Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Author
Group
No.
Date
Table of Contents
Contents
Table
of
Contents
.................................................................................................................................................................
ii
List
of
Figures
.......................................................................................................................................................................
iv
List
of
Tables
..........................................................................................................................................................................
v
1.
Executive
Summary
....................................................................................................................................................
1
2.
Introduction
...................................................................................................................................................................
2
3.
Methodology
..................................................................................................................................................................
3
3.1
Governing
equations
..........................................................................................................................................
3
3.1.1
3.1.2
ii
References
............................................................................................................................................................................
14
Appendix
...............................................................................................................................................................................
15
iii
List
of
Figures
Figure
1
Measuring
time
needed
to
fill
10
L
of
water
in
the
tank
..................................................................
5
Figure
2
Placing
the
sensors
on
the
end
points
of
the
segment
under
study
............................................
6
Figure
3
Reading
pressure
head
values
from
the
software
..............................................................................
6
Figure
4
Technician
fixing
pressure
censors
.........................................................................................................
12
iv
List
of
Tables
Table
1
Data
collected
from
straight
pipe
trials
.....................................................................................................
7
Table
2
Data
collected
from
contraction
trials
.......................................................................................................
7
Table
3
Data
collected
from
90
degree
bend
trials
...............................................................................................
8
Table
4
Calculations
of
Reynolds
number,
friction
factors
and
percentage
error
.................................
9
Table
5
Calculation
of
Kc
and
the
percentage
error
.............................................................................................
9
Table
6
Calculations
of
Kb
and
percentage
error
................................................................................................
10
Table
7
Kc
values
for
contraction
of
different
angles
........................................................................................
15
Table
8
K
values
for
threaded
pipe
fittings
............................................................................................................
15
Table
9
Ks
values
for
pipes
made
of
different
materials
..................................................................................
15
Table
10
Moody
Diagram
...............................................................................................................................................
16
1. Executive
Summary
The
purpose
of
this
report
is
to
show
the
results
of
calculating
experimental
values
of
friction
factors
and
loss
coefficients
of
a
contraction
and
a
90
degree
threaded
bend.
Our
experiment
involved
3
phases
and
3
trials
per
phase:
1) Friction
factor
of
a
straight
pipe
2) Kc
value
of
the
contraction
3) Kb
value
of
a
90
degree
threaded
bend
The
experiment
resulted
in
large
errors
in
determining
the
different
factors
relative
to
the
theoretical
ones.
The
friction
factor
found
had
an
average
error
of
42.45%
relative
to
the
theoretical
friction
factor.
Also,
the
Kc
value,
having
the
largest
error
in
calculation,
had
an
average
error
of
672%
relative
to
the
theoretical
Kc.
Finally,
the
Kb
value
had
an
average
error
of
35
%
from
the
theoretical
Kb.
The
errors
calculated
were
a
result
of
several
factors
including:
1) Malfunction
and
inaccuracy
of
the
pressure
head
sensors
2) Assuming
of
Ks
instead
of
determining
the
actual
value
3) Not
measuring
again
the
flow
after
the
transition
from
one
segment
to
another
2. Introduction
In
hydraulic
engineering
practice,
it
is
necessary
to
estimate
the
head
loss
incurred
by
a
fluid
as
it
flows
along
a
pipeline.
For
example,
it
may
be
desired
to
predict
the
rate
of
flow
along
a
proposed
pipe
connecting
two
reservoirs
at
different
levels.
Or
it
may
be
necessary
to
calculate
what
additional
head
would
be
required
to
double
the
rate
of
flow
along
an
existing
pipeline.
Thus
its
necessary
to
calculate
the
head
losses
for
the
above
calculations
to
be
accurate.
Usually,
head
loss
is
incurred
by
fluid
mixing
which
occurs
at
fittings
such
as
bends
or
valves,
and
by
frictional
resistance
at
the
pipe
wall.
Major
losses
are
due
to
bends,
contraction-expansion
and
valves.
Friction
losses
are
between
fluid
and
contact
surface.
