MEC2404 / CHE2161

FLUID MECHANICS

Lab Report 3
Experiment III

FRICTIONAL FLOW IN PIPE

Lecturer: Dr Kenny Tan
Lab Session : Monday (3PM 5PM)
GROUP MEMBERS
1. Lydia Wong Sher Mae

(25535439)

2. Ng Kee Seng

(25646001)

3. Ng Wen Cai

(25513559)

4. Teh Zhi Quan

(25510525)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
1.0

ABSTRACT

2.0

INTRODUCTION
2.1
Theories or Principles Involved
2.2
The Development and Accuracy of the Moody Chart and
The Assumptions Made
2.3
Ways to Reduce Losses and its Economical Values

3.0

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

4.0

RESULTS ANALYSIS
4.1
4.1.1 Finding the dynamic viscosity of water from the table of properties
4.1.2 Calculating f from Bernoulli Equation
4.1.3 Calculating Re, Plotting on Moody Chart and Estimating
Relative Roughness
4.2
4.2.1 Plot of Pressure Drop vs. Flow Velocity (Laminar Flow)
4.2.2 Obtaining Dynamic Viscosity from the Graph Plotted

4.3

Error Analysis

5.0

DISUCSSION
5.1
Comparisons with Theoretical Predictions and Discussion of Assumptions
5.2
Main Sources of Errors and Their Significances
5.3
Possible Improvements

6.0

CONCLUSION

7.0

REFERENCES

8.0

APPENDICES

i-xi

1.0

ABSTRACT

The main objective of this fluid mechanics experiment is to study the resistance of flow along a pipe,
investigate the relationship between the friction factor (f) and the Reynolds Number (Re) and to identify the
critical Re value. This experiment examines the losses in pipe flow in two different cases, laminar and turbulent
flow. The nature of the flow (laminar or turbulent) affects the fluid losses as they result in different ways of
obtaining the friction factor. In this experiment conducted, there were a few theories that were tested, namely,
the pipe flow energy equation, Bernoullis Principle and Reynolds Number. The above principles were applied
and they aided in the process of resolving friction factor. The use of Moody Chart was also applied in the
report. By plotting friction factor against the Reynolds Number on the moody chart, the pipes relative
roughness was estimated as well. Based on the results obtained, it can be seen that the average dynamic
viscosity obtained from the gradient of the graph of pressure drop vs. flow velocity has a slight difference with
the average of the results obtained from the table of water properties. The error percentage is 33.64%. The
possible sources of errors include limitation of human reaction time and parallax errors. These may have
contributed to the discrepancies in the results.
2.0
2.1

INTRODUCTION
Theories or Principles Involved

The pipe flow energy equation takes losses into account as below:

The frictional resistance of viscous fluid along a pipe results in loss of energy. The loss in energy is normally
referred to as total head loss of fluid. Two of the key principles used are the pipe flow energy equation and
Bernoullis Principle. They are applied in order to obtain the pipes f by calculating its head loss from the
equation. The definition of head loss is the decrease in total head. There are two types of losses in pipe, namely
major head losses (due to friction of fluid flowing in the pipe and the decrease in pressure) and minor head
losses (due to fixtures such as bends, contractions and valves). In this experiment, it was assumed that minor
losses are negligible, only major head losses were considered.
The formula for major head loss is as the following:
(Munson et al. 2013)
Where

= Head loss due to friction, L = Pipe length, D = Pipe diameter, f = Darcy friction factor, V =
Average fluid velocity, and g = Gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s2)

The friction factor above is not constant and it depends on the nature of the flow which is determined by using
the principle of the dimensionless Reynolds Number. The flow of fluid is considered as laminar until it exceeds
the critical Reynolds number (which is approximately 2300 to 4000 for pipe flow). At the critical Reynolds
number, the flow is in transition, hence displaying properties of both laminar and turbulent flow. The formula
for Reynolds Number (Re) is as below:

Where

= Density of the fluid, V = Average velocity, D = Diameter of the pipe

It is important to note that different laws of resistance apply to different nature of pipe flow. For laminar flow,
the friction factor is only a function of Re where:
However, for turbulent flow, the friction factor is a function of both relative roughness and Re. In this case, the
Moody chart is used to determine the f.
2.2

