PRACTICAL 2:

PRESSURE DROP IN
PIPES
GROUP 28
CONNY RIBA 1389792
LERATO SEBOSE 1394253
SHIRLEY SEFUTHI 1330576
NIRVASHA SHEORAJ 788734

4/16/2018
1|Page

ABSTRACT:

In order for a system that involves pipes and flow to work properly, the total pressure drop in
that system should be known. This is because the system inlet pressure should be greater than
the pressure drop in the system for the fluid in the pipes to flow. Knowing pressure drop in
the system and the factors causing this pressure drop is therefore very important. In this
experiment we will be looking at the dynamic pressure drop in pipes. We will be looking at
the effect of size pipe diameter, pipe fittings, and pipe length and pipe material on pressure
drop. The relationship between pressure drop and flowrate was also investigated and
compared to the relationship by Poiseuille’s law.

In this experiment, pipes with different diameter sizes, length, material and fittings was used
and the pressure drop using the inlet pressure given and the outlet pressure that was
calculated using pipe fittings and fluid mechanics laws, equations and relations such as
Darcy-Weibash equation. For each pipe the pressure drop at different flowrates as set by the
rotameter was calculated. Increase in flowrate, increase in friction due to different pipe
material being used and increase in length increases the pressure drop of the system. These
factors should therefore be taken into consideration when designing a system that involves
fluid flow.
2|Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS: Page:

1. List of figures ……………………………………… 3

2. Introduction ……………………………………… 4
3. Theory ……………………………………… 4
4. Literature review ……………………………………… 6
5. Method ……………………………………… 8
a. Calibration ……………………………………… 8
b. Experiment ……………………………………… 8
c. Experimental setup ……………………………… 9
6. Results and Discussion ……………………………… 10
6.1. Calibration curve ……………………………… 10
6.2. Effect of flowrate on pressure drop ……………… 11
6.3. Effect of diameter size on pressure drop ……… 12
6.4. Effect of pipe fittings on pressure drop ……… 13
6.5. Effect of length on pressure drop ……… 14
6.6. Effect of material of construction (MOC) on pressure drop 15
7. Conclusion ……………………………………… 17
8. Appendices ……………………………………… 18
8.1. Collected experimental data ……………… 18
8.2. Rotameter calibration ……………………… 24
8.3. Effects of different parameters on pressure drop ….. 24
9. Post lab questions ……………………………………… 26
10. References ……………………………………… 27
3|Page

1. LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 1: Experimental setup with different pipe descriptions

Figure 2: Rotameter Calibration

Figure 3: Pressure drop vs. Flowrate

Figure 4: Relationship between diameter and head loss

Figure 5: Effect of pipe fittings on head loss

Figure 6: Effect of length on pressure loss

Figure 7: Effect of MOC on pressure drop

Figure 8: Effect of MOC on pressure drop

4|Page

2. INTRODUCTION:
Volumetric flow rate, pressure drop and head loss are fundamental quantities when designing
any piping system. This experiment introduces us to measurement techniques and some
principles of pipe flow. In chemical plants, piping systems play an important role in the
practical and economic functioning of the plant. High levels of pressure drop can cause loss
of efficiency in a plant and therefore affects profits that come from the final products formed.

The main aim and objective of the experiment performed is to investigate the effects of
pressure loss due to friction, pipe fittings, pipe diameters, pipe elevation and pipe material
types.

This lab report is based on pressure drop or head loss that occurs in all piping systems. We
see pressure drop in pipes due to elevation of pipes, changes in pipe direction and friction
found within pipes and their fittings.

3. THEORY:
In process industries, it is often necessary to pump fluids over long distances. The presence of
flow implies the presence of a resistive force, pressure drop in this case. There are two types
of pressure drops or head loss that can occur in pipes. The first type is static head loss due to
the elevation of part of pipeline above its source. The second type is dynamic head loss. This
is the loss of flowing pressure in pipes due to the frictions from the pipe walls or as the liquid
flows through pipe fittings.

