Analysis of Major and Minor Head Losses

Samuel Tatum, BSEN 3310 Major and Minor Losses Lab, November 8, 2017, Group 2

Abstract. In real fluids there are irreversible losses that convert useful kinetic energy to heat by friction.
The two types of losses, major and minor, were evaluated using a Technovate Fluid Circuit System and an
Edibon Energy Losses in Bends Module, respectively. The results for major losses in two different pipes
revealed that a change in diameter was related to a change in the frictional factor, which is directly related
to head loss. For minor losses it was observed that fitting geometry was the source of loss due to secondary
flow development and eddying.

Introduction After solving for the friction factor the major

In fluid piping system design, energy that is
present within a fluid (like kinetic energy) may be
lost or converted to other less useful energy forms.
In order to minimize and account for these
irreversible losses, it is important to consider both
major and minor losses when designing a system
with internal flow. Head loss is considered to be the
major loss in fluid flow because systems that
contain long straight sections of piping suffer most
of their pressure drop from major head loss
(Cengel, 2014). The pressure drop of a system is
directly related to the conversion of kinetic energy
to heat by friction (Duckworth, 1977). Specifically,
in fluid flow the dissipation of kinetic energy to
heat due to viscous forces from the no-slip
condition referred to as skin friction (Barna, 1971).
When considering the pressure drop and from
head loss the friction within the pipe must be
considered. The Darcy-Weisbach friction factor f is
used when considering skin friction. It is a unitless
number used to communicate the amount of skin
friction present. For laminar flow it is inversely
related to the Renolds number (Re) and does not
depend on relative roughness (/D); however, in
turbulent flows the friction factor is dependent on
relative roughness (Cengel 2014). This equation is
given by,
1 2.51
= 2.0log ( + )
3.7
(1)
Where:
f = the friction coefficient
= roughness
D = diameter
Re = Renolds number
loss within a straight pipe may be obtained. The
equation for head loss is defined as,
@
7,9:;<= =
2
(2)
Where:
L = length
V = velocity
g = the gravity constant
The second cause of pressure drop from
dissipation of kinetic energy to heat is known as
minor loss. It is defined as the ensuing pressure loss
when a fluids path is interrupted by a fitting,
control device, or change in cross sectional area.
Since these losses are relatively small in large
piping systems with long straight sections, such
pressure losses from change in fluid direction are
considered minor. However, in smaller piping
systems with many fittings, valves, etc. the minor
losses could be of greater significance than the
major head loss (Cheremisinoff, 1984).
When considering the minor losses the
following equation is used:
@
7,9BC<= = 7
2
(3)
Where:
7 = loss coefficient
The loss coefficient 7 is a dimensionless number
that is dependent of the shape of the fitting and the
Renolds number. When considering a large system
with many fitting, the minor head loss values may
summed and added to the major losses yielding
total head loss (Barna, 1974).

1
Objectives
To consider the effect of pipe diameter on the
friction factor which is related to major losses. To
evaluate the effect of fitting type on minor losses in
pipe systems.
Materials and Methods
Materials
Technovate Fluid Circuit System, Edibon
Energy Losses in Bends Module FME05.
= pressure loss
= fluid density
= dorifice / Dthroat
From the resulting flow rate velocity was
computed.
A second set of heights were given by the
pressure loss over a length of pipe. This loss relates
to the friction factor as represented in equation 2.
Figure 1 depicts the relation of the friction factor f
and V2 in pipe 3 which had a inch inner diameter.
0.04

Methods 0.03

A Technovate Fluid System was used to collect
head loss data. For the evaluation, pipe 3 (ID = )
and pipe 2 (ID = ) were considered. The flow
was isolated to a single pipe and the valve was
opened completely. Height readings were recorded
at 6 decreasing water flow rates, starting with the
valve completely open then until it was nearly
closed. Each value gave four height values. Two
were for orifice readings and the other two were
height recordings across the pipe length. After six
flow rates were tried, the remaining pipe was
evaluated using the same process.
Minor losses were also evaluated. An Edibon
Energy Losses in Bends Module was used to
analyze the minor losses in several fittings. These
fittings were as follows: a long elbow, sudden
enlargement, sudden contraction, medium elbow,
short elbow, and a right angle fitting. The data from
each of these fittings were collected at six different
flow rates. Height values were taken before and
after fittings to measure the pressure drop. While
the recordings were being taken, the total change in
volume was taken per 30 seconds.
Results and Discussion
Major Loss Data Analysis
The data recorded using the Technovate Fluid
System yielded change in height values that were
based on pressure drop. The change in height was
friction factor
0.02
0.01
0
0 1 2 3 4
V2 (m2/s2)
observed calculated
Figure 1. Friction factor as affected by V2 in pipe 3
The friction factor is given per V2 since in the
major loss equation these variables are not linearly
proportional. As the depicted by the curves, the
calculated values were consistently larger than the
observed values. It is sensible that the observed
values be less than the calculated. In system design
it would be better to anticipate higher head loss so
that pump requirements are met; however, the
average percent errors between observed and
calculated was rather large at around 30%.
Although, the low dip in the second recording of
the observed curve seems inconsistent with data.
All other readings fit the calculated curve and if the
faulty reading is omitted, average percent error is
23%.
Figure 2 is formatted as figure 1 but considers
pipe 2 which had a inch inner diameter.
0.04
0.03
frictino factor

given by an orifice meter in the system. The

equation below yielded the volumetric flow rate 0.02
based on the pressure drop from the orifice meter:
0.01

