Flow Through Pipes

Experiment conducted on: 15/4/2019 at 10:00 AM to 12:00PM

Location:

Laboratory group: 2

Laboratory report by: Scott Collier

Student number: 19492104

(Laboratory #2 Instruction Sheet, 2019)

1
Table of Contents
................................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.0 Introduction and background: .......................................................................................................... 3
2.0 Experimental procedure: .................................................................................................................. 5
3.0 Complete results: .............................................................................................................................. 8
4.0 Discussion of results:....................................................................................................................... 10
.............................................................................................................................................................. 11
.............................................................................................................................................................. 13
5.0 Conclusion: ...................................................................................................................................... 15
5.0 references: ...................................................................................................................................... 16
6.0 Appendicies: .................................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix A: Math formulae and derivation. ........................................................................................ 16
Appendix B: Material properties of experimental rig. ...................................................................... 17
Appendix C: Moody chart. ................................................................................................................ 18

2
1.0 Introduction and background:

Pipes are an essential component to the all the facilities and utilities used in everyday life.
From the kitchen sink, to massive resiviours fed from fresh water supplies, pipes are a
means of connection from A to B.
Appendix A: Math formulae and derivation uses a technical expresssion to define Reynolds
number (Re). For all intents and purposes of disccussion, reynolds number can be define a
little more practically:
𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒
𝑅𝑒 =
𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒
Reynolds number is a ratio between inertial forces and viscous forces in a fluid, as the
following will discuss.
The following experiment will work to identify, both quanlitatively and quantitatively, the
nature of flow through pipes. Traditionally, there are three types of flow: laminar flow,
transitional flow and turbulent flow, givem in Figure 1: Fluid Velocity Profile. Laminar flow is
steady, calm and viscous dominant in motion.
Turbulent is somewhat the total opposite of laminar, flow here is chaotic, unsteady and
inertial dominant in motion. A grey area that ocupies the interface between laminar and
turbulent is the transition region, or transient flow, which has characteristics of both
laminar and turbulent flow. These three terms bulkly define all the possible flow
phenonema that can be observed in any flow of newtonian fluids, most commonly the flow
of fluid in pipes.

Figure 1: Fluid Velocity Profile (Saad 2019)

3
In the buffere layer, the fluid velcocity is small, and hyperthertically in the viscous sublayer
boundary layer, the velocity of the fluid is zero, or approaches zero closer and closer to the
surface on which the fluid flows. Hence, fluid flows in these regions are portrayed as laminar
in Figure 1: Fluid Velocity Profile, while fluid directly above them has the possibilty of being
turbulent if the velocity gradient in the characteristic length of the fluid flow is high enough.
However, as Figure 2: Flow regimes (Saad 2019) well demonstrates, the flow through a pipe
can be further analysed beyond just laminar, transient and turbulent regions. Fluids flowing
through pipes change in nature as a function time from their developing profile regions, to
complete parabolic flow, or fully developed regions.
Through anaylysing the flow by determining quantitative values such as Reynolds number
(Re) and Friction factor (f), calculations that describe the flow can be compared to a set of
standard predetermined values given on the Moody chart in Appendix C: Moody chart.
Comparing experimental values to theoretical values from the moody chart allows for
verification of results, as well as determining possible experimental errors, later to be
discussed in 4.0 Discussion.

Figure 2: Flow regimes (Saad 2019)

Figure 2 demonstrates typical flow through a pipe. In the developing profile region, fluid has
just begun contact with the pipe walls. The no-slip consition states that at a solid boundary
(the wall), the fluid velocity will be zero. This creates boundary layers which increase in size
further along the pipe. When the boundary layers get so large, that they finally intersect and
merge, a fully developed flow region emerges, which for pipes has parabolic nature.

4
2.0 Experimental procedure:
A simular experimental procedure is to be used in both mercury and water manometer
readings. Before starting the procedure is either case, ensure all equipmemt is calibrated,
and working to optimal conditons, i.e that the manometers stand perfectly vertical, and are
not slanted on an angle.

