California State University Long Beach

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department

Fluid Mechanics
CE 336

Frictional Losses in Pipe flow

Experiment 5

Presented to Professor Mohamed El-Tawansy

by Minh Le

Performed on Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Submitted on Tuesday, May 6, 2014

Group #3 Tuesday 2-5pm

1
 Table of Contents

Abstract………………………………………………………………………….5

Group Tasks

Kristen Andas (Team Leader): Recorded data.

German Leal: Recorded data.
Shane Waidner: Read strobe light apparatus to get RPM.
Juan Simoes: Read the pressure gages.
Minh Le: Read the gage for force (Pound).

2
 Purpose

The purpose of this experiment is to evaluate the friction factors defined by

Darcy-Weisbach, Hazen-Williams, and Manning equations. The
applications of these equations enables determination of the friction factors
in this experiment, which may also be applied with Moody’s diagram.

When a fluid flows in a closed conduit pipe, its energy loss can be
demonstrated in this experiment. Frictional head losses of the fluid flow in a
pipe may be calculated using experimental and theoretical coefficients
used in the three empirical formulas listed in subsequent theory section.

3
 Abstract

A fundamental physical law describing viscous fluid dynamics states that

there is a no-slip condition at the fluid’s boundary with the conduit in which
it is moving. Hence, this creates a velocity gradient within a pipe with
energy losses. Below, figure 1 shows a dynamic fluid’s behavior when it
comes in contact with a solid boundary.

The boundary fluid sticks A velocity gradient is

to the pipe surface formed

4
The frictional losses resulting from the fluid’s internal shear forces, are
added to the losses due to the surface imperfections of the material that
form the conduit. Real surfaces further restrict the movement of the
dynamic fluid.

Magnified surface of an
aluminum pipe

Real pipe
surfaces are
not perfectly
smooth

Theory

Fundamentally, the system concurs with the first law of thermodynamics for
opened systems. Hence, the conservation of energy principle applies:
Δ E=E¿ −( E¿¿ out + losses)=0 ¿

Consequently,
E¿ =E out +losses

Work out + Pot . Eout + Kinetic E o ut +losses=Pot . E¿ + Kinetic E¿ + Work ¿

and
P 1 V 12 P 2 V 22
z 1+ + =z 2+ + + headlosses Equation 1
γ 2g γ 2g

5
 Z1 CONTROL Z2
P1 VOLUME P2
V1 V2

slow
fast
stream
stream

Figure 2 provides the basis for the energy analysis. The continuity
equation correlates the fluid speed and the pipe geometry to the flow.

Q1 = V1 * Area1
Q2 = V2 * Area2 Equation 2
Area1= Area2
Q1 = Q2

Assuming that Z1 = Z2 and that once a steady flow has been established,
the average speed of the water within the pipe is constant in the
longitudinal direction and so V1 average = V2 average.

These two assumptions further simplify Bernoulli’s equation:

P 1 P2
− =head losses Equation 3
γ γ

6
The calculation for the actual head loss through the pipe can now be
determined from the pressure head differences at the entrance and exit of
the control volume:
length pipe∗frictioncoefficient∗ρ V 2
P1−P2=
2∗Diameter pipe

Finally, the Darcy-Weisbach equation is defined by: Equation 4

length pipe∗friction coefficient ¿ V 2

=Headloss
2 g∗Diameter pipe

Knowing the fluid speed and viscosity, the flow’s Reynolds number can be
determined using:

ρV ¿ Diameter pipe Equation 5

Reynolds number =
μ

The actual head loss through the pipe can be measured experimentally,
using a manometer. Then the coefficient of friction can be determined using
equation 4. Alternatively, the coefficient can also be determined using the
Moody chart, if the conduit’s roughness ratio is known.

The experimental and theoretical friction coefficients will be compared

against each other in this study.

The roughness
can be
estimated
knowing the
pipe material
7
 The friction
coefficient will be
estimated with
the knowledge of
the pipe’s
roughness and
the flow’s
Reynolds Reynolds number will be determined
number
with equation 5

Equipment

The main components were the pipes in which the water was flowing for
this experiment. Below, figure shows the flow pipe system.

low pressure
The ¾ The ¾ head The
‘old’ pipe ‘new’ pipe
pipe
system
The ½
High pressure pipe
head

8
The pressure drop through the system was being monitored. Below, figures
1 and 2 show the capillary system which can divert a fraction of the flow to
the manometer.