In this lab we use the aid of Poiseuille’s Law to study and understand the effects of pressure
drop in pipes. When we are looking at laminar flow, the volumetric flowrate is given by the
pressure difference divided by the viscous resistance. The resistance in the equation depends
linearly on the viscosity and the length. Poiseuille’s law is in agreement with experiments for
uniform fluids where there is no appreciable turbulence. (Nave, 2016)

The following equation is the mathematical form of Poiseuille’s Law:

𝐏𝟏 − 𝐏𝟐 𝛑(𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞)(𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐮𝐬)𝟒
𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 = 𝓕 = =
𝐑 𝟖(𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲)(𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡)

This is basic form of Poiseuille’s Law that we see above but throughout the experiment,
different derivations of the law were used to suit each variable factor influencing the pressure
loss.

There are two types of flow we will observe in this lab, namely turbulent and laminar flow.
Turbulent flow is irregular flow where the velocity of the fluid is not constant at every point.
Laminar flow is when each particle of the fluid follows a smooth, direct path. These paths
never interfere with each other and the velocity at each point in the fluid is constant.
(Agrawal, 2009)
5|Page

The following relationships need to be considered when we study pressure drop effects:
(Alicat Scientific, 2018)

 For laminar flow, there is a direct relationship between pressure drop and volumetric
flowrate.

 For turbulent conditions, there is a direct relationship between pressure drop and the
square of the volumetric flowrate.

 Pressure drop has a direct relationship with viscosity. (Viscosity is a value that
expresses the amount of internal friction in a fluid)

To move a given amount of a fluid in a pipe a certain amount of energy is required. The
liquid moves because of an energy or pressure difference. A percentage of that energy is lost
due to the resistance to flow and we have head loss. In this experiment we study the different
factors that cause this pressure loss.

Head loss due to the elevation of pipes differs in depending on whether we are looking at
flow in a rising pipe or flow in a falling pipe. If the start of the pipe is lower than the end of
the pipe we see additional pressure loss. The higher fluid elevation means less pressure is
added due to the reduced depth and weight of fluid above that point. If the start of the pipe is
higher than the end of the pipe we see additional pressure gain. The lower fluid elevation
means more pressure added due to the increased depth and weight of the fluid above that
point.

Head loss due to friction can occur due to the friction between the fluid and the wall of the
pipe or due to friction between adjacent layers of the fluid itself. Every liquid has a value for
its resistance to flow. Any liquid is attracted to surfaces it comes into contact with. It attaches
itself to this surface and loses its ability to move. The liquid at the very surface of the pipe
always remains stationary. It does not flow or move. The liquid flowing against this non-
moving liquid has to slide against it to flow and an amount of energy is required to overcome
the friction. This is related to the viscosity of a liquid and we see that the higher the viscosity
of the liquid, the higher the resistance to flow and therefore the higher the friction head loss.
(Pentair Ltd., 2018)

The conditions of the inside of the pipe have a great effect on the head loss of the liquid flow.
The rougher the pipe is, which is dependent on the pipe material, and the thickness of the
layer of non-moving or slow-moving liquid near the pipe wall reduces the flow. These factors
reduce the diameter of the pipe and increase the velocity of the liquid. With the increase in
velocity we tend to see an increase in friction and therefore an increase in head loss.

Pipe fittings or direction of fluid flow is also a defining aspect of head loss in pipes.
Whenever a liquid changes direction, there is resistance. Liquids have weight and therefore
they have momentum. This means they will always try to continue moving in the same
direction. When a liquid encounters a change in direction it will always flow to the outer edge
of the fitting. (Pentair Ltd., 2018) This reduces the effective area of the pipe and this effect is
similar to reducing the diameter of the pipe. The velocity of the liquid increases and the head
6|Page

loss due to friction increases. Common pipe fittings such as elbows, strainers or valves have
all been tested and assigned ‘K’ factors based on the head loss measure through them. These
can be found in pump handbooks and can be used to calculate head losses due to friction for
entire systems.

4. LITERATURE REVIEW:

Whenever a fluid flows through a pipe that consists of straight pipes and fittings, we see a
definite loss of pressure/ head loss due to elevation of pipes, changes in pipe direction and
friction found within pipes and their fittings. This head loss is often considerable in many
piping systems and has been investigated before many times.

