittings, valves, enlargements and contractions contribute
to a significant amount of loss due to friction. The discrepancies in the values were caused due
to possible human errors along with wear and tear associated with frequent use of the
experimental set up.

Sources of Errors
Random Errors

Observational. For example, errors in judgment of an observer when reading the scale of a measuring
device to the smallest division

Parallax error

This could have occurred while reading the values

Reference
1. Fluid Mechanics Douglas/Gasiorek/Swaffield 

2. Fluid Mechanics for Civil Engineers N.B. Webber 

3. Osborne Reynolds and Engineering Science Today Dowell and Jackson