The high
pressure
side
capillary
tube
valves

The low
pressure
side
capillary
9
tube
valves
 The pipe
discharge
valves

The capillary
tubes route
the flow to
the
manometer

The
manometer
determines
the pressure
drop

The pipe
discharge
hose to the
10
weighing
station
 The scale
weighs the
water
discharge
and
determines
the actual
flow

The water pressure on the high side of the pipe system was kept constant
during each run. During a run, an observer was posted at the input valve to
continuously control the system pressure according to the pressure gauge.
Below, the pressure control center is shown.

The gauge
shows the
high side
pressure

The control valves

are used to
regulate the high
side pressure

11
 Procedure Part I

1. Open the main water valve. Then open all the capillary tubes valves to
verify an adequate flow to the manometer. Verify the flow. Then close all
the capillary tubes.

2. Place the discharge collection vessel on the scale and reset zero for
scale (tare weight).

3. Open the incoming and outgoing valves of the ¾” ‘old’ pipes were
opened so that the flow could move within its volume.

4. Open the ¾” ‘old’ pipe’s capillary tubes upstream and downstream, so

that the head loss could be monitored.

5. Set the inbound system pressure to 10 PSI and then allow the flow to
discharge into the receptacle for a few minutes, until flow is steady.

6. Simultaneously divert the flow to the weighing vessel and start timing
using a chronometer to measure and record how much time it takes to

12
collect ½ cubic foot of water. Then calculate the run’s actual volumetric flow
rate. Then discard the weighed water.

7. Meanwhile, monitor the static pressure differential between the pipe’s

inlet and outlet and record manometer readings.

8. Repeat steps 2 through 7 for inlet pressures of respectively 8, 6 and

finally 4 PSI. Then repeat steps 2 through 8 for the ¾” ‘new’ and finally the
½” ’new’ pipes.

End of Procedure Part I

Procedure Part II

1. Repeat steps 2 through 7 of part 1 while the ¾” ‘new’ and the ½”

‘new’ diameter pipes were opened to output in a parallel flow.

2. Repeat step 1 for inlet pressures of 6 and 8 PSI.

End of Procedure Part II

13
 Raw Data
Part I:

Discharge Manometer Head

Flow loss (ft)
Pressur Mass Time Flow Speed Reynolds Left Right ∆h
Pipe e (psi) (lbm) (sec) (cfs) (fps) Number (in) (in) (ft)
31.2 33.61 0.0149 23,8 - 7.55 1.2 15.6975
10 4.44 28 7.40 5
31.2 36.19 0.0138 22,1 - 7.30 1.1 14.8050
8 4.12 29 6.80 8
31.2 42.18 0.0119 18,9 - 5.30 0.8 10.8150
¾ 6 3.54 86 5.00 6
inch 31.2 54.82 0.0091 14,6 - 3.15 0.5 6.5100
old 4 2.72 09 3.05 2
31.2 25.29 0.0198 29,3 - 9.30 1.5 19.1625
10 5.07 67 8.95 2
31.2 28.52 0.0175 26,0 - 8.20 1.3 16.8525
8 4.50 41 7.85 4
31.2 33.26 0.0150 22,3 - 5.90 0.9 12.0750
¾ 6 3.85 30 5.60 6
inch 31.2 41.6 0.0120 17,8 - 3.75 0.6 7.6125
new 4 3.08 53 3.50 0

14
 31.2 43.12 0.0116 23,6 - 7.80 1.2 16.0125
10 5.63 81 7.45 7
31.2 48.09 0.0104 21,2 - 7.60 1.2 15.6975
8 5.05 34 7.35 5
31.2 53.86 0.0093 18,9 - 6.15 1.0 12.5475
6 4.51 59 5.80 0
½ 31.2 66.19 0.0076 15,4 - 3.65 0.6 7.5600
new 4 3.67 27 3.55 0

