CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY

CVEG 3063 HYDRAULICS LABORATORY

FALL 2014
LABORATORY REPORT ON

ORIFICE AND FREE JET FLOW

CONDUCTED ON
NOVEMBER 6, 2014
SUBMITTED BY
SHEKHYNAH YMIAH CURTIS
ON
NOVEMBER 13, 2014
TO
DR. IFTEKHAR AHMED, PHD, PE, CPESC
HYDRAULICS LABORATORY INSTRUCTOR

CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

HYDRAULICS LABORATORY
LABORATORY GRADING SHEET
FALL 2014
Title of Experiment: ORIFICE AND FREE JET FLOW
Name: Shekhynah Ymiah Curtis

Date Lab Was Performed: November 6th

Report Due Date: November 13th

Ability to Conduct Experiments

MAX

Score

Ability to demonstrate general lab safety (by your conduct and

observations).
Ability to follow and properly state the procedure used for the
experiment, while maintaining all safety precautions.
Ability to demonstrate knowledge of how equipment function, their
limitations, and the uncertainty associated with reading the
instruments.
Ability to collect and record data using appropriate units of
measurement and identify the dependent and independent
variables in the experiment.

15

Total for Ability to Conduct Experiments

33

Comments

3
9
6

Percentage for this Performance Criteria

Ability to Analyze and Interpret experimental Data
Provides appropriate abstracts for the experimental report
Ability to analyze the data using appropriate software to generate
the required parameters using consistent units and significant
figures.
Use of statistical analysis as needed including uncertainty analysis
Ability to present the data (raw /derived) in tabular and graphical
form to meet the objectives and to aid in interpretation.
Ability to discuss the raw and derived data/graphs and assess the
validity of the results in relation to the underlying theory.
Ability to draw appropriate and reasonable conclusions in relations
to each of the experimental objectives.
Total for Ability to Analyze and Interpret experimental Data

5
22
5
14
14
7

67

Percentage for this Performance Criteria

TOTAL FOR THIS LAB

ii

Letter of Transmittal
November 13, 2014
Dr. Iftekhar Ahmed, PhD, PE, CPESC
Civil & Environmental Engineering Department
Prairie View A&M University
Dear Dr. Ahmed,
The attached technical laboratory report contains the detailed results of the Orifice and Free Jet
Flow laboratory work done on November 6, 2014. The report contains the objectives of the
experiment, the concept of .., and its implications to the observations made. Also
included are raw measurements taken in the lab, details describing calculations made, and a
discussion of the interpretation of the results.
Please contact me by phone at 713.443.3623 or by email at scurtis5@student.pvamu.edu if you
have any question or regarding this report.
Sincerely,

Shekhynah Ymiah Curtis

iii

Abstract
The objective of the lab whose analysis is described here was to determine the correctional factor
Cv applied to convert the ideal velocity of an projectile free jet to a more accurate velocity. To
determine these values we used a Orifice and Free Jet Apparatus in conjunction with a hydraulic
bench and analyze results according to projectile motion physics concepts. The results discovered
may help up us to understand orifice free jet flow and raise questions as far as the implications of
friction and also from a technical stand point may help us to draw conclusions about the usefulness
of the common engineering estimations and equations.
Dimensions in this report are presented in both SI units.

iv

Table of Contents

Page
Abstract .. iv
List of Figures ..... vi
List of Tables . vii
1. Ability to Conduct Experiments .. 1
1.1 Introduction.. 1
1.2 Theory 1
1.3 Material and Apparatus . 3
1.4 Experimental Safety.. 3
1.5 Experimental Procedure.... 3
1.6 Experimental Data................................... 4
2. Ability to Analyze Experimental Data ..... 5
2.1 Computational Analysis ..... 5
2.2 Presentation of Tables of Derived Results ..... 5
3. Ability to Interpret Experimental Data .... 6
3.1 Interpretation of Results ... 6
3.2 Conclusions ....... 6
3.3 Recommendations ........ 7
References ..... 8
Appendix: Equations Used ...... 9

List of Figures
Page
Figure 1: Orifice and Jet Apparatus Diagram......... 1

vi

List of Tables
Page
Table 1: Raw Data ....... 4
Table 2: Calculated Data for 0.06mm Orifice.......... 5
Table 3: Calculated Data for 0.03mm Orifice . 6

vii

Chapter One: Ability to Conduct Experiments

1.1

Introduction

This experiment is based on concepts of projectile motion (see Equations 5 and 6 below),
Bernoullis Energy equation (see Equation 1), and the idea that a factor, in this case velocity that
describes some part of a process, in this case free jet projectile motion calculated according to
simplified equations is bound to be inaccurate to some degree because of factors that the equation
may not take into consideration. In evens such as these we try to identify a correctional factor that
will describe how a calculated velocity differs from the actual velocity. This lab will describe the
analytical process to discover that correctional factor.