The Development and Accuracy of the Moody Chart and the Assumptions Made

Moody chart is a graph that relates Reynolds number, friction factor and relative roughness. This chart is
developed using plots of friction factor against Reynolds number for a variety of relative roughness ( ) and
flow regimes. The Moody chart is divided into two regimes of flow, laminar and turbulent. For the former, the
friction factor was determined analytically by Poiseuille where f = , in which roughness has negligible effects.
As for the latter, the relationship between f and Re is more complex and is governed by the Colebrook equation.
In 1944, Lewis Ferry Moody plotted the results into what is now known as the Moody chart.
The usage of the Moody Chart is the accepted method to calculate energy losses resulting from fluid motion in
pipes. However, the Moody Diagram may not be suitable for usage in some conditions. For instance, the curve
at transition region between laminar and fully turbulent rough pipe flow is applicable for pipes with interior
roughness comparable to iron. Moreover, owing to the difficulty in determining pipe roughness, the accuracy of
Moody Diagram is only about 15%.
There are a few assumptions made in order to develop the Moody Chart. Firstly, fluid flowing through the pipe
is assumed to be a Newtonian fluid, and it is at a steady, fully developed turbulent pipe flow. Secondly, the wall
of the pipe is always assumed to have a certain roughness value (Never smooth). Lastly, the properties of the
fluid are assumed to be constant and are independent of the temperature.
2.3
Ways to Reduce Losses and its Economical Value
In order to reduce pipe losses or make it less significant during long distance fluids transportation, many steps
have been considered to increase the efficiency within the pipe system. Straighter and shorter pipes are more
ideal and recommended because they contain less joints and bends when connected in the pipe system. Minimal
joints, bends or turnings should be used since every joint, curve or bend along the pipe contributes to head loss.
Besides, there may also be head losses due to frictional forces from the inner walls of the pipes. The turbulent
flow of fluids have a huge impact against the pipe walls, causing great losses. This problem can be avoided by
conducting regular pipe maintenance, always ensuring that the inner walls do not have dents and are smooth
along the entire length. The use of a smoother material for the pipe is advisable as well. Next, minimizing the
flow rate can decrease the velocity of the flow which in turn reduce head losses too. Inclined or vertical pipes
cause the system to lose head due to the effects from its potential energy. These losses can be decreased by
replacing inclined pipes with horizontal or downhill pipes, unless a sufficiently powerful pump is installed to
pump the fluid. This can be done in order to overcome the friction.
Reducing losses can be economical and not economical at the same time. It can be economical because more
straight pipes with less joints and bends are used. Not only that, an increase of pipe diameter reduces the energy
loss in the pipe. However, increasing the pipe diameter requires more materials which is not economical.
Besides that, producing very long straight pipes will increase cost of manufacturing it.
3.0

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Straight Pipe

Mercury
Manometer

Water Manometer

Water Outlet to
Measuring Cylinder

Pipe
Pressure Gauge

Thermometer

Control Valve

Control Valve
Figure 3.1.1: Armfield Experimental Rig

Figure 3.1.2: Lotus Scientific Rig

1. Apparatus was set up as shown in Figure 3.1.1 for laminar flow and as Figure 3.1.2 for turbulent flow.
2. The control valve on the machine was adjusted in order to control the water flow rate. Initial difference in
height of the water manometer was set at 30mm (for laminar flow) and 40mm (for turbulent flow) and was
recorded down. Both heights (h1 at inlet and h2 at outlet) were recorded too.
2

3. Water was then allowed to flow through the straight tube.

4. For Laminar Flow:
Volume of water was collected using a measuring cylinder for a fixed interval of 60 seconds (measured
using a stopwatch). The volume collected was recorded. A thermometer was used to measure the water
temperature as well.
For Turbulent Flow:
Time taken to collect a fixed water volume of 10L was measured using a stopwatch and was recorded.
Using a thermometer, the temperature of water collected was measured and recorded as well.
5. To increase the flow rate of water and thus increasing the difference in height of water manometer, the
control valve was adjusted with an increase of 30mm at every interval.
6. Steps 2 to 5 were repeated up to the 8th reading for laminar flow and the 9th reading for turbulent flow.
Results were then tabulated.

