CIVE440

Hydraulics and Laboratory

EXPERIMENT#1: FLUID
FRICTION AND MINOR
LOSSES IN PIPES

Group#1:
Bahsoun, Mohamad Baker
Chalhoub, Jad
El Harake, Karen
Nassar, Ahmad
Presented to: Dr. Habib Basha

MARCH 12, 2014

Table of Contents
List of figures .................................................................................................................................. 2
List of tables ................................................................................................................................... 2
Executive summary ........................................................................................................................ 3
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4
2. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.1

Governing equations ........................................................................................................ 5

2.1.1 Continuity Equation: .................................................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Energy equation: .......................................................................................................... 5
2.2

Principal assumptions ...................................................................................................... 7

3. Experimental Procedure .......................................................................................................... 7

3.1

Materials used: ................................................................................................................ 7

3.1.1 Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 7

4. Data Collected ......................................................................................................................... 9
4.1

Straight pipe trials: ........................................................................................................... 9

4.2

Contraction: ..................................................................................................................... 9

4.3

Bend: ................................................................................................................................ 9

5. Calculation and results .......................................................................................................... 10

5.1

Friction factor results: .................................................................................................... 10

5.1.1 Sample calculation based on trial1: ........................................................................... 10

5.2

Coefficient of contraction Results: .......................................................................... 10

5.2.1 Sample calculation based on trial1: ........................................................................... 11

5.3

Coefficient of bend Results: ..................................................................................... 11

5.3.1 Sample calculation based on trial2: ........................................................................... 12

6. Discussion and analysis ......................................................................................................... 12
6.1

General Errors: ............................................................................................................... 12

6.2

Friction factor: ............................................................................................................... 12

6.3

Contraction loss coefficient: .......................................................................................... 12

6.4

Bend loss coefficient ...................................................................................................... 13

1

7. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 13
8. Acknowledgements: .............................................................................................................. 14
9. References: ............................................................................................................................ 14
10.

Appendix ............................................................................................................................ 15

Comparison of results assuming a different value for ......................................................... 15

List of figures
Figure 1: Pipe system setup ............................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2: Contraction pipe section ............................................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Pipe contraction ............................................................................................................ 13
Figure 4: Variation of the friction factor as a function of the Reynolds number also known as
moody diagram [Crow et al ., 2009] ............................................................................................. 15

List of tables
Table 1: Data collected from Straight pipe trials ............................................................................ 9
Table 2: Data Collected from Contraction pipe trials ..................................................................... 9
Table 3: Data collected from 90 degree bend pipe trials ............................................................... 9
Table 4: Calculations of velocity, Reynolds number, friction factors, and percent error ............. 10
Table 5: Calculation of Kc and the percent error .......................................................................... 10
Table 6: Calculation of Kb and the percent error ......................................................................... 11
Table 7: percentage error change assuming different value for ............................................. 15
Table 7: Kc values for contraction of different angles .................................................................. 16
Table 8: K values for smooth bend pipe based of r/d................................................................... 16
Table 9: Ks values for pipes made of different materials ............................................................. 16

Executive summary
In accordance with the course lecture material, a laboratory experiment was conducted to
determine and study two main types of head losses within a pipe system: friction represented
by the major loss factor f, and variations in pipe geometry and fittings whereby determining the
minor loss coefficients due to bends and area contraction respectively becomes of interest. To
generate rough estimates of the abovementioned parameters, a three-part experiment was
conducted each with four trials. One part was for the friction factor of a straight rough pipe,
one for the Kc value of the contraction, and one for the Kb value of a 90o smooth bend. Every
part accounted for the effect of one loss and neglected or prevented the action of the other
two. Accordingly, the measured values of the parameters were compared to the theoretical
ones. The following report demonstrates the conceptual theory behind the experiment,
assumptions made, conducted procedure, data measurements with the calculations, and the
discussion of the results. It finally concludes with the accuracy of the measured data and the
experiment's findings.

1. Introduction

In hydraulic engineering, it is a must to calculate, or at least approximate the head
losses that a fluid encounters as it flows through a pipe line. For instance, to double the rate of
flow along an existing pipeline, one would have to calculate the head losses in order to know by
how much the head must be increased. Another example would be to calculate the head losses
in order to know if a pump should be installed for water to flow from one reservoir to another
at two different elevations.