In the master’s thesis compiled by Professor F. E. Giesecke, he investigated the friction loss
in pipes caused by pipe fittings. He observed water as it flowed from one tank to another with
and without different pipe fittings in the connecting line. He used standard American pipes
and fittings and used his findings to develop exponential formulae for the friction and
essentially the head loss of water as it flowed. The experiment was conducted in a range of
one-half inch to three inches of nominal size pipe diameters. (Giesecke, 1917)

L. Perry, a professor at Lafayette College performed experiments in the determination of loss

of head in standard elbows and tees. He conducted his experiments in four different diameter
pipes ranging from one inch to four inches. Water was allowed to flow into a calibrated tank
and the velocity of the discharge was measured. A constant head on the pipe containing the
fitting was maintained by overflows and this constant head allowed a constant velocity to be
kept. The pressure loss was measured by the use of differential gages. The experiment
supported the theory of head loss due to pipe fittings but were, however, not found to be very
accurate due to the proximity of piezometric connections to the test fittings found during the
conduction of the experiment. (Perry, 1924)

Corp and Ruble conducted experiments on pressure loss in valves and pipes of diameter
ranging one inch to twelve inches. Both globe and gate valves were investigated for frictional
loss at their various openings. The results indicated the loss of head due to valves and other
fittings occur within the valve in downstream pipe lines where normal flow had been
disturbed. However, measurement of head loss where the downstream piezometer is too close
to the valve will give us a head loss higher than what was actually produced. Their results
also investigated the length of pipes and how they affected the head loss. Pipes with higher
lengths tended to have higher head loss. (Corp & Ruble, 1923)

Wilson, McAdams and Seltzer conducted experiments on viscous flow through pipe elbows
and the determination of correction factors for the pressure drop around bends. Elbows of
three different sizes were tested; one inch, two inch and four inch. A manometer was used to
measure the pressure drop around bends. The bends consisted of two standard 90° elbows
connected by a close nipple with straight pipe leading to the manometer connections. The
pressure drop through the straight pipe between manometer connections was calculated from
the data secured at the same time on straight pipe alone and the amount was subtracted from
the total pressure drop around the bend. This value divided by two gave the pressure drop for
7|Page

one standard 90° elbow. However, the accuracy of these determinations of the pressure drop
through elbows is doubtful due to the short length of the spacer. (Wilson, McAdams &
Seltzer, 1922)

From the different readings and experiments presented above, it was possible to predict what
would happen to the pressure as different factors of the pipes were changed. The experiment
performed aimed to support the experiments performed previously but also to observe,
present and support any different or contradicting findings that may be found in the results
presented below. We can see from the review that significant work has been done on the
pressure/ head loss in pipelines.
8|Page

5. METHOD:
a. Calibration

 Before starting the experiment the system was freed of any air bubbles by allowing
the inlet valve and outlet valve to be opened to allow water to flow freely in and out
of the system to remove any air bubbles that might be in the system

 The flowrate was then set on the rotameter using the valve to control the flow of water
into the system.

 All valves were closed except the valves along the pipe of interest and the pump was
then switched on to allow fluid flow.

 The time taken for water flowing through the pipe of interest to fill the volumetric
cylinder was then measured using a stopwatch.

 This procedure was repeated for 5 different flowrates on all the other pipes on the
system.

b. Experiment

 The valves along the pipe of interest was opened while closing all the other valves.

 The pump was then switched on to allow water to flow.

 The inlet pressure was then measured while the outlet pressure was calculated using
the pipe fittings.

 This procedure was repeated for 5 different flows on the same pipe.

 Point 1 to 4 was the repeated on different pipes.