4.0

RESULTS ANALYSIS

4.1
4.1.1

Finding the Dynamic Viscosity of Water from the Table of Properties

Using the properties of water table, the dynamic viscosity, and the density of water, can be obtained, since
the temperature measurements were recorded while conducting the experiment.
4.1.2

Calculating f from Bernoullis Equation

The average velocity of the water can be calculated as below:

By using the Bernoulli Equation with head losses and the measurements of pressure drop, the friction factor, f,
can be calculated. The equation was simplified to the following:

Where

= pressure of the manometer, = density of water, = friction factor, L = length of the pipe,
D = diameter of the pipe, = velocity of water
The simplification to get the above equation and detailed calculations to obtain f is shown in section 8,
Appendices.
4.1.3

Calculating Reynolds Number (Re), Plotting on Moody Chart and Estimating Rel. Roughness

The Reynolds number can then be calculated based on the properties of water at measured water by the formula
below.

Hence, for laminar flow, the friction factor also be calculated from the formula shown below.

Alternatively, the results of calculations of friction factors for both laminar and turbulent flow are tabulated.
The values from both section 4.1.1, section 4.1.2 and section 4.1.3 are shown in the tables attached in section 8,
Appendices.
The friction factors and Reynolds number obtained through the series of calculations above were plotted on the
Moody Chart for both laminar and turbulent conditions.
3

Moody Chart
0.100

Friction Factor

Relative
Roughness

0.05
0.01
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.0005
0.0002

0.010
1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05
1.E+06
Reynolds Number

1.E+07

1.E+08

Figure 4.1.3.1: Measurements Plotted on the Moody Chart

From the plots of data for the turbulent flow on the Moody Chart,
Relative roughness estimated from turbulent flow,

= 0.005

4.2
4.2.1

Plot of Pressure Drop vs. Flow Velocity (Laminar Flow)

Pressure Difference (Pa)

Graph of Pressure Difference vs Velocity

2500
y = 2297.5x
R = 0.8926

2000
1500

1000
500
0

Velocity (m/s)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Figure 4.2.1: Graph of Pressure Drop vs. Flow Velocity

4.2.2

Obtaining Dynamic Viscosity from the Graph Plotted

Gradient of the graph,

= 2297.5

Average dynamic viscosity found based on the formula,

For the dynamic viscosities obtained from the table of properties of water, an average is calculated in order to
compare with the average dynamic viscosity obtained from the gradient of the graph.
Average
= 0.000856
It can be seen that the average dynamic viscosities obtained show a certain difference from each other. The
discrepancies will be discussed in the next section.
4.3
Error Analysis
Difference between the viscosity in the graph obtained and the experimental value found to be 33.64%.
Calculations are shown in the appendices attached.
Other than that, error analysis is done on the friction factor, f as well.
Error bars were plotted on the previous Moody Chart. Detailed calculations are shown in the appendices.
5.0