1.2

Theory

The following illustration shows the basic setup of the Orifice and Free Jet setup.

Figure 1: Orifice and Jet Apparatus Diagram

To begin the analysis of the free jet flow in terms of velocity, we can begin with Bernoullis energy
equation.
Eqn. 1
where, P = pressure (Pa)
Z = height displacement from the origin (m)
V = velocity of flow (m/s)
= specific weight. (N/m3)
g = gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
We know that the pressure at (1) is atmospheric and therefore negligible because the tank is open
to the atmosphere. We can see that the height displacement term, Z1, corresponds with h on the

diagram. We know that we negate the velocity at (1) because the tank is significantly larger in
volume than the free jet flow. We know that the pressure at (2) of the free jet is again atmospheric
and negligible. And lastly, we know that the height displacement at (2) with the orifice being the
origin is zero. Considering these things, we can reduce Bernoullis equation to the following,
Eqn. 2
where, h= displacement from origin to (2), referred to as head in this report, (m)
In terms of velocity at (2) this relationship is,
Eqn. 3

If we know that the V2 that we calculate using the above equation is more accurately the theoretical
or ideal velocity rather than the actual velocity, then there may be a relationship between the ideal
and the actual velocities such that,
Eqn. 4
where, Cv represents a correctional factor.
Because the free jet can be analyzed as a projectile, we can form the following relationships in
terms of vertical and horizontal displacement of the Free Jet Flow.
Eqn. 5
Where, x = horizontal displacement of the jet, (m) as a function of
t = time (s)
Also,
Eqn. 6
Where, yo = initial displacement
Vo = initial velocity
Because there is no initial displacement, nor initial velocity, this equation can be rewritten as,
Eqn. 7
Or as a function of time as,
Eqn. 8

Now if we plug in Equation 4 and Equation 8 into Equation 5 we get a relationship in terms of
horizontal displacement that reduces to,

Eqn. 9
2

1.3 Materials & Apparatus

-

F1-10 Hydraulics Bench, designed to measure flow rate in terms of velocity, volume, and
time.

F1-17 Orifice and Jet Apparatus

1.4 Materials & Apparatus

The hydraulic bench should be set up so that the flow rate is steady, and the head does not
fluctuate. Also the projectile free jet should move at a consistent trajectory. With the Orifice and Jet
Apparatus attached, adjust the needles so that the tip of each only barely touches the water flow.
Once the needles are set, attach white paper on the clip board above the needles in order to trace
and then measure the horizontal distance on vertical distances from the origin at the orifice to a
point along the trajectory of the flow. The X and Y coordinates found will enable the experimenter
to find the correctional velocity factor, CV according the relationship described by Equation 9.

1.5

Experimental Safety

Because water may have the tendency to spray or splash, experimenters should wear goggles while
working with the fluids. Also experimenters should wear gloves or be prepared to wash if they
come into contact with any of the fluids.

1.6

Experimental Data

The head, h, for both orifice diameters was measured and maintained at 0.389m.
Orifice Diameter (mm)

Table 1: Raw Data

Horizontal distance, x (m)
0.04
0.09
0.14
0.19
0.24
0.29
0.34
0.39
0.04
0.09
0.14
0.19
0.24
0.29
0.34
0.39

Vertical distance, y (cm)

0
0.01
0.01
0.025
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.105
0
0.006
0.0145
0.027
0.041
0.0635
0.0845
0.113
3

When measuring the jet trajectory of the flow for both orifices, the needles remained setup the
same way as far as horizontal distance. In other words, the horizontal distances are determined by
experimental setup and not the free jet trajectory. The vertical displacement, however, increases as
horizontal distance increases. In other words, the further from the origin horizontally, and to the
right, the further down vertical displacement of the trajectory is. Note that positive x-direction is
measured to the right and the positive y-direction is measured down.