9|Page

c. Experimental setup

Figure 1: Experimental setup with different pipe descriptions (Mphohoni, 2015)

Pipe Diameter Length Bends MOC Relative

number (m) (m) roughness
1 0.016 2.1 none PVC 0.00102525
2 0.205 2 none PVC 0.0000800195
3 0.015 1.95 none steel 0.032808
4 0.028 2.035 none steel 0.017575
5 0.016 9.8 90 PVC 0.00102525
6 0.016 4.1 135 PVC 0.00102525
7 0.028 2.1 none Glass 0.000585858
Table 1: Dimensions and physical properties of the pipes
10 | P a g e

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

6.1.Calibration Curve

y = 4.1857x + 15.927
R² = 0.9804

Figure 2: Rotameter calibration

From the graph it is evident that the rotameter height and the flowrate have a positive
relationship. This can be explained by using the following equation:

𝑸 = 𝒌𝑨√𝒈𝒉

Where Q is the volumetric flowrate, k is a constant, A is the annular area between the float
and the tube wall, g is the acceleration due to gravity and h is the pressure drop across the
float. With h being constant, we have A as a function of flowrate Q. As the float moves to
higher heights in the rotameter the annular area, A, increases causing an increase the
volumetric flowrate, Q.
11 | P a g e

6.2. Effect of flowrate on pressure drop

Pipe 1

Figure 3: Pressure drop vs. Flowrate

The graph illustrates a positive relationship between the pressure drop and flowrate for a flow
occurring in pipe 1 but the same relationship was observed for all the other pipes. Since the
flow was taken as laminar due to the Reynolds numbers being less than 2300 (see Appendix
A), Poiseuille’s law was used:

𝟏𝟐𝟖𝝁𝑳𝑸
∆𝑷 =
𝝅𝑫𝟒
And from this equation it can be seen that the pressure drop is directly proportional to the
volumetric flowrate, Q. This relationship can also be explained by looking at the fact that
increasing the flowrate means increasing the mass of the molecules that pass through a given
point per unit time. The more molecules passing through a given point per unit time results in
greater interactions between the molecules thus increasing the pressure drop. Also when the
flow rate is high the Reynolds number increases since the velocity is directly proportional to
the Reynolds number. When the Reynolds number is high the flow tends to approach
turbulence, which results in the irregular flow of the fluid.

Literature suggest that the intense mixing of the fluid in turbulent flow as a result enhances
momentum transfer between fluid particles, which increases the friction force on the surface
and thus the pressure drop increases. (Schulkes, 2015)
12 | P a g e

6.3.Effect of diameter size on pressure drop

Since pipe 1 and pipe2 are of the same material, PVC, and have equivalent lengths but only
differ in diameter, the effect of diameter size on pressure drop was observed using these two
pipes.

Pipe 1
Pipe 2

Figure 4: Relationship between diameter size and head loss

From the graph above it can be seen that the pressure drop is higher in pipe one compared to
pipe two independent of the flowrate. Since pipe one has a smaller diameter of 0.016m
compared to pipe two which has a diameter of 0.0205m, it means that water particles move
freely on the second pipe and this leads to less friction occurring between the fluid and the
walls of the pipe, hence a smaller pressure drop. This behaviour can also be explained by the
following equation:
𝜺
𝒓𝒆𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒆 𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒈𝒉𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 =
𝑫

Where 𝜀 is the absolute roughness of the pipe. As explained in literature, the head loss
increases with increasing roughness. The relative roughness is the actual friction that is
experienced by the fluid due to the pipe walls. It is a measure of the actual contact between
the fluid and the pipe wall. (White, 1999) This equation shows that increasing the diameter
reduces the relative roughness which is a result of less contact between the fluid and the pipe
wall thus reducing the head loss.

Since the cross-sectional area of the pipe is inversely proportional to the velocity, increasing
the diameter of the pipe will reduce the volumetric flowrate of the fluid thus reducing the
13 | P a g e

pressure drop. Increasing the diameter also reduces the turbulence of the flow thus reducing
the disturbances in the flow and resulting in a lower pressure drop. The table that represents
the data in the graph can be found in appendix A.

6.4. Effect of pipe fittings on pressure drop

Since pipe 5 and pipe 6 are the only ones with fittings, a comparison between the head losses
experienced by these two pipes was investigated. The graph below shows the results obtained
for each pipe.

