Water Flow in Pipes: The Relationship

between Flow Rate and Pressure Head

Team 4
Amish Bhatt
Chaitra Hakkal
Hsu-Feng Ko

Carnegie Mellon University

06-363 Transport Process Laboratory
Prof. Robert Tilton
Instructor Matt Cline
May 14, 2001

0
 Abstract
In this experiment, our objective was to observe how the pressure head in 2-inch diameter
pipes from a centrifugal pump changed as the flow rate of water in the system was
changed. Our results showed that as flow rate increased, pressure head decreased. The
flow rate when the recycle stream was opened exhibited higher flow rates at lower
pressure. The correlation (Actual Flow ) = 0.6605(Max Flow percent) + 11.861
determined the actual flow rate. The flow rate was graphed against the pressure drop. As
the flow rate increased the Reynolds Number became great than 2100 and the flow
transitional. Also the pressure drop fluctuated and did not give a consistent reading.

1
 Table of Contents
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………………. 1

Introduction & Background ………………………………………………………… 3

Procedure …………………………………………………………………………... 6

Results ……………………………………………………………………………... 7

Discussion ………………………………………………………………………… 9

Conclusions & Recommendations …………………………………………………. 11

Nomenclature ………………………………………………………………………. 12

Reference …………………………………………………………………………... 13

Appendices

A ……………………………….. Assumptions and Sample Calculations

B …………………………………………… Data with no recycle stream

C …………………………………….……….... Data with recycle stream

2
 Introduction
In this experiment, our objective was to observe how the pressure head in 2-inch diameter
pipes from a centrifugal pump changed as the flow rate of water in the system was
changed. We expected the data to show that as flow rate increased, pressure head would
decrease. This hypothesis was based on the data in figure 2 below showing the
relationships between pressure head and flow rate for centrifugal pump as well as the data
from the experiment conducted previously by Cunning (2000) using ethylene glycol
instead of water. In many respects, this aspect of our experiment was intended to verify
known data about the apparatus.

Furthermore, we wanted to collect data to show what this relationship was when a recycle
stream was introduced into the system. We expected that the introduction of a recycle
stream would not effect the basic relationship since the basic properties of the system are
the same, however we believed that the pressure levels would be lower when the recycle
stream was introduced because the water would now be able to flow freely out of the pipe
into an open tank. These two parts of the experiment were initially intended to be the
first part of our experiment. We hoped to be able to obtain a dynamometer, an ammeter,
and a digital pressure monitor to be able to determine the efficiencies of the pump and the
motor in the system. However, there were significant time constraints due to the fact that
we had to spend the first lab period preparing the apparatus for the experiment. This
mainly involved repeatedly cleaning and draining the tank so that the ethylene glycol that
was in the tank could be replaced by water. In subsequent lab periods, a significant
amount of time was invested in attempting to repair a digital pressure meter that was
available.

In addition, cost constraints prevented us from being able to obtain a dynamometer. By

the time we found this out, it was too late to redesign the experiment and the time
constraints already discussed would have prevented us from adding to the experiment
anyway. Therefore, our experiment was limited to verifying the flow rate vs. pressure
head relationships that were known using the big blue apparatus and water and
demonstrating what effect introducing a recycle stream into the system would have.

Background and Theory

Flow through Pipe flow follow the Bernoulli Equation (energy balance through a pipe).
Derived from the first law of thermodynamics, the Bernoulli equation is the addition of
“head” with the units of energy/weight or length. These heads include pressure, velocity,
and height.
p1 v2 p v2
+ z1 + 1 + hG = 2 + z 2 + 2 + hL (1) (Meadows, 13)
γ 2g γ 2g
p ≡ pressure
γ ≡ specific weight
v ≡ velocity
h ≡ head gains/losses
z ≡ height

3
Head is gain through pumps and loss through friction. Three types of head loss occur in
all pipes: entrance loss, exit loss, and loss through the pipes. In the setup head was loss
through the bends, expansion and contraction. From the points we measured, we can
neglect all these frictions expect for friction across the pipe.

The Reynolds number is a unitless property that is defined by the density, viscosity, and
velocity of the fluid as well as the diameter of the pipe. The Reynolds number determines
the type of flow in the pipe, whether it’s laminar, turbulent or transitional. If the Reynolds
number is less tan 2100 it is turbulent, and if it’s greater than 4000 the flow is turbulent.

ρDv
N Re = (2)
µ

The Fanning Friction factor in our experiment depends on the Reynolds numbers
(Manual). This approximation of friction holds for both turbulent and laminar flows.

− (∆p ) g c D
f = (3) (Flow in Pipes)
2 ρv 2 L

gc ≡ conversion factor
D ≡ diameter of the pipe
L ≡ Length of pipe
ρ ≡ density of the fluid in the pipe

We used a manometer to measure the pressure drop across the pipe. The fluid in the pipe
was water with trace amount of ethylene glycol and soap. Since the tank was originally
filled with a mixture of glycol and water, we had to add soap and pump the glycol out.
While the soap cleanses the pipe, there was still a residual of it and glycol left. Because
of this residual, not all of the soap and glycol could be removed from the water.