Table 1: Data for Part I of experiment

Pressur Diamete Absolute Relative

Pipe Diamete Area
e (psi) r Roughness Roughnes
r (ft) (ft2)
(inches) (ft) s
10 0.784 0.0653 0.00335 0.00050 0.00766
8 0.784 0.0653 0.00335 0.00050 0.00766
¾ inch old
6 0.784 0.0653 0.00335 0.00050 0.00766
4 0.784 0.0653 0.00335 0.00050 0.00766
10 0.846 0.0705 0.00390 0.00050 0.00709
¾ inch 8 0.846 0.0705 0.00390 0.00050 0.00709
new 6 0.846 0.0705 0.00390 0.00050 0.00709
4 0.846 0.0705 0.00390 0.00050 0.00709
10 0.614 0.0512 0.00206 0.00050 0.00977
8 0.614 0.0512 0.00206 0.00050 0.00977
½ new
6 0.614 0.0512 0.00206 0.00050 0.00977
4 0.614 0.0512 0.00206 0.00050 0.00977

Table 2: Part I of the experiment, data

Part II:
Pipe Pressure Act.   Hydraulic T.E.L

15
 Head Darcy
Moody Radius Hazen Manning
(psi) Loss h2 W. Slope S
f_theo Rh(ft) W. C n
(ft) f_exp
10 15.70 0.1718 0.1189 0.01633 0.805 50.61 0.0193
¾ inch 8 14.81 0.1878 0.1300 0.01633 0.759 48.51 0.0202
old 6 10.82 0.1864 0.1290 0.01633 0.555 49.31 0.0201
4 6.51 0.1895 0.1312 0.01633 0.334 49.91 0.0203
10 19.16 0.1736 0.1202 0.01761 0.983 49.47 0.0197
¾ inch 8 16.85 0.1942 0.1344 0.01761 0.864 47.02 0.0208
new 6 12.08 0.1892 0.1310 0.01761 0.619 48.27 0.0205
4 7.61 0.1866 0.1292 0.01761 0.390 49.51 0.0204
10 16.01 0.0854 0.0591 0.01281 0.821 73.97 0.0131
8 15.70 0.1041 0.0721 0.01281 0.805 67.04 0.0145
½ new
6 12.55 0.1044 0.0723 0.01281 0.643 67.55 0.0145
4 7.56 0.0950 0.0658 0.01281 0.388 72.26 0.0138

Table 3: Data for Part I of the experiment

Diameter Area Manometer Flow Velocity

Pressur
Pipe D1 D2 Weigh Time Q2 V1
e (psi) A1 (ft) A2 (ft) Q1 csf V2 fps
(ft) (ft) t (lbs) (sec) csf fps
0.07 0.05 0.003 0.00 31.2 22.7 0.021 0.00 3
D1 1
0.75
10 1 9 21 9 9 6 3.32 .02
" 0.07 0.05 0.003 0.00 31.2 25.9 0.019 0.00 2
and 8 1 1 9 21 8 2 6 2.97 .71
D2: 0.07 0.05 0.003 0.00 31.2 28.2 0.017 0.00 2
0.5" 6 1 1 9 21 3 7 6 2.76 .44

Table 4: Data for Part II of the experiment

Manometer Measure The

Reading d Head f1 Head
f2 %Error
Combination Pressur Left Right Delta Loss hL Loss
Pipes e (psi) (in) (in) in (ft) (ft) hL
- 1.75 0.30
10 1.65 4.08 0.086 0.076 1.69 58.7
- 1.60 0.24
8 1.70 3.29 0.087 0.075 1.37 58.4
D1 0.75" - 1.35 0.20
and D2: 0.5" 6 1.80 2.72 0.083 0.077 1.19 56.2

16
Table 5: Data for Part II of the experiment

Sample Calculation

For Part I:
Convert the diameter to feet to maintain consistency of the measurement

units:

0.784 inches
D= =0.0653 foot
12

Calculate the area of the pipe:

2
' π 2
Pip e s Area= ( 0.0653 ft ) =0.00335 ft
4

Calculate the actual flow rate of the water, knowing the time interval it took

to collect ½ cubic foot of water in the trash can.

17
 0.5 ft 3 ft 3
Q= =0.0229
21.8 sec sec

Calculate the flow’s velocity, knowing the flow rate quantity and the cross

section of the pipe in which this flow is moving. Now, we can determine the

flow velocity by using the area we found earlier

ft 3
0.0149
Q sec ft
Velocity of flow = = 2
=4.44
Area 0.00335 ft sec

Determine the Reynold’s Number, knowing the temperature of the water

and its kinematic viscosity (of about 1.217E-5 ft2/s).

ft
'
Reynol d s Number =
Velocity∗Diameter
=
( 4.44
sec )
( 0.0653 ft )
=23,827
kinematic viscosity ft 2
1.217E-5
s

The mercury’s delta height was then converted to feet so that the head loss

that existed within the pipe’s length could be calculated.