Figure 5: Effect of pipe fittings on head loss

The graph illustrates that the presence of pipe fittings increases the head loss. Comparing the
pipes, pipe 5 and pipe 6 having different bends, ranging from 90° to 180°. The one that has a
smaller angle away from the pipe (this means a bigger bend) experiences greater pressure
drop as opposed to the pipe with greater angle. This implies that a smaller angles have more
effect on the pressure drop. The presence of bends in the pipes increases the collisions that
the fluid particles will make with the pipe, the fluid no longer flows linearly since the bends
results in disturbances which results in higher pressure drop. (Crowe, 2006) The disturbances
are more intense as we range from 90° to 180° bends since the bends of pipe 6 approach
linearity compared to pipe 5.
14 | P a g e

6.5. Effect of length on pressure drop

The effect of length on pressure drop was investigated by considering the pipe with the
highest and lowest length in this experiment pipe 5 and pipe 1. The graph below shows the
results obtained.

Pipe 1
Pipe 5

Figure 6: Effect of length on pressure drop

The longer the length of the pipe, the greater the head loss that is experienced by a fluid
moving within it. The longer pipe, that is pipe 5, experienced a greater head loss because of
the positive relationship between the head loss that is experienced in a pipe and the length of
the pipe from the Darcy-Weibash equation below

𝑳 𝑳 𝝆𝒗𝟐
∆𝑷 = 𝒇 (𝑫 + ∑ 𝑫𝒆 ) 𝟐

This is also evidenced by the fact that pressure drop is constituted by the friction along the
pipe surface. With all other factors being constant, such as the relative roughness of the pipe,
its diameter and the velocity of fluid within it, the greater the surface of contact between the
fluid and the pipe means the greater the frictional force that will experienced by the fluid and
hence the greater the pressure drop that is experienced in it. (Shah, 1978)
15 | P a g e

6.6. Effect of material of construction (MOC) on pressure drop

A comparison was made between pipe 1 and pipe three having MOC PVC and steel
respectively. It was fair to use these two pipes since they have equivalent lengths and
diameters and they only differ in MOC.

Pipe 1
Pipe 3

Figure 7: Effect of MOC on pressure drop

It can also be shown from the above figure that pressure drop in the pipe made of steel is
higher than the pressure drop of the pipe made of plastic. Similarly the absolute roughness of
steel is higher than that of plastic (see Table 1). This means that the irregularities within the
steel pipe are higher than the ones in a plastic pipe. This causes higher friction within the
steel pipe resulting in pipe 3(steel pipe) experiencing high pressure drop when compared with
the plastic pipe.
16 | P a g e

Pipe 4
Pipe 7

Figure 8: Effect of MOC on pressure drop

From the figure it can be noticed that the pressure drop of pipe 4 made of steel is higher than
the pressure drop of pipe 7 made of glass. This is because steel has an absolute roughness
higher than that of glass. When a pipe has a rough surface it means it will have higher
friction within it, and this will induce high pressure drop. (White, 1999) The irregularities in
the steel pipes cause the irregularities in the flow of water which give higher pressure drop in
the pipe.

Between figure 7 and 8 it is evident the pressure ranges of the 2 figures are not the same. The
maximum pressure experienced for the pipes at a diameter of 28cm is 346.5Pa and the
maximum pressure experienced for the pipes at a diameter of 16cm is approximately
677.4Pa. The huge difference between the pressure ranges of the 2 figures is because of the
diameter of the pipes that were used. The pipes with smaller diameter have high pressure
drops and the pipes with a higher diameter have a low pressure drop.
17 | P a g e

7. CONCLUSION:
From obtained results we see that an increase of friction given by the friction factor, f, we
observe a high pressure drop. This can be supported by the pressure drop equation where we
see that pressure drop and the friction factor are directly proportional to each other.

The presence of pipe fittings also resulted in a high pressure drop, this is due to the fact that
the pipe fittings add a dynamic head loss to the system. This resulted in the total head loss
experienced being due to both friction and the fittings.

The pipe diameter affects the Reynolds number, meaning for a large pipe diameter there will
be a high Reynolds number which will result in low friction being experienced and less
pressure drop taking place.

Pipes at high elevations experienced a large pressure drop because pressure is directly
proportional to the height.