The apparatus we used, Big Blue consists of a network of pipes, valves, pumps, and a
tank as storage for water. We measure the flow from a 2-inch diameter Plexiglas pipe.
The fluid enters the pipes from the tanks at high kinetic energy (velocity) and then energy
is added to the fluid as it is pumped up 0.5 m to the Plexiglas pipes. The fluid flows down
the pipe and looses energy to the walls. We took our manometer reading from the flow
through the pipe (from the pressure tap to before the orifice plate.

4
Figure 1: Diagram of the Big Blue (Cunning, D1)

To calculate the power of the system we would have measured the current from the
ammeter multiplied by the voltage. This yields the total powers of the system.

P = I ×V (1)

P ≡ Power
I ≡ Current
V = Voltage

Figure 2: Efficiency Curves on the Pump ( Cunning, 2)

5
 Procedures
The “Big Blue” played a key role in this experiment. It consists of 4 horizontal pipes of
different materials and diameters. Each pipe has a valve that can open or close to control
the amount of flow rate going into the pipes when we turned on the Big Blue. In the
back, there is a reservoir tank that holds and collects the flowing liquid. A pump and a
motor are also present in order to pump the liquid and allow fluid flow to occur. Various
valves are also present on several pipes to further regulate fluid flow.

We also attached a flow meter to it in order to measure flow rates. We added a loop to fit
the flow meter to the Big Blue so that the fluid goes through the flow meter first before
going back into the reservoir. Unfortunately, a dynamometer was not available to allow
us to measure the efficiency of the pump and motor separately.

This experiment consists of two major parts: one with the recycle stream closed and one
with the stream half open. Running the Big Blue was not a difficult task. Even though
we had to deal with mishaps such as fluid spill and other minor equipment-related
problems, we had enough time during the remaining few weeks to collect enough data.
The procedures were fairly simple. After fluid started flowing through the intended pipe,
namely, the 2” Plexiglas pipe, we adjusted the valve that controlled the pipe that returned
the fluid into the tank so that the flow meter was reading the percentage of maximum
flow we desired. We then recorded the flow rate percentage as well as the pressure
readings from the manometer. We proceeded by adjusting the gate valves and recorded
the pressure drop, as the valve opening was getting narrower. We then repeated the same
procedures except that the second time around we left the recycle stream valve about
50% open.

6
 Results
In order to begin the experiment, we attached a flow meter to the Big Blue so that we
could measure the flow rate of water going through the pipe. The flow meter readings
were given as percentage of maximum flow. In a previous report, specifically the report
by Cunning, Petruzzi, and Steig, the calibration curve for the flow meter was a straight
line

y = 0.6605 x + 11.861

where y is the actual flow rate in gpm and x is the percentage reading from the flow
meter. The R2 value for this particular calibration curve is 0.9906, indicating a good fit
and a linear line. Thus we safely used this equation to convert measured flow percentage
into the actual flow in gallons of water per minute. Figure 3 below shows a plot of the
calibration curve.

Figure 3: Actual Flow vs. Max % Flow

60 y = 0.6605x + 11.861
50
Actual Flow (gpm)

40
Series1
30
Linear (Series1)
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80
Max Percent Flow (%)

We then plotted the pressure head vs. flow rate and see that as flow rate increased,
pressure head decreased. Multiple curves with the valve open at various positions all
show the same result. Figure 4 is the plot when the recycle stream was fully closed while
Figure 5 is the plot with the recycle valve half way open. We have attached the data from
this experiment in Appendix B and Appendix C for non-recycle and recycle, respectively.

7
 Figure 4: Head Pressure vs. Flow Rate

25

Head Pressure (ft H2O) 20 Fully Open

2 Turns
15 4 Turns
10 6 Turns
7 Turns
5 7.5 Turns

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Flow Rate (gpm)

Figure 5: Head Pressure vs. Flow Rate (Recycle 1/2

Open)
Head Pressure (ft H2O)

14
12 Fully Open
10 2 Turns
8
4 Turns
6
4 6 Turns
2 7 Turns
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Flow Rate (gpm)