Δ h ft .=¿ ¿

18
Calculate the head loss, knowing the density difference between mercury

and water.

p1  p2    w 
hL    m   12.6 * ∆h
w  w 

Head Loss ( H ¿¿ L measured)= (1.25 ft )( 12.6 )=15.70 ft ¿

Absolute roughness for a galvanized steel equals 0.005 ft. Knowing the

diameter from above, the absolute roughness was determined.

K 0.005 ft
Relative Roughness= = =7.66E-3 ft
D 0.0653 ft

Using this quantity, the Moody diagram was used to calculate a theoretical

value for the pipe’s frictional coefficient. According to the diagram, this

theoretical value is

f theoretical=0.045

ft

f experimental=
(
( 15.70 ft ) ( 0.0653 ft ) ( 2 ) 32.2
sec2 ) =0.1717
2
ft
(
( 19.5 ft ) 4.44
sec )

The experimental coefficient of friction for the pipe can be calculated and

used in the second part of the experiment. Using the Darcy-Weysbach

equation,
19
To determine the dimensionless pipe characteristics, the hydraulic radius of

the pipe and the energy line slope were first calculated.

Area 0.00335 ft 2
Hydraulic Radius ( Rh ) = = =0.0163 ft
Perimeter π ( 0.0653 ft )

H Loss 15.70 ft
Slope(T . E . L .)= = =0.805
Pipe length 19.5 ft

Knowing the 2 previous quantities, the Hazen-Williams and the Manning

coefficients can be calculated.

ft
4.44 =1.318C 0 ( .0163 ft ).63 ( 0.805 ).54∧so C=50.61
sec

ft 1.486
4.44 = ( 0.0163 ft )2 /3 ( 0.805 )1/ 2∧so n=0.0193
sec n

Below, table 6 shows the pipe dimensions and their respective estimated

frictional characteristics based on empirical data.

Pressur Diamete Absolute Relative

Pipe Diamete Area
e (psi) r Roughnes Roughnes
r (ft) (ft2)
(inches) s (ft) s
0.0653 0.0033 0.00766
10 0.784 5 0.00050
0.0653 0.0033 0.00766
8 0.784 5 0.00050
¾ inch old
0.0653 0.0033 0.00766
6 0.784 5 0.00050
0.0653 0.0033 0.00766
4 0.784 5 0.00050
¾ inch 0.0705 0.0039 0.00709
new 10 0.846 0 0.00050
0.0705 0.0039 0.00709
8 0.846 0 0.00050
6 0.846 0.0705 0.0039 0.00050 0.00709
0

20
 0.0705 0.0039 0.00709
4 0.846 0 0.00050
0.0512 0.0020 0.00977
10 0.614 6 0.00050
0.0512 0.0020 0.00977
8 0.614 6 0.00050
½ new
0.0512 0.0020 0.00977
6 0.614 6 0.00050
0.0512 0.0020 0.00977
4 0.614 6 0.00050

Table 6: The pipe dimensions and their respective theoretical roughness

Next, table 7 and table 8 show the numerical analysis of the first part of the

experiment. They are the values which are required in the lab manual’s

page 57. They represent the single pipe experiments.

Discharge Flow Manometer Head

Speed Reynolds loss (ft)
(fps) Number
Mass Time Flow Left Right ∆h
Pressure
(lbm) (sec) (cfs) (in) (in) (ft)
Pipe (psi)
¾ 31.2 33.6 0.0149 23,8 - 7.55 1.2 15.6975
inch 10 1 4.44 28 7.40 5
old 31.2 36.1 0.0138 14.8050
22,1 - 7.30 1.1
8 9 4.12 29 6.80 8
6 31.2 42.1 0.0119 3.54 18,9 - 5.30 0.8 10.8150
8 86 5.00 6