DISCUSSION

5.1

Comparisons with Theoretical Predictions and Discussion of Assumptions

The average dynamic viscosity obtained from the table of properties for the laminar flow (0.000856 kg/m.s)
differ from the average dynamic viscosity obtained from the Graph of Pressure Drop vs. Flow Velocity plotted
(0.00129 kg/m.s). There is a percentage difference of 33.64%. This shows that the results obtained from the
experimental data deviates from the theoretical predictions. This may be due to the fact that from the fifth
reading onwards, the flow is no longer laminar, it was in a transitional state. Hence, it was displaying properties
of both laminar and turbulent flow. Based on the Graph of Pressure Drop vs. Flow Velocity (Figure 4.2.1), it
can be observed that the first 4 data points shows a linear trend. The pressure drop increases linearly as the flow
velocity increases. However the line deviates at the fifth reading and onwards. This is because initially, the flow
was under laminar condition, however when the reading deviates, the flow is in a transitional condition in
which the flow was getting unstable. As flow velocity increases, Re increases, up to the critical Re. The
calculations for Reynolds number show that from the fifth reading onwards, the Reynolds Number exceeded the
critical Reynolds Number (2300), hence the flow was in a transitional condition. This contributed to the
deviations of the dynamic viscosity obtained.
Based on the plots on the Moody Chart (Figure 4.1.3.1), it can be seen that plots fluctuate and show staggered
lines. The plots for laminar flow do not tally with the laminar plots on the Moody Chart, with the exception of
the first four readings. This may be due to transition flow occurring from the fifth reading onwards. The plots
are not consistent. However, the pattern of the turbulent flow plots falls within an acceptable range. Hence, the
pipe roughness can be estimated at 0.005.
The friction factors for laminar flow calculated from the Bernoulli Equation and from the equation f = 64/Re
show slight differences from each other. The percentage differences show an increasing trend from 0.60% up to
43.44%. As mentioned before, this is due to the occurrence of the transitional flow from the fifth reading
onwards. The use of the formula f=64/Re may not be accurate from this point onwards. This contributed to the
differences in the values.
While the experiment was conducted, it was assumed that the flow was in steady state. However, this might not
be entirely true. In a non-ideal case (reality), it takes much longer for a system to achieve steady state. The
assumption was made to ease calculations. Hence, this might have affected the accuracy of the results
calculated to a certain degree. Next, it was also assumed that the flow in transitional state was considered as
laminar in the calculations since the formula, f=64/Re, was applied too. This contributed to the difference in
values as explained above. Moreover, it was assumed that the water has constant properties throughout the
flow. Since the properties were only obtained based on the final temperature measurements, this might caused
5

inaccuracy in the values calculated (although the differences might not be very significant). Inlet and outlet
velocity was assumed to be the same as well. Besides, minor losses were neglected. This may not be entirely
accurate as certain minor losses might have occurred in the pipes.
5.2

Main Sources of Errors and Their Significances

Most of the discrepancies may be due to the errors that might have occurred throughout the course of the
experiment. The inaccuracy in the data of laminar flow might be due to the presence of air bubbles in the water
manometer used in the experiment. This problem does not occur in the mercury manometer as mercury is a type
of liquid metal in which its molecules are more closely packed compared to water. The presence of air bubbles
increase the height difference and hence resulting in the increase in friction factor. Other than that, parallax
errors might have occurred while taking the readings as well. For example, the eye position of the viewer might
not have been perpendicular to the scale of the measuring cylinder and the water or mercury meniscus. This
may have resulted in the inaccuracy of the data collected. Besides, human error is also a main contributor to the
discrepancies of values. Due to the limit of human reaction time, time lag may have been introduced into the
readings. The stopwatch was not started or stopped simultaneously when the water started or stopped to flow.
Incorrect use of thermometer may have resulted in inaccuracies as well. The inaccurate temperature
measurements affect the data obtained from the table of properties of water. However the effects of this is
slightly less significant when compared to the rest. The assumptions made (as discussed above) might have
caused the slight deviations in the results as well as not all assumptions apply to a real case.
5.3

Possible Improvements

In order to make significant improvements to the experiment conducted, it is recommended that multiple
readings should be taken. An average can then be calculated from the readings. This will in turn increase the
accuracy of the data collected. Other than that it should also be ensured that there are no air bubbles trapped in
the water manometer before conducting the experiment. It is vital to check the conditions of all equipments
before the experiment was carried out. Regular maintenances are advisable to ensure that all machines or
equipments are in good conditions.
6.0