Bench supply valve

Figure 3: Water testing arrangment (Laboratory #2 Instruction Sheet, 2019)

Procedure for water manometer
1. Determine how much the bench supply valve needs to be turned for each data set
taken. (i.e turn it ¼ or ½ etc)
2. Predetermine the volume of fluid to be taken. (i.e 10ml, 50ml and so on)
3. Ensure a measuring cyliner is securing the measuring pipe.
Procedure followed for Tables 1: Water Manometer results Data set
4. Turn the bench supply valve ¼ a rotation
5. Wait approximately 10 seconds for the flow of water to become steady through the
measuring pipe.
6. Pick two points on the measuring cylinder, the difference of which should make 10ml
for the first trial.
7. Start the timer when the water reaches the first point on the cylinder

5
 8. Stop the timer when the water reaches the second point.
9. Take down both the h1 and h2 readings given on the water manometer.
10. Repeat steps 4 to 9 12 times, altering the volumes as given in Table 1: Water
Manometer results . Other volumes could have been used, for this particular dataset only
10ml, 50ml, 80ml, 100ml, 120ml, 150ml and 180ml were for analysis.

Figure 4: Mercury testing arrangement (Laboratory #2 Instruction Sheet, 2019)

Procedure for mercury manometer

1. Determine how much the needle valve needs to be turned for each data set taken.
(i.e turn it ¼ or ½ etc)
2. Predetermine the volume of fluid to be taken. (i.e 10ml, 50ml and so on)
3. Ensure a measuring cyliner is securing the measuring pipe.
Procedure followed for Tables 2: mercury Manometer results Data set
4. Turn the bench supply valve ¼ a rotation.
5. Wait approximately 10 seconds for the flow of water to become steady through the
measuring pipe.

6
 6. Pick two points on the measuring cylinder, the difference of which should make
100ml for the first trial.
7. Start the timer when the water reaches the first point on the cylinder.
8. Stop the timer when the water reaches the second point.
9. Take down both the h1 and h2 readings given on the mercury manometer.
10. Repeat steps 4 to 9 18 times, altering the volumes as given in Table 2: Mercury
Manometer results . Other volumes could have been used, for this particular dataset only
100ml, 150ml, 200ml and 300ml were for analysis.

7
3.0 Complete results:

Test Water Time Flow Rate Manomater Manomater Mean Hydraulic Reynolds Friction
Number Quantity taken (s) (m^3/sec) reading: h1 reading: h2 Velocity Gradient Number Factor
(mL) (mm) (mm) (m/s)
1 10 15.56 6.43E-07 341 331 9.09E-02 0.21 2.72E+02 1.36E-01
2 10 12.47 8.02E-07 349 323 1.13E-01 0.05 3.40E+02 2.27E-01
3 50 33.65 1.49E-06 353 317 2.10E-01 0.07 6.29E+02 9.15E-02
4 80 41.5 1.93E-06 358 311 2.73E-01 0.09 8.17E+02 7.10E-02
5 100 45.43 2.20E-06 361 308 3.11E-01 0.10 9.32E+02 6.14E-02
6 120 44.97 2.67E-06 366 301 3.78E-01 0.12 1.13E+03 5.12E-02
7 100 33 3.03E-06 371 294 4.29E-01 0.15 1.28E+03 4.71E-02
8 100 37.5 2.67E-06 386 300 3.77E-01 0.16 1.13E+03 6.79E-02
9 120 37.5 3.20E-06 372 295 4.53E-01 0.15 1.36E+03 4.22E-02
10 150 58.28 2.57E-06 366 307 3.64E-01 0.11 1.09E+03 5.00E-02
11 150 68.28 2.20E-06 355 314 3.11E-01 0.08 9.31E+02 4.77E-02
12 180 167.63 1.07E-06 349 323 1.52E-01 0.05 4.55E+02 1.27E-01