Normally, head losses are composed of friction losses and minor losses. Friction losses

are between the fluid and the inner contact surface of the pipe. Minor losses are caused by
fluid mixing which occurs in pipe fittings, bends, valves, entrances and exits. For a long pipeline,
the head loss will be mainly due to friction losses at the pipe wall. On the other hand, if the pipe
is short and there are numerous fittings, then the major part of the head loss will be due the
fluid mixing near the fittings. In the experiment described below, head losses due to frictional
resistance in a straight rough pipe, fluid mixing in a 90o bend and contraction are examined.

2. Methodology
2.1 Governing equations
Two main equations were used in this experiment which are the continuity equation and the
energy equation.

2.1.1Continuity Equation:
The continuity equation states that, in any steady state process, the rate at which mass enters
a system is equal to the rate at which mass leaves the system.
Therefore, 1 * A1*V1=2 * A2*V2

eq.(1)

eq.(2)

Since the fluid is incompressible, then 1 =2 and so A1*V1=A2*V2, then Q1=Q2.

Where:
= density (Kg/m3)
A= area in m2
V: velocity (m/s)
Q= flow rate (m3/s)

2.1.2Energy equation:
!!
!

!!

!!

!
!
+ ! + 1 !!
+ = !! + ! + 2 !!
+

Where:

!
!

: Pressure Head (m)

!!
!!

: Velocity head (m)

! : Elevation Head (m)

: Head of the machine (m). In this experiment =0 since there is no pump nor
turbine.
! : Summation of all major and minor losses

The hydraulic head is defined as = ! + !! +

Eq.(1) becomes: H! = H! +

!!

h!
!!

Head Losses: ! = ! !! +

eq.(3)

!!

!!
5

Where:

: Length of the pipe (m)

: Friction factor
: Diameter of the pipe (m)
!!
!!

: velocity head (in m)

: minor loss coefficient for each fitting

The friction factor can be found from the Moody diagram shown in the appendix or from the
following equation valid for 10-5 < /D < 2.10-2 and for 4000< <108

!
!

= 2log

!"
!.!!

!.!"
!" !

eq.(4)

However, an alternate equation, which expresses the friction factor in an explicit fashion is
used in this experiment, and is given by =
The Reynolds number is defined as =

!.!"
!"#
!"
!

!"
!.!"
!
!.!! !"!.!

eq.(5)

eq.(6)

Where:

: Kinematic Viscosity =10-6 m2/s at 20C

D= diameter of pipe (in m).
= relative roughness (in m).

2.2 Principal assumptions

Four main assumptions were made in this experiment:
1) We neglected the effect of friction in determining the contraction and bend loss
coefficients because the length along the pipe section which water traverses is very
small to account for.
2) The kinematic viscosity of water was taken to be 1.0 10-6 m2/s, assuming that the
temperature of the pipe containing the water was approximately 20C. Since the
kinematic viscosity varies insignificantly with temperature, we estimated accordingly.
3) The gravitational acceleration is taken to be 9.81 m/s2.
4) To use Darcy-Weisbach equation, we assumed the value of the absolute roughness to
be 1 mm based on the fact that it ranges from 0.3 to 3 mm.

3. Experimental Procedure
3.1 Materials used:

Hydraulic Bench with adjustable flow

Pipes of different sizes and fittings equipped with valves including:
o 1 m straight pipe
o A contraction with an angle of 60o
o A smooth 90o bend
PC interface connected to two sensors
Measuring tape

3.1.1Procedure
a) Use a measuring tape to measure the straight pipe length.
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)

Record the necessary dimensions of the segments under study.

Turn on the pump and adjust initial flow.
Open the valve of the rough pipe.
Run the program and select the right sensors to record the head measurements at each
node as displayed in the program interface.
Close the valve of the rough then open that of the contraction.
Repeat step (e) after changing the flow.
Close the valve of contraction then open that of the pipe line including the bend.
Repeat step e after changing the flow.
Close the valve of the bend and open that of the straight pipe.
7

k) Repeat the procedure for a total of 4 different flow rates.