CONCLUSION

By conducting this experiment, the fluid flow in pipes was investigated. The effects of the nature of the flow
(laminar or turbulent) were observed. The Bernoulli equation and the pipe flow energy equation were used to
determine the friction factor in pipe. Other than that, for laminar flows, the formula, f=64/Re, was used as well.
The friction factors obtained from these two different equations show percentage differences ranging from
0.60% up to 43.44%. This is because from the fifth reading onwards, the flow is no longer laminar but instead it
was under transition conditions. Hence, this may have contributed to the difference between the results
obtained. The measurements were also plotted on the Moody Chart. For the laminar regime, it can be seen that
initially it tallies with the plot on Moody Chart but the later readings then deviates. As for the turbulent regime,
the plotted measurements can be used to determine the relative roughness of the pipe, which is approximately
0.005. A graph of Pressure drop vs. Flow velocity was also plotted. The average dynamic viscosity obtained
from the gradient of the graph was 0.00129 kg/m.s whereas the average dynamic viscosity obtained from the
average of the data extracted from the table of properties of water shows a value of 0.000856 kg/m.s. There is a
percentage difference of 33.64%. The discrepancies of all the values mentioned may be due to the presence of
errors such as limitation of human reaction time or presence of air bubbles. In conclusion, the objectives of the
experiment were achieved and frictional flows in pipes were investigated.
7.0

REFERENCES

1. Munson, Okiishi, Huebsch, Rothmayer, 2013, Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics 7th Editon, John Wiley &
Sons Inc., Jefferson City.
2. Anonymous, Moody Chart, Retrieved from http://www.piping-designer.com/Moody_Diagram
6

8.0

APPENDICES

8.1

Raw Data
Table 8.1.1: Raw Data for Laminar Flow
Flow Rate
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Volume
( )
80
160
201
270
290
320
340
373

Time
( )
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60

Water Temperature
( )
26.0
26.6
26.8
26.8
26.9
27.0
27.1
27.1

Water
Manometer
h1
h2
(
)
(
)
240
210
255
195
269
179
282
162
296
146
310
130
325
115
340
100

Pressure Difference
(
)
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240

Table 8.1.2: Raw Data for Turbulent Flow

No

Pipe
Diameter

Flow Rate
Volume

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
8.2

7.74
7.74
7.74
7.74
7.74
7.74
7.74
7.74
7.74

10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10

Water
Temperature

Time
91.56
68.47
55.22
49.18
39.81
38.46
37.84
34.41
32.58

26.0
26.5
27.0
27.5
27.7
28.0
28.5
28.8
29.0

Mercury
Manometer
h1
h2
24
8
-6
-21
-35
-50
-65
-82
-97

64
78
94
109
125
140
155
168
183

Pressure
Difference

40
70
100
130
160
190
220
250
280

Derivation of Equations

The following shows how the equations were used to calculate the required parameters.
Using the properties of water table, the dynamic viscosity,
The volumetric flow rate, ,the pipe flow area,
the formula shown below.

and the density of water, can be obtained.

and the velocity of the water,

can be calculated based on

The friction factor can be calculated based on the Bernoullis equation with head losses and pressure drop.

Since
This equation is reduced to

Assuming minor losses are negligible:

The equation hence becomes:

Where: is the pressure of the manometer, is the density of water,

the pipe,
D is the diameter of the pipe, is the velocity of water
The pressure difference,

as the friction factor, L as the length of

can be calculated from the formula below.

For water manometer

Change in height of water manometer =

mm

For mercury manometer

The Reynolds number can then be calculated based on the properties of water at measured water by the
formula below.

For laminar flow, the friction factor also be calculated from the formula shown below.

Alternatively, the results of calculations of friction factors for both laminar and turbulent flow are tabulated.
ii

8.3

Examples of Calculations for velocity, friction factor and Reynolds Number

Finding the dynamic viscosity of water

Measured temperature was found to be
for the first reading of both laminar and turbulent flow.
Using the properties of water table, the dynamic viscosity of water () can be obtained.
,
The examples for the first reading of both cases are shown below.
Calculating the friction factor, f
Based on the equation simplified in the above section, the equation hence becomes:

Laminar pressure difference:

Change in height of water manometer =

mm

Pa
Friction factor (f) for laminar flow:

0.0994
Turbulent pressure difference:
Change in height of mercury manometer =

mm

Friction factor (f) for turbulent flow:

iii

0.0362
Calculating Re number
Laminar flow:
Reynoldss Number calculated based on the properties of water at measured temperature.
, V = 0.189 m/s, D = 0.003m,