Different types of materials have different roughness. This results in each of them having a
different fiction factor and therefore a different pressure drop.
18 | P a g e

8. APPENDICES:
8.1. Appendix A: Collected Experimental data
Physical properties of the system

Temperature=29°C

Density=995.6 kg/m3

Viscosity=0.01kg/m.s

Pipe 1

MOC PVC

Diameter (m) 0,016

Bends None

Length (m) 2,1

Effective Length (m) 2,1

Q inlet Outlet
(m3/s) pressure pressure

6,34E-05 13406,55 12578,77

8,70E-05 14406,55 13269,85
1,36E-04 16406,55 14625,38
1,99E-04 17406,55 14810,78
2,32E-04 19406,55 16370,32
2,57E-04 22406,55 19054,17

type Friction
Q v Re of factor head
(m3/s) (m/s) flow loss
6,34E-05 0,32 502,33 L 0,127407 827,78
8,70E-05 0,43 689,80 L 0,092781 1136,70
1,36E-04 0,68 1080,89 L 0,059211 1781,17
1,99E-04 0,99 1575,22 L 0,040629 2595,77
2,32E-04 1,16 1842,51 L 0,034735 3036,23
2,57E-04 1,28 2034,36 L 0,031459 3352,38
19 | P a g e

Pipe 2

MOC PVC

Diameter (m) 0,0205

Bends None

Length (m) 2

Effective Length (m) 2

Volumetric inlet pressure Outlet

flowrate pressure
(m^3/s)

6,34E-05 14927,1 14634,56

8,70E-05 15927,1 15525,38
1,36E-04 17927,1 17297,62
1,99E-04 18927,1 18009,74
2,32E-04 20927,1 19854,07
2,57E-04 23927,1 22742,35

Q v Re type of Friction head loss

(m3/s) (m/s) flow factor

6,34E-05 0,19 392,06 L 0,16324 292,54

8,70E-05 0,26 538,38 L 0,118876 401,72
1,36E-04 0,41 843,62 L 0,075864 629,48
1229,4 L
1,99E-04 0,60 4 0,052056 917,36
1438,0 L
2,32E-04 0,70 6 0,044504 1073,03
2,57E-04 1587,8 L
0,78 0 0,040307 1184,75
20 | P a g e

Pipe 3

MOC steel

Diameter (m) 0,015

Bends None

Length (m) 1,95

Effective Length (m) 1,95

Q inlet pressure Outlet pressure

(m3/s)

6,34E-05 16987,20 15992,15

8,70E-05 17987,20 16620,81
1,36E-04 19987,20 17846,11
1,99E-04 20987,20 17866,90
2,32E-04 22987,20 19337,43
2,57E-04 25987,20 21957,40

Q v Re Friction HEAD LOSS

(m^3/s) (m/s) factor
6,34E-05 0,36 535,82 0,12 995,05
8,70E-05 0,49 735,78 0,09 1366,39
1,36E-04 0,77 1152,94 0,06 2141,09
1,99E-04 1,13 1680,24 0,04 3120,30
2,32E-04 1,32 1965,35 0,03 3649,77
2,57E-04 1,45 2169,99 0,03 4029,80

Pipe 4

MOC Steel

Diameter (m) 0,028

Bends None

Length (m) 2,035

Effective Length (m) 2,035

21 | P a g e

Q inlet Outlet pressure

(m^3/s) pressure

6,34E-05 18409,65 18324,12

8,70E-05 19409,65 19292,20
1,36E-04 21409,65 21225,62
1,99E-04 22409,65 22141,45
2,32E-04 24409,65 24095,94
2,57E-04 27409,65 27063,28

Q v Re type of Friction head loss

(m^3/s) (m/s) flow factor

6,34E-05 0,10 287,05 L 0,22 85,53

8,70E-05 0,14 394,17 L 0,16 117,45
1,36E-04 0,22 617,65 L 0,10 184,03
1,99E-04 0,32 900,13 L 0,07 268,20
2,32E-04 0,38 1052,86 L 0,06 313,71
2,57E-04 0,42 1162,49 L 0,06 346,37

Pipe 5

MOC PVC

Diameter 0,016

Bends 16-90

Length 2,1

Effective Length 9,8

Q inlet pressure Outlet pressure

(m^3/s)