2 0
= < G
1 L 0 2 4 6 8
V2 (m2/s2)
(4) observed calculated

Where: Figure 2. Friction factor as affected by V2 in pipe 2

= volumetric flow rate
< = cross sectional area of orifice

2
 0.045

0.04 y = 0.055x

0.035

0.03 y = 0.0407x

0.025
hL (m)

0.02 y = 0.0343x

0.015 y = 0.0181x
0.01 y = 0.0123x

0.005 y = 0.011x

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
V2 (m2/s2)
long elbow enlargement contraction medium elbow short elbow right angle

Figure 3. Head loss per V2 for several fittings

Observed values as depicted in figure two Last, the right angle fitting produced the
followed the curve in all observation points. The greatest resistance to flow. This is easily corrected
smaller diameter seemed to fit the calculated values by even very slight rounding of edges. The most
better than pipe 1. The average relative error effective method is to apply vanes to the inside of
between observed and calculated values was 12%. the pipe. This nearly eliminates losses but is only
Figure 2 also demonstrates a larger friction factor. necessary in applications that such losses may
This is to be expected since the frictional factor is greatly reduce flow energy (Duckworth, 1977).
inversely related to diameter. However, if vanes are employed it is important to
consider their spacing and angle to increase
Minor Loss Data Analysis efficiency. For calculation of such dimensions,
In the analysis of the minor losses the fittings ideal spacing and angle have been given through
considered were a long elbow, enlargement, experimentation (Barna, 1971).
contraction, medium elbow, short elbow, and right
angle. The height difference from the pressure loss Table 1 provides a comparison between the
from each recording was observed. Figure 3 depicts average KL values and the values that are have been
graphically the head loss per V2 relation. The slope experimentally observed. The percentage error
of each trendline is given. From equation 3 if the between them is also given. As depicted the errors
slope of the trendline is multiplied by 2g it gives an in all elbow and angle fittings is rather accurate;
approximate KL value. however, for sudden expansion and contraction the
The most head loss from an elbow was seen in values were more deviant in comparison with other
the short elbow, and then the long, and least was fittings.
the medium elbow. The loss in bending pipes is due
to a secondary flow phenomenon, which causes Table 1. Comparison of loss coefficients in various fittings
swirling against the sides of the pipe (Vennard, Fittings Theoretical K Average K Percent Error
1940). There is an ideal bend radius to diameter Long elbow 0.4 0.38 4.6%
ratio and it is just less than 4:1 (Barna, 1971). Enlargement 0.591 0.46 22.6%
The sudden enlargement gave the little
Contraction 0.4 0.76 90.4%
resistance. The small amount of that was seen was
Medium 0.175 0.20 15.4%
created by eddies. Sudden contraction produced a elbow
relatively large head loss. This is primarily due to Short elbow 0.75 0.72 3.5%
the region of flow known as the vena contracta. Right angle 1.1 1.04 5.0%
This is a region where the fluid does not conform to
the sides of the piping but are contracted from
Discussion
swirling eddies. Kinetic energy is lost to maintain
It was seen from the tests performed on the
the swirling and thus there is a pressure drop
Technovate Fluid System that diameter affected the
(Barna, 1971).
friction factor. At smaller diameters the friction
within the pipe becomes more significant while

3
larger pipes reduce the relative amount of skin References
friction from the no-slip condition. These results
were expected since the boundary layer has more Barna, P S. Fluid Mechanics for Engineers. 3rd ed.,
dominating effects as the diameter decreases; Butterworths, 1971.
however, for practical purposes it is not always Cheremisinoff, N P. Fluid Flow Pocket Handbook.
reasonable to have very wide pipes and methods to Abington Publ., 1984.
calculate most suitable pipe size do exist Duckworth, R. A. Mechanics of Fluids. Longman
(Cheremisinoff, 1984). Group Limited, 1977.
Furthermore, minor losses in pipes are directly Vennard, J. K. Elementary Fluid Mechanics. Wiley,
related to fitting geometry. It was seen in figure 3 1940.
that the effects that several fittings had on head Cengel Y. A., and Cimbala J. M. Properties of
loss. For the large, medium, and short elbows, the Fluids. Fluid Mechanics Fundamentals and
medium elbow proved to be the most energy Applications, Third ed., McGraw-Hill, 2014, pp.
efficient. The ideal bend radius to pipe diameter is 3861.
well documented and easily calculable. As shown
in the results, the medium sized pipe was nearest
the ideal bend to diameter ratio. However, available
space does not always permit as wide turn and thus
a right angle turn may be used. If losses are
important to avoid than vanes may be added to
greatly reduce losses (Barna, 1971). Last, fluids
that are subject to rapid expansion and contraction
will lose energy to eddying. In the case of
contraction the eddy is called a vena contracta.

Conclusions
In the analysis of the major losses in pipes of
different diameters it was determined that at a
lower velocities the frictional factor is larger
relative to velocity; however, as diameter increases
the friction within the system from the viscous
force become less significant. Still, there were not
very significant changes in f relative to V2.
It was also seen that there were substantial
differences between fittings. The elbows
demonstrated that there is an ideal bend radius
relative to pipe diameter. Sudden expansion showed
that there was little resistance in flow from the
change in diameter, but resistance nonetheless,
which seems counterintuitive. Sudden contraction
proved to greatly reduce flow relative to other
fittings due the vena contracta phenomenon. The
right angle elbow without the use of vanes was the
greatest disturbance of flow.