8
 Discussion
The data shows a clear relationship between pressure head and flow rate of water in the
experimental apparatus. It shows that over the entire range of orifice plate closures, as
flow rate increases, pressure head decreases in the two inches diameter pipe for the
centrifugal pump. This relationship is the same relationship that can be seen in figure 2
as well as the relationship that was found by Cunning (2000) in their experiment using
ethylene glycol. An increased flow rate caused a decrease in pressure head because
increasing the flow rate involved opening valves that provided resistance against flow.
As these valves were opened, the decrease in resistance to flow caused pressure head to
decrease since there was less resistance to overcome. This relationship was more distinct
at higher values of pressure head, which occurred at larger openings of the orifice plate.
This trend appeared because at very small openings of the orifice plate, the amount of
water that can flow through the opening is very small and this causes the flow rates to
remain the same at different pressures. If the pump curve in this experiment is compared
to the pump curve from the Cunning (2000) experiment, one will see that the pressure
levels were higher when ethylene glycol was used than when water was used. This
demonstrates that changing the properties of the fluid will affect the numerical values in
the relationship between flow rate and pressure head in this experiment, but it will not
affect the overall relationship. The data from Cunning has not been included in this
report but their curve showed the same relationship.

The data also clearly indicated that the same relationship that was demonstrated with the
recycle stream closed exists when the recycle stream is opened. Our assertion that the
introduction of the recycle stream would cause all the pressure levels to be lower held
true. Opening the end of the pipe reduced the pressure head for the water flowing
through the pipe since the water was free to flow through the open end of the pipe.
Without the recycle stream, the pump is pumping water against the resistance of the pipes
that the water must flow through, causing a larger pressure head than when the water is
draining out of one end of the pipe.

Our primary source of error in this experiment was in taking pressure readings and flow
rate readings. The system was unable to maintain a constant rate of flow at any given
time, so there were always fluctuations in the flow meter and the manometer when we
were taking readings. However, these fluctuations were relatively insignificant because
they only caused a margin of error of .1 mm Hg in the manometer and about 1% in the
flow rate readings. However, when the flow rate in the system was increased to above
55% of the maximum flow, the fluctuations became so severe that we were not able to
take any readings at these levels. At this level of flow fluctuations in the flow meter were
around the magnitude of 7-10%, which was far to high to allow any reasonable
observations to be made. This is due to the increasing turbulence of the flow as the rate
of flow is increased. There was no way for us to stabilize flows at these rates so readings
could be made. However, the relationships we intended to display did not require these
readings so this error did not have a significant impact on the overall experiment.

9
A second source of error in this experiment was that after cleaning the tank we were
unable to completely remove the soap residue from the tanks. This was true even after
the tank was rinsed and drained in excess of ten times. The presence of soap in the tank
could have caused the properties of the fluid in the system to be slightly different than the
properties of water that were used in calculating pressure head. However, the amount of
soap was so small that these effects could not have had any significant effect on the data.

10
 Conclusion & Recommendations

After completing this experiment, we can draw several conclusions from the data we
have collected:

As expected, as water flow rate increased, the pressure head measurements for the
2-inch Plexiglas pipe decreased with the centrifugal pump. The relationship
between flow rate and pressure head was verified using water as the fluid.

The relationship between flow rate and pressure head does not change when a
recycle stream is introduced into the system. However, the pressure head levels
decrease dramatically due to the decreased resistance against the flow of water
that must be overcome in pumping the water through the system.

The relationship between flow rate and pressure head is independent of the type
of fluid used. This conclusion is being made looking at the data from this
experiment as well as the data from Cunning (2000) using ethylene glycol that
demonstrated the same relationship.

As for future recommendations:

It was very unfortunate that we were unable to obtain a dynamometer and an

ammeter to measure the efficiency of the pump and motor separately. Future
groups should definitely give that a try.

Our experiment only dealt with a range of flow between 10% and 60% of the
maximum flow. Future groups could perform experiments involving flows higher
than 60% to further investigate the linear relationship shown in Figure 1. This
would involve figuring out how to get a stable flow at these levels.

It would be ideal if future groups could develop a way to stabilize fluid flow so
that the pressure readings would not fluctuate too drastically to affect the
readings.

The relationship between temperature and fluid flow could be investigated in the
future.

11
 Nomenclature

Symbol Explanation Units

f Fanning Friction dimensionless

g Acceleration due to gravity m/s2

h Height difference between tank level and m

location of pressure measurement
NRE Reynold’s number dimensionless

P Pressure head ft H2O

Pobs Observed/measured pressure head in Hg

ρ Density g/cm3

12
 Reference
Cunning, Scott, Petruzzi, Lauren, and Stieg, Jason. Pump Efficiency and Economic
Analysis of Piping Systems. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, 2000.

“Flow in Pipes” Manual: Laminar and Turbulent Flow in Pipes.

(http://rothfus.cheme.cmu.edu/tlab/fluid1/fluid1.pdf), 2001.

Geankoplis, Christie J. Transport Processes and Unit Operations. 3rd ed. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR, 1993.

Mays, Larry W. Water Resources Engineering. 1st ed. New York: John
Wiley, 2001.

Meadows, Michael E and Walski, Thomas M. Computer Applications in Hydraulic

Engineering. 3rd ed. Waterbury, CT: Haestad Methods, 1999.

13