Chapter Two: Ability to Analyze Experimental Data

2.1 Computational Analysis
By Equation 9 we can see that is also true that
where Cv is a function of x and y, also
noting that the vertical distance, y, is a function of the horizontal distance, x. By plotting a graph of x
versus yh we can derive a slope where,
. Using the slope and two data points that fall
exactly on the best fit line we can determine Cv for each orifice. We can also determine the percent
by which Videal changes when multiplied by the correctional factor, Cv.
In order to create these graphs we need to calculate ,
, and
. It also

helps to calculate
manually however these calculations dont take into consideration
data points that deviate from the best fit line.

2.2 Presentation of Tables of Derived Results

The following table shows calculation needed to determine Cv.
Table 2: Calculated Data for 0.06mm Orifice

0
0.062
0.062
0.099
0.125
0.153
0.176
0.202

1.99
3.100
2.66
2.760
2.658
2.622
2.662
2.666
Average Manually Calculated Cv:

0.722
1.122
0.963
0.962
0.950
0.964
0.965
0.949

0.06 mm Orifice Diameter

0.25
y = 0.5434x - 0.0069
R = 0.9778

(yh)^0.5

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Horizontal distance, X (m)

Here we see that the experimental measurements were relatively consistent in that only three
deviate from the best fit line. According to the graphs the slope is 0.5434, which make Cv = 0.920.
The ideal velocity of the free jet from the orifice should be adjusted by 92% to more accurately
reflect the actual velocity. Whats interesting here is how much the Cv by the slope differs from the
manually calculated Cv.
Table 3: Calculated Data for 0.03mm Orifice

0
0.049
0.075
0.102
0.126
0.157
0.181
0.210

2.573
2.575
2.560
2.760
2.625
2.549
2.590
2.570
Average Manually Calculated Cv:

0.931455
0.93205
0.926973
0.950199
0.922585
0.937661
0.930081
0.933

0.03 mm Orifice Diameter

0.25
y = 0.572x - 0.0104
R = 0.9921

(yh)^0.5

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Horizontal distance, X (m)

Here we see that the experimental measurements were relatively consistent in that only two
deviate from the best fit line. According to the graph the slope is 0.572, which make Cv = 0.874.

Chapter Three: Ability to Interpret Experimental Data

3.1 Interpretation of Results
For the 0.06mm orifice, the ideal velocity of the free jet from the orifice should be adjusted by 92%
to more accurately reflect the actual velocity. For the 0.03mm orifice the ideal velocity of the free jet
from the orifice should be adjusted by 87% to more accurately reflect the actual velocity. Ninetytwo percent of the actual velocity is relatively close. Eighty-seven percent is less accurate but still
close. It would seem that the for some reason calculations with the 0.03 orifice offers less accurate
results than the 0.06mm orifice. It could be a possibility that with a narrower orifice there are other
slight factors that come into play that these calculation do not account for. For example I would
guess that with a smaller orifice, friction would be more of a factor. Even though the control volume
of the free jet ideally stays the same as it exits the orifice, I am sure that on a more detailed scale
that control volume diameter widens which would allow velocity to slow down more and therefore
allow friction to intrude more on the flow of the free jet.
Also, we note that in both cases the correctional factor decreased the ideal velocity rather than
increased it. Again, this echoes the fact that there must be some factor that slows velocity that isnt
accounted for using Bernoullis equation or projectile motion equations.

3.3 Conclusions
In conclusion this experiment and analysis demonstrates how calculation such as those presented
here, (see Theory and Computational Analysis) provide Water Resource Engineers with closely
accurate values that model real-life situations. The correctional factors for the two orifices only
adjust the ideal velocity by a relatively small percentage.

3.3 Recommendations
I would like to know how to compensate for a slower velocity due to friction. A question that
remains is why the correctional factor is greater for the smaller orifice and why it deviates more
from a manually calculated correctional factor when the correctional factor for the wider orifice
more exactly matches manual calculations.

References
Daugherty, Robert L., Joseph B. Franzini, and E. John. Finnemore. Fluid Mechanics With Engineering
Applications. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985. Print.

Appendix: Equations Used

Eqn. 9

10