21
 31.2 54.8 0.0091 14,6 - 3.15 0.5 6.5100
4 2 2.72 09 3.05 2
31.2 25.2 0.0198 29,3 - 9.30 1.5 19.1625
10 9 5.07 67 8.95 2
31.2 28.5 0.0175 26,0 - 8.20 1.3 16.8525
8 2 4.50 41 7.85 4
31.2 33.2 0.0150 22,3 - 5.90 0.9 12.0750
¾ 6 6 3.85 30 5.60 6
inch 31.2 41.6 0.0120 17,8 - 3.75 0.6 7.6125
new 4 3.08 53 3.50 0
31.2 43.1 0.0116 23,6 - 7.80 1.2 16.0125
10 2 5.63 81 7.45 7
31.2 48.0 0.0104 21,2 - 7.60 1.2 15.6975
8 9 5.05 34 7.35 5
31.2 53.8 0.0093 18,9 - 6.15 1.0 12.5475
6 6 4.51 59 5.80 0
½ 31.2 66.1 0.0076 15,4 - 3.65 0.6 7.5600
new 4 9 3.67 27 3.55 0

Table 7: Part I data

Act.  
Hydraulic
Pressure Head Darcy T.E.L
Pipe Moody Radius Hazen Manning
(psi) Loss W. Slope S
f_theo Rh(ft) W. C n
h2 (ft) f_exp
10 15.70 0.1718 0.1189 0.01633 0.805 50.61 0.0193
¾ 14.81 0.1878 0.1300 48.51 0.0202
8 0.01633 0.759
inch
6 10.82 0.1864 0.1290 0.01633 0.555 49.31 0.0201
old
4 6.51 0.1895 0.1312 0.01633 0.334 49.91 0.0203
¾ 10 19.16 0.1736 0.1202 0.01761 0.983 49.47 0.0197

22
 8 16.85 0.1942 0.1344 0.01761 0.864 47.02 0.0208
inch 12.08
6 0.1892 0.1310 0.01761 0.619 48.27 0.0205
new
4 7.61 0.1866 0.1292 0.01761 0.390 49.51 0.0204
10 16.01 0.0854 0.0591 0.01281 0.821 73.97 0.0131
½ 8 15.70 0.1041 0.0721 0.01281 0.805 67.04 0.0145
new 6 12.55 0.1044 0.0723 0.01281 0.643 67.55 0.0145
4 7.56 0.0950 0.0658 0.01281 0.388 72.26 0.0138

Table 8: Part I data

Part II:

Again, the experimental volumetric flow rate of the water is calculated with

the knowledge of the time interval it took to collect ½ cubic foot of water in

the trash can.

0.5 ft 3 ft 3
Q= =0.0219
22.79 sec sec

23
Next, it was necessary to obtain the speed in the parallel pipes so that a

calculated head loss could be determined and then compared to the actual

head loss which was measured using the manometers. The actual head

loss was specified in the results section.

The speed was calculated based on the set of two equations with 2

unknowns that were given with the Darcy-Weysbach relation and the fact

that the arithmetic sum of the 2 flow rates would have to equal the total flow

rate that was determined experimentally.

f 1 L1 V 21 f 1 L1 V 21
=
2 g D1 2 g D1

D 1 f 2 V 22
¿ so V 1=
√
D2 f 1

D1 f 2
¿ finally , Qtotal = A1 (√ ) √D2 f 1
V 22 + A2 V 2

Q total A2 V 2
Therefore , =V 2 +
D1 f 2 D1 f 2
A1 (√ )
D2 f 1
A1 (√ )
D2 f 1

ft
Ultimately , V 2=3.02
sec

Inserting this value into equation yields

24
 ft
V 1=3.32
sec

The calculated head loss is determined using the Darcy-Weisbach

equation.

ft 2 (
Head losscalculated =
( 3.32
sec ) 15.70 ft ) (0.0708)
=1.69 ft
ft
(
( 0.0653 ft )( 2 ) 32.2
)
sec
2

This number was compared to that of the actual head loss and a relative
error was calculated in percentage.

Below, table 6 provides the empirical estimations as well as the actual

friction coefficient of the pipes that were tested in parallel flow analysis.