Figure 1: Pipe system setup

Figure 1 shows the pipe system setup used in the experiment.

4. Data Collected
4.1 Straight pipe trials:
The following tables show the data collected for the straight pipe, contraction, and bend.
Table 1: Data collected from Straight pipe trials

Reading
1
2
3
4
Length
100 cm

Flow ( /s)
0.000783333
0.000666667
0.0005
0.000616667
Diameter
23 mm

(cm)
3.62
4.23
1.52
2.34
Roughness
1.167

(cm)
3.04
3.55
1.29
1.98
Other Data
T=20 oC

4.2 Contraction:
Table 2: Data Collected from Contraction pipe trials

Reading
1
2
3
4
Diameter 1
40 mm

Flow ( /s)
0.000666667
0.0007
0.000466667
0.00055
Diameter 2
25 mm

(cm)
2.11
2.39
1.06
1.5
Roughness
0.85

(cm)
1.95
2.2
0.98
1.38
Other Data
D2/D1=0.625

4.3 Bend:
Table 3: Data collected from 90 degree bend pipe trials

Reading
1
2
3
4
Diameter
25 mm

Flow ( /s)
0.000716667
0.000766667
0.0005
0.0006

7.5 cm

(cm)
2.74
3.11
1.3
1.86
Roughness
2.43

(cm)
2.55
2.94
1.2
1.74
Other Data
R= 25mm

5. Calculation and results

5.1 Friction factor results:
The table below shows the step by step calculations for velocity, Reynolds number, friction
factors, and percent error.
Table 4: Calculations of velocity, Reynolds number, friction factors, and percent error
Trial
1
2
3
4

V (m/s)
1.8854
1.6046
1.2034
1.4842

Re
43363.9921
36905.5252
27679.1439
34137.6108

f experimental
0.0736
0.1192
0.0717
0.0737

f theoretical
0.0681
0.0683
0.0686
0.0683

% error
8.1111
74.6035
4.4797
7.9048

5.1.1Sample calculation based on trial1:

!

1. Velocity : = ! =

!.!!!"#$$$$
!

!.!"#

= 1.88539 !

2. Experimental friction factor: =

3. Reynolds number: =

!!
!

!!" !!!!! !"!!

! ! !
!.!!"#$!.!"#
!"!!

!!.!"#!.!" !.!"!!.!!
!.!!"#$! !

= 0.073629

= 43363.99

Assumption: =1.0 (since for concrete surface ranges between 0.3 and 3)
4. Theoretical friction factor: =
5. =

!experimental!!theoretical
!theoretical

!.!"
!"#

100 =

!"
!.!"
!
!.!! !"!.!

!.!"
!"#

!.!"#$%&!!.!"#$!%
!.!"#$%&

!.!!"
!.!"
!
!.!!.!"# !""#".!!!.!

= 0.068105

100 = 8.111%

5.2 Coefficient of contraction Results:

The table below shows the step by step calculation of Kc and the percent error.
Table 5: Calculation of Kc and the percent error
Trial
1
2

3
4

(m/s)
0.5305
0.5570

(m/s)
1.3581
1.4260

experimental
0.8545
0.9857

theoretical
0.06
0.06

% error
1324.189
1542.879

0.3714
0.4377

0.9507
1.1205

0.8892
1.0280

0.06
0.06

1382.078
1613.313

10

5.2.1Sample calculation based on trial1:

1. Velocities:
!

!!

!.!!!"""""#

a. V1 = ! = !!! = !(!"!"!! )! = 0.5305 !

!

!!

!.!!!"""""#

b. V1 = ! = !!! = !(!"!"!! )! = 1.35812 !

!!

!
2. Kc experimental: ! ! + !!
=

! =

2
! !

3. =

!!
!

!!

!
+ !!
+ !

! !
! !
9.81
0.5305!
1.35812
! +
d
=2
2.11
+

1.95
+
2
2
1.35812!
2 9.81
2 9.81
= 0.85451
!"experimental!!"theoretical
!"theoretical

100 = 1324.189% (larger error)

Figure 2: Contraction pipe section

Figure 2 shows the contraction pipe section that was used in the experiment.