Where
there
are
numerous
fittings
and
the
pipe
is
short,
the
major
part
of
the
head
loss
will
be
due
to
the
local
mixing
near
the
fittings.
For
a
long
pipeline,
on
the
other
hand,
skin
friction
at
the
pipe
wall
near
will
predominate.
In
the
experiment
described
below,
we
investigate
the
losses
due
to
frictional
resistance
in
a
straight
pipe
with
rough
walls,
fluid
mixing
in
a
bend
and
a
contraction.
3. Methodology
3.1 Governing
equations
In
this
experiment
two
main
equations
were
used:
Continuity
and
energy
equations.
3.1.1 Continuity
Equation:
The
continuity
equation
states
that
the
net
rate
of
mass
inflow
to
a
control
volume
is
equal
to
the
rate
of
increase
in
mass
within
fixed
boundaries.
Therefore,
1 * A1*V1=2 * A2*V2
Since
the
fluid
is
incompressible
then
1 =2
therefore
A1*V1=A2*V2
Then
Q1=Q2
Where:
=
density
(Kg/m3)
V:
velocity
(m/s)
A=
area
in
m2
Q=
flow
rate
(m3/s)
3.1.2 Energy
equation:
!!
!!
!
!
! ! + ! + 1 !!
+ = !! + ! + 2 !!
+
Where:
!!
!!
Assuming turbulent flow (as will be determined from Re in the experiment) 1=2=1
!!
Head Losses: ! = ! !! +
h!
!!
!!
Where:
!!
!!
Friction Coefficient =
!.!"
!"#
Reynolds Number: =
!"
!
!"
!.!"
!
!.!! !"!.!
Where:
!!
1) For
the
bend
and
contraction,
the
head
loss ! !!
is
neglected
because
L
is
small
2) = 1
3) Assume
Ks=
0.3mm
4. Experimental
Procedure
4.1 Material:
Stop watch
Measuring tape
4.2 Procedure
a) Use
a
measuring
tape
to
measure
the
straight
pipe
length
b) Record
the
necessary
dimensions
of
the
segments
under
study.
c) Open
the
valve
for
the
rough
pipe
d) Turn
on
the
pump
and
adjust
initial
flow
e) Using
a
stopwatch,
record
the
time
needed
to
fill
10
Liters
in
the
tank
as
done
in
figure
1.
f) Place
the
sensors
at
the
start
and
end
points
of
the
segment
under
study
as
done
in
figure
2.
Figure
2
Placing
the
sensors
on
the
end
points
of
the
segment
under
study
g) Reset
the
computer
program
and
record
the
values
for
the
pressure
heads
as
done
in
figure
3.
h) Open
the
valve
of
the
contraction
then
close
that
of
the
rough
pipe
to
avoid
damaging
the
equipment.
i) Repeat
steps
e
to
g
after
changing
the
flow
j) Open
the
valve
of
the
pipe
line
including
the
bend
then
close
that
of
the
contraction
k) Repeat
the
steps
e
to
g
after
changing
the
flow
l) Open
the
valve
of
the
straight
pipe
and
close
that
of
the
bend.
m) Repeat
the
procedure
for
a
total
of
3
different
flow
rates.
5. Data
Collected
5.1 Straight
Pipe
trials
Trials
Flow Calculated
hu (cm)
hd (cm)
(m3/s)
1
4.33E-04
106
70
6.60E-04
217
151
7.71E-04
271
190
Length (cm)
Diameter (mm)
100
17
5.2 Contraction
Trials
Flow Calculated
hu (cm)
hd (cm)
(m3/s)
1
4.33E-04
65
59
6.60E-04
128
116
7.71E-04
155
141
Diameter 1 (mm)
Diameter 2(mm)
40
25
5.3 Bend
Trials
Flow Calculated
hu (cm)
hd (cm)
(m3/s)
1
4.33E-04
78
70
6.60E-04
158
143
7.71E-04
193
175
Diameter 1 (mm)
(cm)
17
V(m/s)
1.9056
2
3
Re
fexperimental
ftheoretical
Error (%)
32395
0.03306
0.04817
31.37
2.9080
49437
0.02603
0.04761
45.32
3.3968
57746
0.02341
0.04746
50.67
!
