Page 1 of 8

Katie Love

BSEN 3310

Team 5

8 November 2017

MAJOR AND MINOR LOSSES

ABSTRACT
The Darcy friction factor and the minor loss coefficient K of pipes and pipe fittings can be
calculated from experimental data. The goal of this experiment was to compare theoretical major
and minor losses to experimentally determined major and minor losses. Team 5 used the
Technovate fluid circuit system to obtain data used to calculate experimental friction factor. The
Edibon Energy Losses in Bends module in addition to the Edibon Hydraulics bench was used to
calculate experimental minor loss coefficients for several types of pipe fittings. Assuming the
experimental f calculated for each pipe was correct, the theoretical f was an overestimate for the
1 in diameter pipe, and an underestimate for the in diameter pipe. This error could be
attributed to the use of a roughness value intended for a new copper pipe, whereas the copper
pipe used in the experiment was 37 years old. Percent difference between the theoretical and
experimental minor loss coefficients for each fitting varied in the extreme. This was likely due to
the theoretical values not reflecting the variance that occurs in real K values for individual
fittings due to their uniqueness. Further testing using more stringent methods and controlled
environments is encouraged.

Keywords.
Major loss, Minor loss, Head loss, Pipe fittings, Relative roughness, Darcy friction factor,
Colebrook equation, Loss coefficient

INTRODUCTION
For internal flows in circular pipes, the Reynolds number is used to determine whether a flow
is laminar (Re < 2300), transitional (2300 < Re < 4000), or turbulent (Re > 4000). What equation
 Page 2 of 8

is used to calculate the Darcy friction factor f depends on the Reynolds number of the flow. For
this experiment all flows were turbulent, therefore the Colebrook equation could be applied to
the flow to determine the Darcy friction factor f. The Moody chart can be used to determine
theoretical f using Reynolds number and relative roughness, but for the purposes of this
experiment the Colebrook equation will be solved with Excel Solver. To obtain the data used to
determine experimental f, we used the Technovate fluid circuit system fitted with copper pipes.
The experimental f will be calculated using Equation 3. The resulting experimental and
theoretical f will be graphed versus velocity squared for each pipe diameter for further analysis.
The minor loss coefficient K is used to aid in calculating head loss across pipe fittings. When
fittings introduce turbulence greater than exists in the rest of the flow, the mechanical energy of
the flow is lost as heat due to recirculating eddies induced by the pipe fittings (Hudson and
Rennels, 2012). Cengel and Cimbala note that theoretical K values are often implausible to
calculate for even single pipe fittings, and most K values for pipe fittings come from
experimental analysis performed by the manufacturer (Cengel and Cimbala, 2014). The Edibon
Energy Losses in Bends Module attached to the Edibon Hydraulics Bench will be used to
measure head losses across various pipe fittings and the volumetric flow rate associated with
them. To analyze the minor loss data, a graph of head loss versus velocity squared will be created
and linear trendlines with intercept of zero will be applied to data from each fitting and the
trendline equations of each will be used to estimate the experimental K values. These
experimental K values will be compared with theoretical K values for each fitting.

OBJECTIVES
The objectives for this experiment were (1) to measure the effect of pipe diameter on major
loss due to friction factor and (2) to measure the effect of several fitting types on minor losses in
pipes.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A Technovate fluid circuit system was used to test the effect of diameter on major losses and
friction factor. Team 5 tested pipes 2 and 4. Pipe 2 had a in diameter and pipe 4 had a 1 in
diameter. The fluid circuit system used copper pipes. We recorded six maximum and minimum
heads across the internal orifice and the pipe length for each pipe diameter. The head loss across
 Page 3 of 8

the orifice was used to calculate pressure drop (Equation 1), which was then used to calculate
volumetric flow rate (Equation 2). Flow velocity was obtained by dividing flow rate by the cross-
sectional area of each pipe. Experimental friction factors (f) were calculated using Equation 3.
The theoretical values of f were calculated by using Excel Solver on the Colebrook equation
(Equation 4).
The effects of fittings on minor losses in pipes were tested using the Edibon Energy Losses in
Bends Module attached to the Edibon Hydraulics Bench. The module contained the following
fittings in order: long elbow, sudden enlargement from 20 to 40 mm, sudden contraction from 40
to 20 mm, medium elbow, short elbow, and right-angle fittings (miter). All of the elbows were
attached to a 20 mm ID line. The bends module was equipped with a knob to control flow rate
and the hydraulic bench had a volumetric flow rate measurement system. 12 head readings were
taken for six flow rates (between maximum and zero), with a head reading taken at the inlet and
outlet of each fitting. Experimental K values were calculated using Equation 5, with the velocity
for the system being determined by dividing the flow rate by the line diameter. All data was
processed using Microsoft Excel. Head loss (y) was graphed in terms of squared velocity (x), and
a linear trendline was applied for each flow rate with an intercept of zero. This made it possible
to calculate K by multiplying the slope of the trendline by 2*(gravitational constant).