5.3 Coefficient of bend Results:

Table 6 shows the step by step calculation of Kb and the percent error.
Table 6: Calculation of Kb and the percent error
Trial
1
2
3

(m/s)
1.4600

experimental
2.4392

theoretical
0.35

1.5618
1.0186

1.3673
1.8910

0.35
0.35

% error
596.918
290.666
440.294
11

1.2223

1.5759

0.35

350.245

5.3.1Sample calculation based on trial2:

!

1. Kb experimental: ! ! + 1 =

!!
!

!!

!
+ 2 + ! !!

2(! ! + ) 2 9.81 3.11 2.94 + 0.075

=
= 1.36733
!
1.56184!
!"
!!"theoretical
!.!"#!!!!.!
2. = experimental
100 =
100 = 51.925 %`
!"
!.!
Kb =

theoretical

6. Discussion and analysis

The flow in this lab was obtained from the software on the computer. It was noticeable that
there were some large errors in the determination of and . On the other hand, the error
in determining f was relatively small based on the assumption that =1.

6.1 General Errors:

1. Inaccurate results due to the fact that the hydraulic bench is old and therefore produces
some significant errors.
2. Inaccuracy of the sensors in calculating the pressure heads.

6.2 Friction factor:

An average error of 23.774% is a relatively large one. This error was obtained by calculating the
mean of the errors for the 4 trials. Due to the lack of information about the inner surface of the
pipe and the severity of roughness of the concrete inside the pipe, the roughness coefficient
was assumed to have a value of 1.0. This affected the flow and lead to the production of this
difference in head. It is noticed that any change in value of would increase or decrease the
error significantly. For example, as attached in the appendix, an assumed value of = 0.3
increased the average error from 23.774% to 94.626%. Thus, obtaining the right value of will
lead to the minimal error.

6.3 Contraction loss coefficient:

An average error of 1465.614% was massively off limits and implied the occurrence of major
errors. These errors could have been to several factors such as:
12

1. Malfunctioning of the sensors in calculating the pressure heads.

2. Neglecting the friction factor f along the contraction pipe.
In addition, it was noted that the reduction in the area of the small pipe length wasnt
abrupt, there was an intermediate fitting as shown in Figure 3, to connect the two differing
diameters of variable cross-sectional areas. This might have an adverse effect on the head,
which wasnt accounted for in the calculations, given the complexity it would cause.

Figure 3: Pipe contraction

6.4 Bend loss coefficient

An average error of 419.43% is also a very large error proving the inaccuracy of the equipment
used. In addition, neglecting the frictional losses along the length of the bend might have
affected the results vastly.

7. Conclusion
The calculated friction factor for the straight pipe and loss coefficients for the bend and
contraction had large errors relative to the theoretical ones (exceeding 20%). Therefore, there
is a necessity to examine the quality of the sensors being used to measure the pressure heads
especially when it comes to the contraction section (1400% error).

13

In summary, the errors calculated were partially a result of several factors: malfunction and
inaccuracy of the pressure head sensors, as well as assuming instead of determining the
actual value.

8. Acknowledgements:
We acknowledge to Professor Dr. Habib Basha his explanation of the steps of the
experiment. Appreciation is also well extended to Graduate Assistant Hassan Skaini who helped
us in the lab.

9. References:

Basha H. (2013), CIVE 440- Hydraulics & Laboratory

14

10. Appendix

Figure 4: Variation of the friction factor as a function of the Reynolds number also known as moody
diagram [Crow et al ., 2009]

Comparison of results assuming a different value for

Friction factor results assuming = .
Table 7: percentage error change assuming different value for
Trial
1
2
3
4

V (m/s)
1.8854
1.6046
1.2034
1.4842

Re
43363.9921
36905.5252
27679.1439
34137.6108

f experimental
0.0736
0.1192
0.0717
0.0737

f theoretical
0.0431
0.0434
0.0439
0.0435

% error
70.7455
174.8599
63.3321
69.5686

With an average error of 94.626 %

15

Table 8: Kc values for contraction of different angles

Table 9: K values for smooth bend pipe based of r/d

Table 10: Ks values for pipes made of different materials

16