6,34E-05 19096,35 15233,40

8,70E-05 20096,35 14791,75
1,36E-04 22096,35 13784,25
1,99E-04 23096,35 10982,74
2,32E-04 25096,35 10927,27
2,57E-04 28096,35 12451,92
22 | P a g e

Q v Re type Friction head loss

(m^3/s) (m/s) of factor
flow

6,34E-05 0,32 502,33 L 0,127 3862,95

8,70E-05 0,43 689,80 L 0,093 5304,60
1,36E-04 0,68 1080,89 L 0,059 8312,10
1,99E-04 0,99 1575,22 L 0,041 12113,61
2,32E-04 1,16 1842,51 L 0,035 14169,08
2,57E-04 1,28 2034,36 L 0,031 15644,43

Pipe 6

MOC PVC

Diameter (m) 0,016

Bends 16-135

Length (m) 2,1

Effective Length (m) 4,1

Q inlet pressure Outlet pressure

(m^3/s)

6,34E-05 21254,55 21241,92

8,70E-05 22254,55 22237,21
1,36E-04 24254,55 24227,38
1,99E-04 25254,55 25214,96
2,32E-04 27254,55 27208,24
2,57E-04 30254,55 30203,42
23 | P a g e

Q v Re type of Frictio head loss

(m^3/s) (m/s) flow n (KPa)
factor
6,34E-05 0,32 502,33 L 0,127 12,63
8,70E-05 0,43 689,80 L 0,093 17,34
1,36E-04 0,68 1080,89 L 0,059 27,17
1,99E-04 0,99 1575,22 L 0,041 39,59
2,32E-04 1,16 1842,51 L 0,035 46,31
2,57E-04 1,28 2034,36 L 0,031 51,13

Pipe 7

MOC Glass
Diameter (m) 0,028
Bends None
Length (m) 2,1
Effective Length (m) 2,1

Q inlet Outlet
(m^3/s) pressure pressure

6,34E-05 21892,2 21891,51

8,70E-05 22892,2 22891,25
1,36E-04 24892,2 24890,72
1,99E-04 25892,2 25890,04
2,32E-04 27892,2 27889,67
2,57E-04 30892,2 30889,41

Q v type Friction head loss

(m^3/s) (m/s) of factor
flow
6,34E-05 0,10 L 0,222961 0,69
8,70E-05 0,14 L 0,162367 0,95
1,36E-04 0,22 L 0,103619 1,48
1,99E-04 0,32 L 0,071101 2,16
2,32E-04 0,38 L 0,060787 2,53
2,57E-04 0,42 L 0,055054 2,79
24 | P a g e

8.2. Appendix B: Rotameter Calibration

Diameter (mm) 16
MOC PVC

Table B.1: Data used to plot the Rotameter calibration and adjusted rotameter
calibration curve

Rotameter volume(ml) time(s) Volumetric

height flowrate (ml/s)

10 14000 220,92 63,37

20 14000 160,88 87,02
30 14000 102,67 136,36
40 14000 70,45 198,72
50 14000 60,23 232,44
60 14000 54,55 256,65

8.3. Appendix C: Effects of different parameters on pressure drop

Table C.1: Effect of varying flowrates on the head loss

Q head loss
(m^3/s) (Pa)

6,34E-05 827,78
8,70E-05 1136,70
1,36E-04 1781,17
1,99E-04 2595,77
2,32E-04 3036,23
2,57E-04 3352,38

Table C.2: Effect of changing the size of the diameter on the head loss

Flowrate (mL/s) pipe1 (Pa) pipe2 (Pa)

63,37 827,78 292,54
87,02 1136,70 401,72
136,36 1781,17 629,48
198,72 2595,77 917,36
232,44 3036,23 1073,03
256,65 3352,38 1184,75
25 | P a g e

Table C.3: Effect of pipe fittings on the head loss

Q (mL/s) pipe1 pipe 2 pipe 6

(Pa) (Pa) (Pa)
63,37 827,78 292,54 12,63
87,02 1136,70 401,72 17,34
136,36 1781,17 629,48 27,17
198,72 2595,77 917,36 39,59
232,44 3036,23 1073,03 46,31
256,65 3352,38 1184,75 51,13

Table C.4: Effect of length on the head loss

volumetric Pressure(Pa)
flowrate pipe 5 pipe1
(ml/s)
63,37 3862,95 827,78
87,02 5304,60 1136,70
136,36 8312,10 1781,17
198,72 12113,61 2595,77
232,44 14169,08 3036,23
256,65 15644,43 3352,38
26 | P a g e

9. POST LAB QUESTIONS:

What is the effect of friction, pipe fittings, pipe diameter, elevation and material type on
pressure drop? And how do these observations made compare to theory?