Table 1: Water Manometer results

8
 Test Water Time Flow Rate Manomater Manomater Mean Hydraulic Reynolds Friction
Number Quantity taken (m^3/sec) reading: h1 reading: h2 Velocity Gradient Number Factor
(mL) (s) (mm) (mm) (m/s)
13 100 63.59 1.57E-06 137 135 2.22E-01 0.05 6.66E+02 5.67E-02
14 100 25.25 3.96E-06 140 132 5.60E-01 0.19 1.68E+03 3.58E-02
15 100 16.53 6.05E-06 146 128 8.56E-01 0.43 2.56E+03 3.45E-02
16 150 19.69 7.62E-06 154 120 1.08E+00 0.81 3.23E+03 4.11E-02
17 150 16.22 9.25E-06 161 113 1.31E+00 1.15 3.92E+03 3.94E-02
18 150 14.03 1.07E-05 169 107 1.51E+00 1.48 4.53E+03 3.80E-02
19 150 12.28 1.22E-05 178 99 1.73E+00 1.88 5.17E+03 3.71E-02
20 200 15.04 1.33E-05 183 94 1.88E+00 2.12 5.63E+03 3.53E-02
21 200 13.71 1.46E-05 180 88 2.06E+00 2.19 6.18E+03 3.03E-02
22 200 13.43 1.49E-05 185 83 2.11E+00 2.43 6.31E+03 3.23E-02
23 200 12.56 1.59E-05 200 79 2.25E+00 2.89 6.75E+03 3.35E-02
24 200 12.93 1.55E-05 203 75 2.19E+00 3.05 6.55E+03 3.75E-02
25 200 11.63 1.72E-05 200 72 2.43E+00 3.05 7.28E+03 3.04E-02
26 200 11.47 1.74E-05 210 70 2.47E+00 3.34 7.39E+03 3.23E-02
27 300 16.72 1.79E-05 213 67 2.54E+00 3.48 7.60E+03 3.18E-02
28 300 16.44 1.82E-05 218 63 2.58E+00 3.70 7.73E+03 3.27E-02
29 300 15.78 1.90E-05 223 58 2.69E+00 3.94 8.05E+03 3.20E-02
30 300 15.28 1.96E-05 227 55 2.78E+00 4.10 8.32E+03 3.13E-02

Tables 2: mercury Manometer results

9
4.0 Discussion of results:

Using the Moody chart in Appendix A: Moody chart, the theoretical values of the friction factor can
be estimated for each of the cases outlined in 3.0 : Complete results. They are as follows.

Test Friction Actual Absolute Absolute

number Factor Friction Difference %Difference
Factor
1 1.36E-01 0.24 1.04E-01 5.54E+01
2 2.27E-01 0.19 3.69E-02 1.77E+01
3 9.15E-02 0.1 8.50E-03 8.88E+00
4 7.10E-02 0.08 9.03E-03 1.20E+01
5 6.14E-02 0.07 8.62E-03 1.31E+01
6 5.12E-02 0.055 3.78E-03 7.11E+00
7 4.71E-02 0.05 2.95E-03 6.07E+00
8 6.79E-02 0.055 1.29E-02 2.09E+01
9 4.22E-02 0.047 4.80E-03 1.08E+01
10 5.00E-02 0.06 1.00E-02 1.82E+01
11 4.77E-02 0.07 2.23E-02 3.79E+01
12 1.27E-01 0.14 1.35E-02 1.01E+01
Table 3: Water manometer friction factor comarision

See Appendix A: Math formula and derivation for absoluate % Difference formula used.

As Table 3: Water manometer friction factor comarision demonstrates, flow is entirely in

the laminar region of the moody chart and friction factor values vary by no more than
55.4%, indicating the experimental data had some issues to a relative degree of error. The
reason measured friction factors were not the same as actual friction factor expected values
is due to many reasons. The experiment may not have been conducted ideally by the
experimenters. For example, test result 1 differed by nearly 54%, so this was likely
measured poorly on the day of the experiment. The equipment used outline in 2.0
Experimental procedure, might not have been working to optimal conditions or even
possible contamination of dirt with fluid in the overhead tank, which can change the
properties of fluids.
Overall, from Table 3, the data appears to be relatively reliable after trial 1. Trials 3, 6 and 7
appear to be well taken, given that the percentage differences they have to the theretical
moody chart values of friction factor, varys by no more than 10%.
Special consideration has to be taken into account for results that fall within the transition
region, as transitional flow is not well unstood in mathematical models even today. For the
purpose of comparing friction factors, any value that lies in the transtion region will have