Turbulent Flow:
Reynoldss Number calculated based on the properties of water at measured temperature.
, V = 2.321 m/s, D = 0.00774m,

The results of calculations are shown in the tables below:

8.4

Results of Calculations
Table 8.4.1: Table of Results (Laminar Flow)

No

Volumetric
Flow Rate

Velocity

Density

Dynamic
Viscosity

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

1.33 X 10-6
2.67 X 10-6
3.35 X 10-6
4.50 X 10-6
4.83 X 10-6
5.33 X 10-6
5.67 X 10-6
6.22 X 10-6

0.189
0.377
0.474
0.637
0.684
0.755
0.802
0.879

996.860
996.698
996.644
996.644
996.617
996.590
996.562
996.562

0.0008710
0.0008596
0.0008558
0.0008558
0.0008539
0.0008520
0.0008501
0.0008501

iv

Pressure
Reynolds
Difference
Number
293.7
587.5
881.2
1174.9
1468.7
1762.4
2056.1
2349.9

647.7
1312.3
1655.8
2224.2
2394.2
2647.7
2819.4
3093.0

Friction
Friction
Factor
Factor
(B.Equation) (64/Re)
0.0994
0.0988
0.0497
0.0488
0.0472
0.0387
0.0349
0.0288
0.0378
0.0267
0.0373
0.0242
0.0385
0.0227
0.0366
0.0207

No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Volumetric Flow
Rate
1.092 X 10-4
1.460 X 10-4
1.810 X 10-4
2.033 X 10-4
2.511 X 10-4
2.600 X 10-4
2.643 X 10-4
2.906 X 10-4
3.069 X 10-4

Table 8.4.2: Table of Results (Turbulent Flow)

Dynamic
Velocity Density
Pressure Reynolds
Viscosity
Number
2.321
3.104
3.849
4.322
5.339
5.526
5.617
6.177
6.523

996.860
996.725
996.590
996.450
996.394
996.310
996.165
996.078
996.020

0.0008710
0.0008615
0.0008520
0.0008425
0.0008387
0.0008330
0.0008240
0.0008186
0.0008150

5334.3
9335.0
13335.7
17336.4
21337.1
25337.9
29338.6
33339.3
37340.0

20562.7
27796.4
34845.7
39560.9
49091.0
51157.5
52556.0
58170.9
61706.2

Friction
Factor
(B.Equation)
0.0362
0.0354
0.0329
0.0339
0.0273
0.0303
0.0340
0.0320
0.0321

8.5
Examples of Calculations for Dyanamic Viscosity from the Gradient of the Graph
Gradient of the graph, = 2297.5
From the formula

Average viscosity found based on the formula,

8.5

Results of Error Analysis

Difference between the average viscosity in the graph obtained and the experimental value is found to be

Other than that, error analysis is done by first calculating the maximum friction factor,
the percentage uncertainty from the formula below.

and then obtaining

Table 8.5.1: Results of Error Analysis (Laminar Flow)

No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

% error for Reynolds

Number
1.58
0.96
0.83
0.70
0.68
0.64
0.63
0.60

% error for Friction

Factor (Equation)
3.92
2.28
1.90
1.59
1.50
1.41
1.36
1.29

% error for Friction

Factor (Reynolds)
1.60
0.96
0.84
0.71
0.68
0.65
0.63
0.60

Table 8.5.2: Results of Error Analysis (Turbulent Flow)

No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
8.6

% error for Reynolds

Number
0.47
0.54
0.61
0.65
0.75
0.77
0.77
0.83
0.86

Examples of Calculations for Error Analysis

Error Analysis (Laminar)

Minimum volumetric flow rate,
=
Minimum velocity, V =

= 0.186 m/s

Max. Change in pressure,

Pa
Max. friction factor,

%Error Experimental =
vi

% error for Friction

Factor (Equation)
1.45
1.38
1.43
1.48
1.64
1.66
1.66
1.75
1.81

% Difference
0.60
1.81
18.00
17.48
29.37
35.12
41.04
43.44