!
!.!!!"!!
!
!.!" !
= 1.9056
!
!!
!
5)
!experimental!!theoretical
!theoretical
!.!"#$!.!"#
!"!!
= 0.03306
= 32395
0.25
log 3.7
+ 5.74
0.9
100 =
0.25
0.3
log 3.717
+ 5.74 0.9
26678.4
!.!"#$%!!.!""!#
!.!"#$%
100 = 31.37%
6.2 Kc
results:
Trial
Vu(m/s)
Vd(m/s)
Kcexperimental
Kctheoretical
Error (%)
0.3442
0.8811
0.6688
0.06
1014.7
0.5253
1.3448
0.4547
0.06
657.8
0.6136
1.5707
0.2660
0.06
343.3
Sample
Calculation
based
on
trial
1:
1) Velocities:
a. V1 = =
b. V1 =
=
2)
!!
!
2
2
!!
!
+ !!
=
2
2 2
!!
!
!!
!!!
!!
!!!
!!.!!!"!!
!(!"!"!! )!
!!.!!!"!!
= 0.3442 s
m
= 0.8811 s
!(!"!"!! )!
!!
!
+ !!
+
2
2
9.81
0.34422
0.88112
2
2
d
=2
65
10
+
59
10
+
2
2
2 9.81
2 9.81
0.88112
= 0.6688
3) =
!"experimental!!"theoretical
!"theoretical
100 = 1014.7%
6.3 Kb
Results:
Trial
V(m/s)
Kbexperimental
Kbtheoretical
Error(%)
1.906
0.8101
0.9
9.999
2.908
0.5104
0.9
43.29
3.397
0.4251
0.9
52.77
1) Kbexperimental:
! ! + 1 =
Kb =
!!(!! !!! ! !)
2)
=
!!
!!
!
!!
+ 2 + 2!
!"experimental!!"theoretical
!"theoretical
= 0.8101
100 =
!.!"#"!!.!
!.!
100 = 9.999 %
10
Inaccurate
measurement
of
the
flow
rate
manually
(
pressing
stop
watch
+-
1-2
s
from
the
actual
time
needed
to
fill
10
L)
The
valve
of
the
pipe
including
the
contraction
might
be
causing
increased
flow
of
fluid
than
the
valve
of
the
straight
pipe.
Thus,
the
actual
value
of
Q
is
greater
than
the
one
calculated
initially
for
the
first
pipe.
Doing
the
calculation
for
1
percent
increase
in
Q
leads
to
an
error
of
964.9%
for
first
run.
Therefore,
the
difference
in
error
is
49.8
%.
11
Also
the
flow
might
be
varied
in
the
transition
to
the
new
pipe
containing
the
bend.
8. Conclusions
The
calculated
friction
and
loss
coefficients
for
the
pipe,
bend
and
contraction
had
large
errors
relative
to
the
theoretical
ones
exceeding
10-14
percent.
Therefore,
there
is
a
need
to
question
the
quality
of
the
sensors
being
used
to
measure
the
pressure
heads
especially
when
it
comes
to
the
contraction
section.
The
errors
calculated
were
partially
a
result
of
several
factors:
malfunction
and
inaccuracy
of
the
pressure
head
sensors,
assuming
of
Ks
instead
of
determining
the
actual
value,
and
not
measuring
again
the
flow
after
the
transition
from
one
segment
to
another.
12
Acknowledgments
Special
thanks
for
Mr.Rabih
our
lab
assistant
for
explaining
thoroughly
the
procedure
of
the
experiment.
Special
thanks
for
Dr.
Basha
for
explaining
the
continuity
and
energy
equations
in
class,
and
explaining
their
usage
in
this
experiment.
13
References
Basha,
H.
(2013).
Hydraulics
&
Laboratory.
Beirut,
Lebanon.
14
Appendix
15
16