10
both possibe laminar and turbulent values compared. Afterwords, whichever value the
transitional friction factor, laminar or turbulent, lies closest to the experimental is likely the
most reliable of the two.
Test Friction Laminar Absolute Absolute Turbulent Absolute Absolute
number factor friction Difference %difference friction difference %difference
factor factor
15 3.45E-02 0.025 9.50E-03 3.19E+01 0.045 1.05E-02 2.64E+01
16 4.11E-02 0.02 2.11E-02 6.91E+01 0.043 1.91E-03 4.43E+00
17 3.94E-02 0.015 2.44E-02 8.96E+01 0.04 6.31E-04 1.58E+00

Table 4: Mercury manometer friction factor for transitional flow

For test number 15, the results appear to be closer to the turbulent value, then the laminar.
For test 16 and 17 , the friction factor was much closer to being turbulent than it was
laminar, given that absolute differences are very small. Therefore, this overal data indicates
that in nature, test number 15, 16 and 17 were exhbitied more turbulent behaviours than
they did laminar.

Test Friction Actual Absolute Absolute

number Factor Friction Difference %Difference
Factor
13 5.67E-02 0.1 4.33E-02 5.01E+00
14 3.58E-02 0.04 4.22E-03 2.29E+00
18 3.80E-02 0.04 1.95E-03 4.69E+00
19 3.71E-02 0.038 8.61E-04 1.71E+01
20 3.53E-02 0.037 1.70E-03 8.14E+00
21 3.03E-02 0.036 5.68E-03 4.46E+00
22 3.23E-02 0.035 2.74E-03 6.97E+00
23 3.35E-02 0.035 1.53E-03 1.13E+01
24 3.75E-02 0.035 2.53E-03 5.13E+00
25 3.04E-02 0.034 3.64E-03 3.67E+00
26 3.23E-02 0.034 1.70E-03 1.07E+00
27 3.18E-02 0.033 1.19E-03 3.01E+00
28 3.27E-02 0.033 3.50E-04 5.29E+00
29 3.20E-02 0.033 9.78E-04 5.01E+00
30 3.13E-02 0.033 1.70E-03 2.29E+00

Table 5: Mercury manometer friction factor turbulent flow

Compared to Table 3 which depicts friction factor values for the laminar flow of water,
Table 5 demonstrates a much more accurate data set, as the highest absoluate percentage
difference is obersved on trial 20, with a value of 8.14%. All these trials were conducted on
a different experimental rig to Table 3 . Table 3 used a water manometer, outlined in Figure
3: Water testing arrangement, whereas Table(s) 4 and 5 were conducted through the use of
a mercury manometer. It is very unlikely that the manometer type had an impact on the

11
accuracy of the results, however the experimental setup in which the mercury manometer
was used, most certainly yielded a more accurate data set. This outcome is likely
consequential to the mercury manometer experimental rig, outline in Figure 4: mercury
manometer testing arrangement having better components, or the components being
calibrated to a higher standandard. Another reason for the discrefency seen between water
manometer results, and mercury manometer results, are that larger volumes of water were
displaced in the mercury manonmeter rig, so a greater flow velocity was experinced by the
fluid.
Realisticlly, in laminar flow there are many viscous effects or frictional effects due to
adjacent boundary layers of fluid ‘rubbing against one another’ as they propagate through
the tube, as outlined in 1.0 Introduction and theory. This causes great resistive loses and is
likely another source of error that contributed to the laminar flow data. For tubulent flow,
the fluid propagation is inertial dominant, so far less viscous and frictional effects are
experineced by fluid flows. Hence the dataset has come out more reliably.