EQUATIONS

(1) =

2
(2) =
(1 4 )

2
(3) =
2

1 2.51
(4) = 2.0 log [ + ]
3.7

2
(5) =
2

(6) =

Where is density of water (1000 kg/m3), g is gravitational acceleration, is the area of the

internal orifice, = 0.656, = , d orifice = 0.625 in & D leading = 1.025 in,
 Page 4 of 8

L = 5 ft, f is the Darcy friction factor of the pipe section, /D is the roughness value of the pipe
material divided by the internal pipe diameter (here, = 0.0000015 m). Re is the Reynolds
number. is the dynamic viscosity of the water (here, 0.001 kg/m*s). K is the minor loss
coefficient.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For the in diameter pipe the experimental f is larger than the theoretical f (Figure 1). The
opposite is true for the 1 in diameter pipe. On both the in and 1 in pipe graphs, friction factor
decreases slightly as velocity increases (Figure 1). This effect is less prominent for the in pipe
data. Von Bernuth and Wilson noted that the when Colebrook equation is applied to small
diameter pipes, the friction factors obtained from it are inaccurate (von Bernuth and Wilson,
1989).
0.16

0.14
Friction Factor (0.5 in diameter)

0.12

0.1
Experimental
0.08
Theoretical
0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Velocity squared (m^2/s^2)

Figure 1. Friction factor versus velocity squared for a in diameter pipe

 Page 5 of 8

0.03

0.025

Friction Factor (1 in diameter)

0.02
Experimental

0.015 Theoretical

0.01

0.005

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Velocity squared (m^2/s^2)

Figure 2. Friction factor versus velocity squared for a 1 in diameter pipe

For all fittings, the trendline slopes are positive, that is, head loss increases as velocity
increases. The 90 bend (miter) linear trendline has the largest slope. In descending order of
slope magnitude after the miter fitting slope: sudden contraction, short elbow, long bend,
medium elbow, sudden expansion. All trendlines have an R-squared value of greater than 0.9.
The miter fitting had the largest experimental K value, followed by the sudden contraction, short
elbow, long bend, medium elbow, and sudden expansion fittings (Table 1). The miter fitting had
the largest theoretical K value, followed by the short elbow, sudden expansion, sudden
contraction, medium elbow, and long bend fittings. The smallest percent difference between the
theoretical and experimental K values is associated with the 90 miter bend. The highest percent
difference is between the theoretical and experimental K for the sudden expansion fitting at
381%. High percent difference between the theoretical and experimental values is not
unexpected, due to the nature of theoretical minor loss calculations having varying degrees of
accuracy since K values vary with Reynolds number, pipe diameter, and roughness of the pipe
(Cengel and Cimbala, 2014). Differences in the K values in this experiment could also be due to
neglecting the effects of major loss in the pipe system.
 Page 6 of 8

0.09
Long bend Short elbow Long bend
0.08 Widening
y = 0.0153x y = 0.0313x
Narrowing
R = 0.9614 R = 0.958 Medium elbow
0.07 Short elbow
Widening Miter Miter
0.06 y = 0.0062x y = 0.0504x
R = -0.938 R = 0.9427
Head Loss (m)

0.05 Narrowing
y = 0.0341x
0.04 R = 0.9664

Medium elbow
0.03 y = 0.0119x
R = 0.9077
0.02

0.01

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Velocity Squared (m^2/s^2)

Figure 3. Head loss versus velocity squared for several pipe fittings with Linear trendlines
with intercept of zero applied to each data set, R-squared value included.

Fitting Long bend Widening Narrowing Medium elbow Short elbow Miter
Experimental K 0.300186 0.121644 0.669042 0.233478 0.614106 0.988848
Theoretical K 0.22 0.585 0.4 0.3 0.9 1.1
% difference 26.71210516 380.9115123 40.21302101 28.49176368 46.55450362 11.24055
Table 1. Experimental and theoretical minor loss coefficients for each pipe fitting with
associated percent differences.

CONCLUSION
Team 5 used a Technovate fluid circuit system to obtain major loss data, and an Edibon
Energy Losses in Bends module to obtain minor loss data. Major loss data was used to compare
the theoretical values of the Darcy friction factor from the Colebrook equation to the
experimentally determined friction values. The experimental values of f were higher than the
theoretical for the smaller diameter pipe tested, while the opposite was true for the larger
diameter pipe. The gap between theoretical and experimental f is clearly visible on Figure 1 and
 Page 7 of 8

2. Minor loss data was used to compare the theoretical minor loss coefficients to the
experimentally determined values. The percent difference between them ranged from 11 381
%. There were several sources of potential error during these experiments. There may have been
error in reading the head heights from each apparatus, or in timing the volumetric flow rate
readings. Readings could have been recorded incorrectly. The roughness value used in
calculations most likely did not reflect the actual pipe roughness. The roughness value used was
intended for new copper pipes, and the pipes used with the Technovate fluid circuit system were
obtained in 1980. Since the copper pipes were 37 years old, it is likely they have internal scale
accumulation that affects the actual roughness of the pipe. The diameter measurements for each
pipe in both experiments were uncertain, since it was unknown if the provided diameter was in
reference to the external surface or the internal surface. It was also unknown if the pipe fittings
were threaded or flanged. For the minor loss calculations, we neglected major loss. Errors in this
experiment may be reduced by using equipment with accurately known specifications and
roughness.
 Page 8 of 8

REFERENCES
Cengel, Y. A., & Cimbala, J. M. (2014). Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications (3rd
ed., pp. 348-391). N.p.: McGraw Hill.
Hudson, H. M., & Rennels, D. C. (2012). Pipe Flow: A Practical and Comprehensive Guide (p.
28). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
von Bernuth, R. D., & Wilson, T. (1989). Friction Factors for Small Diameter Plastic Pipes (Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 115).