Page 1 of 8

Katie Love

BSEN 3310

Team 5

15 November 2017

DISCHARGE COEFFICIENTS FOR VENTURI AND ORIFICE

FLOW METERS

ABSTRACT

Theoretical discharge coefficients for orifice and Venturi flow meters can be calculated using
certain equations, but those equations have a limited use range. Our objectives were to compare
experimental and theoretical discharge coefficients for orifice and Venturi flow meters and
measure energy losses in a flow due to passage through Venturi, orifice, and rotameter flow
meters. Experimental discharge coefficients were determined through use of an equation that
relates slope of a trendline from a graph of flow rate versus square root of pressure drop to the
discharge coefficient. These estimated discharge coefficients were compared to discharge
coefficients calculated from theoretical equations that are only applicable to data with a certain
and Reynolds number range. Flow rates from a dump valve and a rotameter were also
compared in this experiment, and percent difference was determined. Percent difference was less
than 22% for all flow rates, but did not follow a particular trend. Energy losses were highest
across the rotameter, followed by the orifice meter (whose losses increased with flow rate), and
the Venturi meter with the lowest energy loss. The percent difference between the theoretical and
experimental orifice discharge coefficients was 16.9%. The percent difference between the
theoretical and experimental Venturi discharge coefficients was 52%. This was due to the error
 Page 2 of 8

in calculating the experimental discharge coefficient that resulted in it being greater than 1.
Keywords
Discharge coefficient, Energy loss, Orifice flow meter, Pressure drop, Rotameter, Venturi flow
meter.

INTRODUCTION

There are several methods by which to measure flow rate. Flow rate can be calculated by
measuring the pressure drop in a pipe due to a constriction or obstruction of flow (Cengel and
Cimbala, 2014). Three flow meters were tested for this experiment: Venturi, orifice, and
rotameter. Venturi and orifice flow meters are types of obstruction flow meters. Venturi meters
consist of a pipe that gradually narrows to a minimum diameter and then widens again to prevent
the fluid from swirling around (losing energy), such as a flow typically does on the exit side of
an orifice meter. Flow meters, as fittings, have losses associated with them. The total loss for the
Venturi and orifice meters can be expressed as the discharge coefficient. The discharge
coefficient can be calculated using experimental or theoretical equations. Energy losses in J/kg
can be calculated from pressure drop across each flow meter. Energy losses for each flow meter
may be constant or increase with flow rate. Team 5 will use an Edibon Flow Meter
Demonstration Module connected to an Edibon Hydraulic Bench to measure flow rate and
pressure drop across the three flow meters. Flow rates from the rotameter and the hydraulics
bench dump valve will be compared, as well as theoretical and experimental discharge
coefficients for the orifice and Venturi meters. Energy losses as a function of flow rate for each
meter fitting will be analyzed as well.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives for this experiment were (1) to estimate the discharge coefficients for Venturi
and orifice flow meters and (2) to measure energy losses due to flow through Venturi, orifice,
and rotameter flow meters.
 Page 3 of 8

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Team 5 used an Edibon FME18 Flow Meter Demonstration Module attached to an Edibon
Hydraulic Bench for this experiment. The flow meter module had a Venturi, rotameter, and
orifice flow meter. The flow meter module had manometric tubes attached to measure the
pressure difference across the flow meters. Six data readings were taken between flow rates of
200 and 1250 L/hr. Data recorded during each reading: flow rate from the rotameter, flow rate
from dump valve on the bench, and the height of water in each manometric tube on the flow
meter module. The data recorded during the experiment was processed using Microsoft Excel.

Pressure drop across each flow meter was calculated by using Equation 1, with h being the
difference in the heights read from the manometers on each side of each flow meter. To find
energy loss across each flow meter, I used the equivalent expression of 1 kPa = 1 J/kg for water.
Plots of flow rate versus square root of pressure drop (Pa) were made using Excel. The trendlines
for each flow meters data set were forced through zero and the resulting slopes of the trendlines
were used to calculate experimental Cd for the Venturi and orifice flow meters using Equation 2.
The theoretical Cd values were calculated using Equation 3 for the orifice flow meter and
Equation 4 for the Venturi flow meter. Reynolds numbers for each flow rate were calculated
using Equation 5.

EQUATIONS

(1) =

2
(2) = 2
(1[ 2 ] )
1

91.71 2.5
(3) = 0.5959 + 0.03122.1 0.1848 +
0.75
6.53 0.5
(4) = 0.9975
0.5
 Page 4 of 8

Equations 3 and 4 are valid for 0.25 < < 0.75 and 104 < Re < 107 (Cengel and Cimbala, 2014)

(5) =

Where is density of water, g is the gravitational constant, Cd is the discharge coefficient, Ao

is the area of the orifice, A1 is the area of the pipe leading to the orifice, A2 is the area of the

orifice, and = , V is flow velocity, d is diameter of pipe, and is viscosity of water

(taken to be 0.00089 Pa *s).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The flow rates from the dump valve on the Edibon Hydraulics Bench and the flow rates
recorded from the rotameter have a percent difference that varies, but does not follow any
particular distribution. The percent difference between the flow rates is less than 22%, with the
lowest at 2.78% (Table 1). Percent error for rotameters is normally 5 % (Cengel and Cimbala,
2014). The larger percent differences may come from errors in timing the dump valve readings,
or in reading the flow rate from the rotameter.