12
 Fluids plot velocity against hydrualic gradient
4.50
y = 0.4241x2 + 0.3267x - 0.0445
4.00

3.50

3.00
Hydrualic gradient (i)

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
0.00E+00 5.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.50E+00 2.00E+00 2.50E+00 3.00E+00
-0.50
Velcocity (v)

Figure 5: Hydrualic gradient vs velocity

Here, a quadratic relation has been used, as this sufficiently models the expected curve with
a reasonable degree of error. A higher order polynomial equation may be used,
Y = -0.139x6 + 1.2357x5 - 4.1104x4 + 6.2179x3 - 3.6386x2 + 1.1567x - 0.0596, x>0
but any involved calculations become much more difficult to compute due to the large size
of the approximated polynomial.
Hence, y = 0.4241x2 + 0.3267x - 0.0445, x>0 is adequate.

The relationship in Figure 5 demonstrates, that as velocitty increases, the hydriualic gradient
increases aswell, approximately according to the relation given above. This is expected given
the relation in Appendix A: Math formulae and derivation, which states there is a directly
proportional relationship between velocity and hydrualic graident. As

13
 Friction factor vs reynolds number
2.50E-01

2.00E-01

y = 5E-23x6 - 1E-18x5 + 2E-14x4 - 1E-10x3 + 3E-07x2 - 0.0004x + 0.2741

Friction factor

1.50E-01

1.00E-01

5.00E-02

0.00E+00
0.00E+00 1.00E+03 2.00E+03 3.00E+03 4.00E+03 5.00E+03 6.00E+03 7.00E+03 8.00E+03 9.00E+03
Reynolds number

Figure 6: Friction factor vs reynolds number

Overall, Figure 6: Friction factor vs reynolds number demonstrates the expected trend
between friction factor and reynolds number, which is, that as reynolds number increases,
the friction factor decreases. This is simular to the graph observed in Appendix c: Moody
chart. Between the values of approximately 1.60 x 103 and 3.00 x 103, friction factor is
noticably increasing, likely because this is around the transition region for reynolds number,
which as 1.0 Introduction and theory demonstrates, exhibits behaviour that is hard to model
mathmatically, and is also unpredictable.
For low reynolds number values, the flow is wholly laminar, given through Figure 1: Fluid
Velocity Profile in 1.0 Introduction and theory. Consequential to the laminar nature of this
flow, the friction factor is much high, as bondary layers are in more direct contact, so
overcoming the viscous or friction forces is much harder for the fluid. Likewise, for turbulent
flow, boundary layers no longer lie in direct due to the fluid flow being inertial dominant for
high reynolds numbers. This means the flow is much less viscous, so there are less frictional
forces at play as the fluid moves due to a velocity and hence, a much smaller friction factor
is observed.

14
5.0 Conclusion:

Overall the data taken from the experiment was mostly accurate and reliable. The data
drawn in tables(s) 1 and 2 of 3.0 Complete results demonstrated the expected outcomes for
the fluid properties of water and mercury manomaters. Generally, as the fluid velocity of
water increased, the hyradulic gradients taken from both water and mercury manomaters
also increased, which was expected given the mathematical formulae in Appendix A: Math
formulae and derivation.
In 4.0 Discussion of results, the absolute errors calculated for each of the 30 cases of fluid
flows were generally within an an allowable experimental error, other than trial 1, which
had an error of 55.4%%, which as discussed in 4.0 Discussion of results was likely to due to
the figures on water manometer being poorly measured, or an incorrect use of volume of
displcaed water.
With regard to 1.0 Introduction and theory, figures 5 and 6 also seem to demonstrate
behviours with accordance to what the theory predicted. Frictional factors from Figure 6
were seen to decrease as reynolds number increased, consequential to the fluid flow nature
changing from laminar to turbulent, whicch works to reduce the friction factor, as there are
less viscous and thius frictional forces at play. Likewise, the hydraulic gradient
demonstrated a directly proportional relation to the flow velocity, seen in Figure 5 which
demonstrates trends in accordance to Appendic A: Math and formulae and derivation.
The graphical representations of the data on figure(s) 5 and 6 of 4.0 Discussion of results
also demonstrated expected trends. Figure 5 depicted the relationship between hydraulic
gradient and fluid velocity which was approximately quadratic. Figure 5 depicted the
relationship between reynolds number and friction factor for this experiment, which closely
resembled the trends demonstrated for the moody chart given Appendix C: Moody chart.
This shows the experimental dataset is mostly relaiable other than the transitional flow
measured in trials 15, 16 and 17, which are hard to mathematically model and also exhbit
unpredicatble flow behviour.

