Title: Energy Loss in Pipes

Name: vincent lacey

Course Code: DT024/2
Date of Experiment: 11/03/10
Group B

Introduction:
Fluid can be either laminar or turbulent. In laminar (streamline flow), the individual fluid particles
follow flow paths which are parallel. This type of flow is associated with low values of velocity.
Turbulent flow is produced when the individual fluid particles have secondary irregular motions
superimposed on the principal or average direction of motion, and as a result a thorough mixing of
the fluid takes place.

Apparatus:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Straight pipe
Variable speed pump control
Constant head inlet tank
Variable head outlet tank
Manometer Board

Objectives:

To measure the experimental head loss due to friction in a straight pipe and to compare the
value with that obtained by calculation using a Moody Chart.
To demonstrate that head loss gradient in straight pipes is proportional to the flow rate
squared.

Experimental Procedure:
The first straight pipe was clamped into the inlet and outlet tank with the pressure tappings situated
on top. The pressure sensing points were then linked to the water manometer. The delivery hose
from the bench was connected to the constant head inlet tank. The flow regulating valve of the
bench was closed and the bench pump was switched on which allowed water to be pumped to the
experiment until water began to flow into the inlet head tank overflow pipe. The overall head across
the test unit was regulated by adjusting the postion of the variable overflow pipe on the variable
head outlet tank.
The outlet head tank overflow pipe was adjusted to give a maximum pressure drop across the
experiment, it was ensured that the inlet tank overflow pipe was still discharging. The rate of flow
was measured by timing the collection of a known quantity of water in the measuring tank. The head
was reduced across the test unit in six steps and the rate of flow and manometer readings were
measured at each point.
The straight pipe was replaced with a second straight pipe of different diameter and the procedure
was repeated again.

Results and calculations:

Table of results for 10.23mm diameter pipe:
d = 0.01023m L = 0.360m

A = 8.219x10-5m2

Time for 10
litres t(secs)

h1
(m)

h2
(m)

Q
(m3/s)

V
(m/s)

H/L

(H/L)

131.78

0.42

0.26

7.59E-05

0.9232

0.44

0.6633

109.98

0.405

0.243

9.09E-05

1.1062

0.45

0.6708

95.69

0.384

0.217

1.045E-04

1.2714

0.4639

0.6811

86.85

0.373

0.202

1.151E-04

1.4008

0.475

0.6892

80.28

0.351

0.183

1.245E-04

1.5155

0.4667

0.6832

74.03

0.298

0.146

1.351E-04

1.6434

0.4222

0.6498

K/d
(constant
for each
pipe)

Re
(=Vd/)

(from
Moody
Chart)

hf
(theoretical)
(m)

hf
(experimental)
(m)

% difference

0.000146

9925

0.032

0.05

0.16

220

0.000146

12168

0.031

0.068

0.162

138.2352941

0.000146

13985

0.03

0.087

0.167

91.95402299

0.000146

15409

0.029

0.1021

0.171

67.48285994

0.000146

16671

0.028

0.1153

0.168

45.70685169

0.000146

18077

0.027

0.1308

0.152

16.20795107

Graph: (h/L) vs Q for 10.23mm diameter pipe

0.6950
0.6900
y = 492.91x + 0.6272
0.6850
0.6800
0.6750
0.6700
0.6650
0.6600
0.00E+00 2.00E-05 4.00E-05 6.00E-05 8.00E-05 1.00E-04 1.20E-04 1.40E-04

Table of results for7.421mm diameter pipe:

d = .007421m L = .36m

A = 4.325x10-5m2

Time for 10
litres t
(secs)

h1
(m)

h2
(m)

Q
(m3/s)

V
(m/s)

H/L

(H/L)

245.76

0.344

0.303

4.069E-05

0.9408

0.1139

0.337490741

220.86

0.33

0.279

4.528E-05

1.0469

0.1417

0.376430604

178.89

0.3

0.217

5.590E-05

1.2925

0.2306

0.480208288

162.69

0.288

0.198

6.147E-05

1.4212

0.25

0.5

k/d
(constant
for each
pipe)

Re
(=Vd/)

(from
Moody
Chart)

hf
(theoretical)
(m)

hf
(experimental)
(m)

% difference

0.0001466

10349

0.032

0.0508

0.041

-19.3

0.0001466

11516

0.031

0.06094

0.051

-16.3

0.0001466

14218

0.03

0.08989

0.083

-7.7

0.0001466

15633

0.029

0.10506

0.09

-14.3

Graph: (h/L) vs Q for 7.421mm diameter pipe

0.6
0.5
y = 8200.1x + 0.0067
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.000E+00 1.000E-05 2.000E-05 3.000E-05 4.000E-05 5.000E-05 6.000E-05 7.000E-05

Conclusion:
The percentage difference for the first test is very large, this may be because we were reading the
manometer incorrectly.
However in the second test the percentage difference is much smaller