Analysing the results

The graph

log Q actual versus log h

is plotted. By comparing this equation of Log

Qact = Log H + Log n, where n =

log Qactual

Cd A3

is linearly increasing to log h

2g
A 2
1( 3 )
A1

with the graph plotted,

and the graph obtained is a linear

graph. This proved that the graph plotted is correct. Next, the gradient from the
equation is 0.5 while the gradient obtained from the graph is 0.5461. The
theoretical gradient value and the gradient value obtained from the graph are
slightly different. While the y-intercept obtained from the graph is -3.3432. From
y-intercept, we are able to calculate the value for

Log n

-3.3432

log C d A 3

= Log

2g
A 2
1( 3 )
A1

C d (7.854 x 105

C d as below:

= -3.3432

2 ( 9.81 )

7.854 x 105
1
3.269 x 104

log 7.854 x 105

2 ( 9.81 )

7.854 x 105
1
3.269 x 104

3.3432
Cd=

= 0.9672
Average

Cd =

1.0247+ 1.0988+ 1.0565+1.0793

4
= 1.0648

However, the calculated

Cd

and average

Cd

values are slightly different.

Thus, the overall result that we obtained for venturi meter is incorrect. This is
due to some errors made while conducting the experiment and also errors that
might come from the apparatus been used in experiment. This will further
discuss in question (v).
The graph of Qact against h for method D and 1/D and method upstream and
downstream is plotted.
Theoritically,

aA
Q act C

d
A2 - a2

2g h

...........where

aA
meter coefficien t
A2 - a 2

thus the graph can also be expressed as

aA
C
2g
d
A2 - a 2
Qact =MX+c, m =
.
For the D and 1/2D tappings method, the m=1.3539, therefore;

aA

A2 - a 2

C
d

2g

=1.3539

Cd

= 1.3539

= 1.3539

A a
aA

)
2

0.00038 0.0001
0.000380.0001 29.81

=1.081
For method D and 1/2D, the average coefficient discharged Cd is,
Average

Cd =

1.7449+1.7228+1.7813+
3

= 1.750

For method upstream and downstream, the average coefficient discharged C d

is,
Average

Cd

1.3777+ 1.5856+1.7472
3
= 1.570

The value of both average coefficient discharged C d for method D and

1/2D and upstream and downstream is different to each other which are 1.750
and 1.570. The different value is can be caused by some errors that done during
the experiment such as the reading of outlet pipe that is not perpendicular to
our eyes. Other error is might be come from the apparatus.
Based on the experimental results, venturi meter have more losses
compared to orifice meter. This venturi meter losses should be low due to steam
line shape of the diffuser however our experimental data deviate from the fact.
From the observation, venturi meter have lower C d compared to orifice meter.
So, venturi gives less accurate measurement because its coefficient of
discharge, Cd is lower compared to orifice meter.
Based on the experimental results, which flow meter gives more
accurate measurement. Briefly explain your choice.
As the results indicate, the most accurate flowmeter reading was the venture
meter. The flow rate to theoretical flow rate ratio for average was slightly

higher, this shows that the data collected during the experiment was not
significantly accurate. The data collected using the orifcee plate meter was
having a greater variation than the accurate value, this shows that there
were some errors while conducting the experiment.

Errors during in the Experiment

Systematics error like error with the apparatus. The flexible tube have
an air buble inside it. Therefore, it will affect the reading of the height of the
manometer.The surface of the manometer ruler is not clear. It confius the
reader want to read the scale. As a result, the reading was not
precise.Human error also one of the errors happen in the experiment. There
is limitation in the time response in human, the observer may not start and
stop the stopwatch simultaneously when the water level is reaching.
The parallax error can be reduced by putting a white paper behind the
ruler to make the water meniscus be seen more clearly Before start the
experiment, we have to ensure that the air bubble in the flexible tube
completely null. So it will gave the precise readings.
Make sure the scale of the ruler is in good condition. So the readers would
get the precise readings. The rate of flow of water must be in a steady flow
for a constant velocity at nozzle.
All the apparatus is made sure in good condition before the experiment
start. In order to obtain a more accurate result, some repetition while taking
the reading can be done and average value is calculated.

Conclusion

The objective of this experiment was to determine and compared the coefficient of
discharged, Cd for a series of flow measuring devices.
From the experiment, we can conclude that the logarithm value for Qactual is directly
proportional with the increasing logarithm value for

h. We also obtain that the experimental

slopes of graphs are seen to be deviate from the theoretical value Cd. From the graph that we
constructed, we can measure the coefficient discharged, C d by measuring the slope of the Q actual
versus

h . The height of the manometer reading will effects the coefficient discharged, C d.

And also, Qtheoritical is inversely proportional to coefficient discharge, C d. so the higher the Qtheoritical,
the lower the Cd.
However, this experiment involved with some errors that will affect the accuracy of the
result, hence, we should take the measurements repeatedly and carefully throughout the
experiment to minimize the error in the experiment.

Appendices
1

Cross sectional area = radius 2

= x 0.012
= 3.14159 x 10-4 m2

 2g h
2
1- m

Qth = a
2

Flow rate theoretical,

= (3.14159 x 10-4)

2 x 9.81 x 0.397
10.0256

= 8.8823 x 10-4 m3/s

3

Diffrences height, h = height 1, h1 height 2, h2

= 0.481 0.084
= 0.397 m

Coefficient discharged, Cd = Qactual / Qtheoritical

= 0.2222 / 0.2258
= 0.9841

Logarithm Qactual = Log Qact

= Log 0.2222
= -3.6532

Logarithm h = Log h
= Log 0.397
= -0.4012