15
5.0 references:
 2019. https://lms.curtin.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-6548243-dt-content-rid-
33775507_1/courses/2019_1_ENGR2000_V2_L1_A1_INT_677026/Labs/ENGR2000_Lab2_In
struction_Sheet_and_Worksheet.pdf.
 Saad, Emad M. 2019. Fayoum.Edu.Eg.
http://www.fayoum.edu.eg/stfsys/stfFiles//243//2512//8-
%20Boundary%20layer%20for%20laminar%20and%20turbulent%20flows.pdf.
 "Dynamic Viscosity Of Common Liquids". 2019. Engineeringtoolbox.Com.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/absolute-viscosity-liquids-d_1259.html.

6.0 Appendicies:
Appendix A: Math formulae and derivation.
Both Tables(s) 1 and 2 in 3.0 Complete results were constructed using excel. The following formula
were used in the cells, which allowed many calculations to be done instantanously through excel
functions.
(ℎ1 −ℎ2 )
Hydrualic graient for water manometer: 𝑖 = (1)
𝐿
(ℎ1 −ℎ2 )(13.5−1)
Hydrualic graident for mercury manometer: 𝑖 = (2)
𝐿
(𝜌𝑉𝐷)
Reynolds number: 𝑅𝑒 = (3)
𝜇
𝐿𝑉 2
Friction head loss: ℎ𝐿 =𝑓 (4)
2𝑔𝐷
ℎ𝐿 𝑉2
Hydrualic gradient due to friction: 𝑖 = = (5)
𝐿 2𝑔𝐷
Both Tables(s) 1 and 2 require that we evaluate a friction factor (𝑓 ).
ℎ𝐿 2𝑔𝐷
Rearranging (4) such that 𝑓 =
𝐿𝑉 2
And also rearranging (5) such that ℎ𝐿 = 𝑖𝐿, substitute this experesion into 4.
𝑖2𝑔𝐷
𝑓=
𝐿𝑉 2
(ℎ1 − ℎ2 )2𝑔𝐷
∴ 𝑓𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 = 2
(𝐿𝑉)
(ℎ1 − ℎ2 )25𝑔𝐷
∴ 𝑓𝑚𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑦 = 2
(𝐿𝑉)

16
Majority of formulae were all taken from the laboratory instruction sheet. (Flow through pipes 2019)

Friction factor % Difference formula:

|𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝑀𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒|
( 𝑀𝑜𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑡 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒+𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 ) × 100
( )
2

Appendix B: Material properties of experimental rig. ("Dynamic Viscosity

Of Common Liquids"
Diamter of pipe 𝐷 = 3𝑚𝑚
2019)
Length of pipe 𝐿 = 524 𝑚𝑚
Roughness height of pipe-wall material 𝜀 = 0.0015𝑚𝑚
Density of water 𝜌 = 1000𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
Dynamic viscosity of water 𝜇 = 1.002 × 10−3 𝑁. 𝑠/𝑚2
Density of mercury 𝜌 = 13500𝑘𝑔/𝑚3
Dynamic viscosity of mercury 𝜇 = 0.0015 𝑁. 𝑠/𝑚2

All values other than the dynamic viscosity of mercury were taken from the laboratory instruction
sheet (Laboratory #2 Instruction Sheet, 2019)

17
Appendix C: Moody chart.

taken from the laboratory instruction sheet (Laboratory #2 Instruction Sheet, 2019)

18