See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312041536

Study of different types of valves & Determination of Minor Head Loss for
various openings of locally available plastic valve.

Conference Paper · December 2010

CITATIONS READS

0 2,734

4 authors, including:

Mohammad Faisal Haider Md Farhadul Haque

University of South Carolina University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
37 PUBLICATIONS   109 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Study of different types of valves & Determination of Minor Head Loss for various openings of locally available plastic valve View project

Multimodal Nondestructive Dry Cask Basket Structure and Spent Fuel Evaluation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Md Farhadul Haque on 19 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 13th Asian Congress of Fluid Mechanics
17-21 December 2010, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Study of different types of valves & Determination of Minor Head Loss for
various openings of locally available plastic valve
Md. Farhadul Haque1*, Faisal Haider1, Ashiqur Rahman1, Q. Islam1
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka,
Bangladesh.

*E-mail of presenting author: farhad_buet@yahoo.com

Abstract P1 V12 P V2 (1)

+ + z1 = 2 + 2 + z 2
γ 2g γ 2g
In any fluid flowing system, there are two types of losses. P1 + γ( H + Hm ) = P2 + γH + γm Hm (2)
Frictional losses occur due to various surface roughness of the
pipes while minor losses occur due to various pipe fittings; bend, hf = Hm (γm/ γ-1) (3)
elbow, tee, valves etc. Our thesis was about to calculate minor
loss coefficient for various opening of plastic ball valves which Re=ρ (vD)pipe /µ (4)
are locally available in Bangladesh. Working fluid of our
experiment was water. Water was allowed to pass through our
target valve. The opening and closing side of the valve was 3. Experimental Setup
attached to a U-tube manometer. Mercury was used as
manometric fluid. Darcy’s equation was used to calculate the
value of minor loss coefficient. Minor loss coefficient was
calculated for different flow rate of water. Mass flow rate of
Figure 3.1 shows the schematic diagram of the
water was measured by bucket and water system with the help of experimental setup. Various ball valve opening is done by
a platform scale. Different minor loss dependent parameters were protractor (Fig 3.2).Water supplying glove is opened very
observed during the experiment and their relations with minor carefully up to that position so that mercury does not spill
loss were observed. out from the U-tube. Steady state Manometric deflection is
taken. Discharge was calculated using platform scale and
Keywords minor loss, valves, Darcy’s equation bucket.

1. Introduction

Losses occur in straight pipes and ducts as major

losses and in system components (elbows, valves, bends,
tees, etc.) as minor losses[1]. In piping system that is short
but contains many components it is expected for the minor
loss to be much greater than the major loss[2]. It is often
necessary to determine the head losses so that the energy
equation can be used in the analysis of pipe flow problems.
The minor losses in components depend primarily on the
geometrical construction of the component and the impact
the construction has on the fluid flow due to change in
velocity and cross flow fluid accelerations. The fluid
properties in general expressed with the Reynolds number
also impact the minor loss [3]. The head loss information
about components is given in dimensionless form and the
information is based on experiments.

2. Mathematical modeling
Applying the bernoulli’s equation and manometry we
can calculate the minor head loss and Reynolds number.
Figure 3.1: Schematic diagram of experimental setup

605 | P a g e
 Table 4.1: Experimental Data for 1.25 inch ball valve with
20% opening

Net Flow rate of water

Minor
manometric Mass of Time Mass flow
loss, hf
deflection water (t) rate
(m of
(m of Hg) (kg) (sec) (kg/s)
H2O)

0.137 1.7262 6 21.56 0.278

5.8 19.82 0.292
0.117 1.4742 5.1 20.25 0.251
Figure 3.2: Angular measuring setup at ball valve 5.6 21.82 0.256
0.088 1.1088 4.1 18.85 0.217
3.7 16.8 0.220
0.055 0.693 3 16.94 0.177
3.3 19.67 0.167
0.031 0.3906 3.3 24.81 0.133
3.2 25.59 0.125

Table 4.2: Calculated Data for 1.25 inch ball valve with
20% opening

Minor velocity
velocity Avg Reynolds
loss in pipe
Figure 3.3: experimental setup v=Q/A velocity no, Re
Coeff=2* vpipe=Q/
(m/s) v=Q/A =ρ (vD)pipe
g*hf/v2 Apipe
(m/s) /µ
4. Results and Discussion (m/s)

From the experiment, it appears that minor loss 2.122 2.122 7.520 0.424 17047.5318
coefficient, k; depends on certain number of factor such as: 2.231 0.446
Flow velocity, Valve opening, Valve size, Other fittings. 1.920 1.938 7.694 0.384 15183.4183
The values of k differ from the values found in the
international standard valves. This happened due to 1.957 0.391
number of reasons such as, all available local valves are 1.658 1.669 7.809 0.331 13070.7941
not made by international standards. Due to cost factor, 1.679 0.335
internationally standard valves are not available in the
local market. 1.350 1.314 7.864 0.270 10297.4257
Priming of the manometer is one of the major causes that 1.279 0.255
leads the variation in k. In order to find the correct value, 1.014 0.983 7.915 0.202 7705.50824
it’s necessary to prime the manometer to get the pressure
difference reading perfectly. 0.953 0.190
It was difficult to make the set up completely leak proof
which leads some additional pressure drop. The mass flow
rate was obtained through traditional bucket system which Table 4.3: minor loss coefficient for various opening of
is not a very convenient process. 1”, 1.25”, 1.5” valves