Diameter Area Manometer Flow Velocity

Pressur
Pipe D1 D2 Weigh Time Q2 V1
e (psi) A1 (ft) A2 (ft) Q1 csf V2 fps
(ft) (ft) t (lbs) (sec) csf fps
0.07 0.05 0.003 0.00 31.2 22.7 0.021 0.00 3
D1 1
0.75
10 1 9 21 9 9 6 3.32 .02
" 0.07 0.05 0.003 0.00 31.2 25.9 0.019 0.00 2
and 8 1 1 9 21 8 2 6 2.97 .71
D2: 0.07 0.05 0.003 0.00 31.2 28.2 0.017 0.00 2
0.5" 6 1 1 9 21 3 7 6 2.76 .44

Table 9: Part II, parallel pipe frictional data

25
 Manometer Measure The
Reading d Head f1 Head
f2 %Error
Combination Pressur Left Right Delta Loss hL Loss
Pipes e (psi) (in) (in) in (ft) (ft) hL
- 1.75 0.30
10 1.65 4.08 0.086 0.076 1.69 58.7
- 1.60 0.24
8 1.70 3.29 0.087 0.075 1.37 58.4
D1 0.75" - 1.35 0.20
and D2: 0.5" 6 1.80 2.72 0.083 0.077 1.19 56.2

Table 10: Part II, parallel pipe frictional data

Results

Below provides the friction coefficients that were derived from the
experimental data. The theoretical coefficients were obtained on a Moody
diagram with the known theoretical pipe roughness and the experimental
Reynolds numbers. The water’s energy line was calculated from the
experimental data. In an effort to correlate the experimental data to popular

26
methods of quantifying the friction that exists within closed pipes, the
Hanzen-Williams and the Manning coefficients were used for calculations.

Part I:

Discharge Manometer Head

Flow loss (ft)
Mass Time Flow Left Right ∆h
Pressure Speed Reynolds
(lbm) (sec) (cfs) (in) (in) (ft)
Pipe (psi) (fps) Number
¾ 31.2 33.61 0.014 23,8 - 7.55 1.25 15.6975
inch 10 9 4.44 28 7.40
old 31.2 36.19 0.013 22,1 - 7.30 1.18 14.8050
8 8 4.12 29 6.80
6 31.2 42.18 0.011 3.54 18,9 - 5.30 0.86 10.8150
9 86 5.00

27
 31.2 54.82 0.009 14,6 - 3.15 0.52 6.5100
4 1 2.72 09 3.05
31.2 25.29 0.019 29,3 - 9.30 1.52 19.1625
10 8 5.07 67 8.95
31.2 28.52 0.017 26,0 - 8.20 1.34 16.8525
8 5 4.50 41 7.85
31.2 33.26 0.015 22,3 - 5.90 0.96 12.0750
6 0 3.85 30 5.60
¾
inch 31.2 41.6 0.012 17,8 - 3.75 0.60 7.6125
new 4 0 3.08 53 3.50
31.2 43.12 0.011 23,6 - 7.80 1.27 16.0125
10 6 5.63 81 7.45
31.2 48.09 0.010 21,2 - 7.60 1.25 15.6975
8 4 5.05 34 7.35
31.2 53.86 0.009 18,9 - 6.15 1.00 12.5475
6 3 4.51 59 5.80
½ 31.2 66.19 0.007 15,4 - 3.65 0.60 7.5600
new 4 6 3.67 27 3.55

Table 11: Part I results

Pressur Diamete Absolute Relative

Pipe Diamete Area
e (psi) r Roughness Roughnes
r (ft) (ft2)
(inches) (ft) s
10 0.784 0.0653 0.00335 0.00050 0.00766
8 0.784 0.0653 0.00335 0.00050 0.00766
¾ inch old
6 0.784 0.0653 0.00335 0.00050 0.00766
4 0.784 0.0653 0.00335 0.00050 0.00766
¾ inch 10 0.846 0.0705 0.00390 0.00050 0.00709
new 8 0.846 0.0705 0.00390 0.00050 0.00709

28
 6 0.846 0.0705 0.00390 0.00050 0.00709
4 0.846 0.0705 0.00390 0.00050 0.00709
10 0.614 0.0512 0.00206 0.00050 0.00977
8 0.614 0.0512 0.00206 0.00050 0.00977
½ new
6 0.614 0.0512 0.00206 0.00050 0.00977
4 0.614 0.0512 0.00206 0.00050 0.00977