We see pressure drop in pipes when frictional forces act on a fluid as it moves through the
pipe. This is caused by the resistance to flow. All observations matched up to the theory
presented in the report. The results followed the expected outcome for each case by showing
a degree of pressure loss/ head loss where expected. the following explanations we explain
how each factor affected the head loss in the experiment performed.

When the flowrate of a liquid in a pipe increases, the velocity of the liquid increases at the
same rate. The friction to flow also increases. Head loss is associated with the square of the
velocity so we see a rapid increase in head loss.

It was observed that pipes at a higher elevation had greater pressure loss than pipes at a lower
elevation. This observation was made with other factors specific to each pipe.

When it comes to diameter, we know that if diameter of a pipe is reduced then the dynamic
pressure of the pipe line will increase. When the inside diameter is made larger, the flow area
increases and the velocity of the liquid at a given flow rate is reduced. When the velocity
decreases there is lower head loss due to friction in the pipe. However, Bernoulli’s Theorem
states that there should be a reduction in static pressure when the pipe area is reduced. So we
see an increase in dynamic pressure but a decrease in static pressure.

When it comes to pipe fittings and pipe length we can deduce that as long as flow rate, pipe
diameter and both inlet and discharge heights remain the same, pressure drop will increase as
a function of the added friction because of increase of length or added pipe fittings. Elbows,
tees, valves and other pipe fittings are needed for piping systems. These fittings disrupt
smooth flow of a liquid being pumped. We get head loss from this disruption.

Straightness of a pipe affects head loss. The momentum of the fluid in the pipe is disturbed if
a pipe is crooked. The liquid has to bounce of the walls of the pipe and the head loss due to
friction will increase.

When it comes to material of the inside of the pipe, we see that as the roughness of the inside
of the pipe wall increased, so does the thickness of the slow non-moving boundary layer of
liquid. The non-moving boundary layer will attach to different materials with different forces
causing the liquid to flow at different flowrates in different materials. When we have a
reduction in flow area we see an increase in velocity of the liquid and an increase in the head
loss due to friction.
27 | P a g e

10. REFERENCES:

Agrawal, N. (2009, August 08). Classification of Fluid Flow - Based on Flow Pattern. Retrieved
April 01, 2018, from Bright Hub Engineering: http://www.brighthubengineering.com

Alicat Scientific. (2018). What's up with pressure drop? Retrieved April 01, 2018, from Alicat
Scientific: http://www.alicat.com

Crowe, C. T. (2006). Multiphase Flow Handbook. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.

Giesecke, F. E. (1917). Formulas Deduced for Friction Loss in Water Pipes and Fittings. Engineering
News-Record 76, p. 469.

Mphohoni, E. (2015). Pressure Drop In Pipes Experimental Report. Johannesburg.

Nave, R. (2016). Poiseuille's Law. Retrieved April 04, 2018, from Hyperphysics:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu

Pentair Ltd. (2018). Head Loss in Piping Systems. Retrieved April 01, 2018, from Pentair:
http://www.hydromatic.com

Perry, L. (1924). Tests of Loss of Head in Standard Elbows and Tees. Engineering News-Record 92,
p. 940.

Schulkes, R. (2015). An Introduction to multiphase pipe flow.

Shah, R. K. (1978). Laminar Flow Forced Convection in Ducts. London: New York: Academic.

Smith, A. N. (1943). Friction Losses in Pipe Fittings and Valves. Atlanta: Georgia School of
Technology.

White, F. M. (1999). Fluid Mechanics. McGraw-Hill.