Table 4.1 and 4.2 shows the data and calculation of minor
loss and Reynolds number for 1.25 inch ball valve with Valve 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
size opening opening opening opening opening
20% opening at 300C.
(inch)
minor loss coefficient for various opening of 1”, 1.25”, 1 10.053 7.737653 4.254527 2.060703 0.577162
1.5” valves are shown in table 4.3 and is compared with 1.25 7.7608 3.551338 2.467594 1.510441 0.823355
international standards in table 4.4. 1.5 8.2550 5.157206 2.430777 2.143154 2.011030

606 | P a g e
Table 4.4: Minor loss coefficient for internationally
standard ball valves: Minor loss coefficient vs % of opening
12

Fully open ball valve 0.05 10

M in o r lo ss co e ffic ie n t, k
1/3 closed ball valve 5.5
8
2/3 closed ball valve 200
6

4
5. Graph Analysis
2

5.1 Minor loss coefficient Vs % of opening: 0

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Minor loss coefficient, k; decreases as % of opening % of opening

increases. This is found for all three valves. As area of the
fluid flow increases, the flow becomes more uniform and
lesser turbulent happens. As minor loss mainly depends on Figure 5.1: Minor loss coefficient Vs % opening for 1.25
the turbulence created by the fittings, smaller amount of Inch valve
loss occurs as % of opening increases, as a result k
decreases. Figure 5.1. Minor head loss Vs Velocity
2

5.2 Minor loss Vs velocity: 1.8

1.6
Relation between minor loss and velocity can be described
M in or H ea d lo ss, h (m of w a ter)

by hf = kV2/2g. In the above equation, k is constant for a 1.4

particular set up, g is constant for a particular place. As a 1.2

20% opening
result minor loss is proportional to the square of the
1
velocity. Similar pattern were found in the graph for all 40% opening

three valves. As velocity increases, minor loss increases as 0.8 60% opening

the square of it. It should be noted that for same flow rate, 0.6
80% opening
velocity in smaller valve is greater than that of the larger 100% opening
0.4
one. So, minor loss will be greater in smaller valve than
the larger one for same flow rate. Figure 5.2. 0.2

0
5.3 Minor loss coefficient Vs Reynolds number: 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

velocity (m /s)
Reynolds number in a pipe shows the flow status in it. It
has been found that minor loss coefficient, k; fluctuates Figure 5.2: Minor head loss Vs velocity for 1.25 Inch
over a range of Reynolds number for a particular % valve
opening. At first k decreases as Re increases up to a certain
Minor loss coefficient vs Reynold's number
value, then k rises as Re increases. But as % opening
increases, this fluctuation becomes uniform. At 100% 9
opening k varies very little over a wide range of Re. This 8
manner was found in all valves nicely. As minor loss
M in o r lo ss co efficien t,k

7
depends on the value of k, from these graphs, optimum 6
20% opening
pipe velocity can be found for which minor loss is
5 40% opening
minimum for each opening. Fig 5.3.
4
Graphs are shown in the figures for 1.25 inch ball valves. 60% opening
3
80% opening
Graphs are compared for Minor loss coefficient with the 2
100% opening
various percent of opening of different valve diameter. 1

Figure 5.4. 0
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000

Reynold's number, Re
Figure 5.3: Minor loss coefficient Vs Reynolds number
for 1.25 Inch valve

607 | P a g e
 7. References
Minor loss coefficient vs % of opening
[1] Frank M White, Mechanics of Fluid
[2] J. Hydr. Engrg., “Energy Losses in Cross Junctions",
American Society of civil Engineers, ASCE, Vol. 136,
25 Issue 1, pp. 50-55, January 2010.
[3] Rogério G. dos Santos; José R. Figueiredo, " Laminar
20
elliptic flow in the entrance region of tubes", Journal
of Brazilian society of Mechancal Science and
Minor loss coefficient, k

1.25 inch valve

1 inch valve
Engineering, Vol. 29, Number 3, July/Sept 2007.
15
1.5 inch valve [4] Ibrahim Can, "Simplified Equations Calculates Head
0.5 inch valve
0.75 inch valve
Losses in Commercial Pipes", The Journal of
10 American Science,1(1):1-3, 2005.
[5] Irving H. Shames, Mechanics of Fluids (4th Edition)
5 [6] Dr. Md. Quamrul Islam & Dr. A. C. Mandal, Fluid
Mechanics Through Worked Out Problems
0 [7] Dr. Md. Quamrul Islam & A. K. M. Sadrul Islam,
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
% of opening Fluid Mechanics Laboratory Practice

Figure 5.4: Minor loss coefficient Vs % opening of

different valve diameter 8. Nomenclature
6. Conclusions
Symbol Meaning Unit
hf minor head loss m of water
Through this study the minor head loss of ball
γm Sp. gravity of Manometric fluid dimensionless
valves of locally available in Bangladeshi market are
determined for various opening and different flow rate and γ Sp. gravity of flowing fluid dimensionless
compared these values with international standard values. Hm Manometric deflection m
From the experiments following conclusion can be drawn:
• Minor head loss across the valve is directly k minor head loss coefficient dimensionless
proportional to the square of the flow velocity v flow velocity through valve m/s
through the valve.
g gravitational acceleration m/s2
• With the decrease of the valve opening, increase Re Reynolds number dimensionless
the minor head loss.
ρ density of flowing fluid Kg/m3
• With the increase of Reynolds number, decrease D pipe diameter m
the minor loss coefficient. µ viscosity of flowing fluid Pa.s
The obtained values of minor loss coefficient are always P1 pressure of fluid at inlet Pa
higher then the international standard values, especially for P2 Pressure of fluid at outlet Pa
small opening. Cause may be the construction of these low V1 Velocity of fluid at inlet m/s
cost non standard valves are poorer than those of high cost
V2 Velocity of fluid at outlet m/s
standard valves. Other causes may be round errors and
imprecise measurements.

608 | P a g e

View publication stats