Table 1. Flow rates obtained from the rotameter and the dump system on the hydraulics bench.
Percent differences between the two readings for each flow rate are included.

Rotameter(m3/s) Bench (m3/s) % difference

5.556E-05 6.670E-05 16.71
9.722E-05 1.000E-04 2.778
1.389E-04 1.667E-04 16.68
2.083E-04 2.667E-04 21.88
2.778E-04 3.167E-04 12.28
3.472E-04 3.833E-04 9.412
 Page 5 of 8

Energy losses from each flow meter are plotted versus the volumetric flow rate in Figure 1.
The energy losses for the rotameter are higher than for the Venturi and orifice meters, but remain
constant while flow rate increases. The energy losses for the orifice meter are lower than the
rotameter, but increase as flow rate increases. The Venturi flow meter has the lowest energy loss,
and the energy loss does not increase with flow rate. This is due to its gradual taper design
introducing less loss by disrupting the flow less, as opposed to the orifice obstruction meters
blunt design (Ramirez et. al, 2014).

2.5

2
Energy Losses (J/kg)

1.5
Venturi
1 Rotameter
Orifice
0.5

0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005
Volumetric Flow Rate (m^3/s)

Figure 1. Scatterplot of energy loss (J/kg) versus volumetric flow rate (m3/s) for Venturi,
orifice, and rotameter flow meters.

Figure 2 is a scatterplot of flow rates versus the square root of pressure drop in Pascals.
Pressure drops across the rotameter stays constant as flow rate increases, while the pressure
drops across the orifice and Venturi flow meters increase as flow rate increases. Linear trendlines
with intercept of zero are applied to the orifice and Venturi meter data, and the slopes that result
are used to calculate experimental Cd for each flow meter. Percent differences between
theoretical and experimental Cd are higher for the Venturi meter than the orifice meter (Table 2).
 Page 6 of 8

Note that the experimental discharge coefficient value for the Venturi meter is greater than 1.
Discharge coefficients should always be less than 1 (Cengel and Cimbala, 2014) indicating some
error in readings or calculations. Reader-Harris et al. tested standard angle (21) Venturi meters,
10.5 meters, and 33.5 meters with equation = 0.9878 + 0.0123 , and found the 10.5
angle produced the most consistent results. The angle of the Venturi meter used in our
experiment is unknown, and perhaps using an equation to suit that angle would produce more
accurate results (Reader-Harris et al., 2001).

0.00045
Venturi
0.0004 Rotameter
Volumetric flow rate (m^3/s)

0.00035 Orifice

0.0003
0.00025
Venturi
0.0002
y = 3E-05x
0.00015 R = 0.7946

0.0001 Orifice
y = 1E-05x
0.00005 R = 0.9842
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Square root of pressure drop (Pa)

Figure 2. Scatterplot of volumetric flow rate versus square root of pressure drop (Pa) across
Venturi, orifice, and rotameter flow meters. Trendlines with intercept of zero included for Venturi
and orifice meters.
 Page 7 of 8

Table 2. Theoretical and experimental discharge coefficients for Venturi and obstruction flow
meters with percent difference between the two.

Cd Venturi Orifice
Theoretical 0.945 0.628
Experimental 1.967 0.755
% difference 51.947 16.862

CONCLUSION

Team 5 used an Edibon Flow Meter Demonstration Module attached to an Edibon Hydraulic
Bench to obtain volumetric flow rate and pressure drop data. Volumetric flow rate data from the
rotameter and the hydraulics bench had a maximum percent difference of 22%. Energy losses
across the rotameter were the highest. The orifice meters energy losses were smaller than the
rotameters, but increased with flow rate. The Venturi meters energy losses were the smallest
and remained constant with flow rate. Square root of pressure drop stayed constant as volumetric
flow rate increased for the rotameter. The square root of pressure drop increased as flow rate
increased for the Venturi and orifice flow meters. The percent difference between the theoretical
and experimental discharge coefficient values for the orifice meter was 16.9%. However, for the
Venturi meter the percent difference between the theoretical and experimental discharge
coefficients was 52%. This is due to error, because the calculated experimental discharge
coefficient was greater than 1. The angle of the Venturi meter was unknown. If the angle were
known, a specific equation to suit the angle of the meter could be used in discharge coefficient
calculations. Errors could have been introduced during the experiment by incorrect readings. The
float inside the rotameter bounced due to the turbulent flow and made accurate readings difficult.
Another opportunity for error lies in calculations. Part of the data used to calculate the theoretical
discharge coefficients was not in the Reynolds number range for Equations 3 and 4. Errors made
during this experiment could be remediated by using precise equipment with known
specifications. Further testing of the equations used in this experiment is required.
 Page 8 of 8

REFERENCES

Cengel, Y. A., & Cimbala, J. M. (2014). Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications (3rd
ed., pp. 391-398). N.p.: McGraw Hill.

Ramirez, B. C., Maia, G. N., Green, A. R., Shike, D. W., Rodriguez, L. F., & Gates, R. S. (2014).
Technical Note: Design and Validation of a Precision Orifice Meter for Ventilation
Rate Control in Open-Circuit Respiration Chambers (Transactions of the ASABE
ed., Vol. 57, pp. 1865-1866)

Reader-Harris, M. J., Brunton, W. C., Gibson, J. J., Hodges, D., & Nicholson, I. G. (2001).
Discharge coefficients of Venturi tubes with standard and non-standard
convergent angles (Flow Measurement and Instrumentation ed., Vol. 12, pp. 135-
145).