Table 12: Part I results

Act.  
Hydraulic
Pressure Head Darcy T.E.L
Pipe Moody Radius Hazen Manning
(psi) Loss h2 W. Slope S
f_theo Rh(ft) W. C n
(ft) f_exp
10 15.70 0.1718 0.1189 0.01633 0.805 50.61 0.0193
¾ inch 8 14.81 0.1878 0.1300 0.01633 0.759 48.51 0.0202
old 6 10.82 0.1864 0.1290 0.01633 0.555 49.31 0.0201
4 6.51 0.1895 0.1312 0.01633 0.334 49.91 0.0203
10 19.16 0.1736 0.1202 0.01761 0.983 49.47 0.0197
¾ inch 8 16.85 0.1942 0.1344 0.01761 0.864 47.02 0.0208
new 6 12.08 0.1892 0.1310 0.01761 0.619 48.27 0.0205
4 7.61 0.1866 0.1292 0.01761 0.390 49.51 0.0204

29
 10 16.01 0.0854 0.0591 0.01281 0.821 73.97 0.0131
8 15.70 0.1041 0.0721 0.01281 0.805 67.04 0.0145
½ new
6 12.55 0.1044 0.0723 0.01281 0.643 67.55 0.0145
4 7.56 0.0950 0.0658 0.01281 0.388 72.26 0.0138

Table 13: Part I results

For Part II:

Diameter Area Manometer Flow Velocity
Pressur
Pipe D1 D2 Weigh Time Q2 V1
e (psi) A1 (ft) A2 (ft) Q1 csf V2 fps
(ft) (ft) t (lbs) (sec) csf fps
0.07 0.05 0.003 0.00 31.2 22.7 0.021 0.00 3
D1 1
0.75
10 1 9 21 9 9 6 3.32 .02
" 0.07 0.05 0.003 0.00 31.2 25.9 0.019 0.00 2
and 8 1 1 9 21 8 2 6 2.97 .71
D2: 0.07 0.05 0.003 0.00 31.2 28.2 0.017 0.00 2
0.5" 6 1 1 9 21 3 7 6 2.76 .44

Table 14: Part II results

Manometer Measure The

Reading d Head f1 Head
f2 %Error
Combination Pressur Left Right Delta Loss hL Loss
Pipes e (psi) (in) (in) in (ft) (ft) hL
- 1.75 0.30
10 1.65 4.08 0.086 0.076 1.69 58.7
- 1.60 0.24
8 1.70 3.29 0.087 0.075 1.37 58.4
D1 0.75" - 1.35 0.20
and D2: 0.5" 6 1.80 2.72 0.083 0.077 1.19 56.2

30
Table 15: Part II results

*Note: V1= ¾ new pipe and V2 = ½ new pipe

Graphs

31
 Darcy Weisbach Friction vs. Pressure (psi)
0.2

0.18

0.16

HalfNewPipe
Friction

0.14
QuarterNewPipe
QuarteOldPipe

0.12

0.1

0.08
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pressure (psi)

32
 3/4 New Friction Coefficient vs. Reynolds Number
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
Friction Coefficient

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

QuarterNewPipe
-0.5
1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
Reynolds Number 4
x 10

33
 3/4 Old Friction Coefficient vs. Reynolds Number
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
Friction Coefficient

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

QuarterOldPipe
-0.5
1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
Reynolds Number 4
x 10

34
 1/2 New Friction Coefficient vs. Reynolds Number
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
Friction Coefficient

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4

HalfNewPipe
-0.5
1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
Reynolds Number 4
x 10

35
 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%.

36
 Conclusion

The experimental results were satisfactory mostly as a result of Professor

El-Tawansy’s oversight. He was able to diagnose and then resolve an

obstruction between the capillary tubes and the manometer. The

experimental results were significantly compromised up to that point. It was

shown that pipe flow velocity was a function of pipe internal pressure, as

confirmed by the experimental data. In all cases, the speed – pressure

relation was almost linear. Water speed decreased about 10% for every 2

PSI drop in pressure. However, there was a hidden energetic cost to the

elevated pressures. In all cases, the energy line slope was more

pronounced at higher pressure. Again, this phenomenon was a function of

pressure because the pipe’s ability to impede flow is greater while the

water travels at relatively higher speeds. A major source of error could

have come from using a stopwatch to time flow quantity with the

mechanical scale. A digital unit would have given a better accuracy and

repeatability.

37
 Bibliography

Chu, Hsiao-Ling. Fluid Mechanics Laboratory I, Student Manual.

Department of Civil Engineering. CSULB.

Street, Robert; Watters, Gary; Vennard, John. Elementary Fluid

Mechanics. Seventh Edition. Canada: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
1996

38