CALIBRATION OF A VENTURI METER

AND

FRICTIONAL DISSIPATION IN AN ABRUPT CONTRACTION

Daniel Pérez Torres

Experiment carried out on the 11th of November 2010.!

 ABSTRACT

The Venturi meter is the most precise device to measure flow rates. The determination
of its coefficient of discharge is extremely important to industry and hydraulics, as well
as the minor head loss of one the most widely used pipe fittings.
In this experiment, the discharge coefficient of a Venturi meter is calculated, together
with the loss coefficient of a sudden pipe contraction. The experimental values are then
compared to the ones in published data tables and the disparity between them is
examined.

1
 INDEX

OBJECTIVES Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION Page 1

2. BACKGROUND THEORY Pages 1-2

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Page 2

4. CALCULATIONS

• 4.1. COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE OF A VENTURI METER Page 3

• 4.2. LOSS COEFFICIENT FOR AN ABRUPT CONTRACTION Pages 3-4

• 4.3. DETERMINATION OF REYNOLDS NUMBER (RE) Pages 4-5

5. RESULTS Page 5

6. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Page 5

7. DISCUSSION Pages 5-6

8. CONCLUSION Pages 6

REFERENCES Page 7

APPENDIX A Page 8

APPENDIX B Page 9

APPENDIX C Page 10

2
3
 OBJECTIVES

The aim is to calculate the coefficient of discharge (Cd) of a Venturi flow meter
and the loss coefficient (k) of an abrupt contraction; preceding a comparison between
the determined experimental results and the values obtained from textbooks.

1. INTRODUCTION

The head loss in long, straight sections of pipes (major losses) can be calculated
using the friction factor obtained from the Moody chart. However, most pipe systems
have a greater complexity due to the inclusion of minor losses caused by valves, bends,
tees, and so on. [2] This experiment focuses on minor losses caused by an abrupt pipe
contraction and a Venturi flow meter due to viscous forces.

2. BACKGROUND THEORY

A sudden pipe diameter reduction at 90º is known as an abrupt contraction. Its

complex flow pattern makes a theoretical calculation for the head loss (hL) not yet
possible; thus, the head loss information is given in dimensionless form as the loss
coefficient kL, where kL = Uh2L . Consequently, a pressure drop across a component with
2g

a loss coefficient of kL = 1 is equal to the dynamic pressure, 12 "U 2 ; representing an

ideal full recovery of kinetic energy after, for example, a pressure drop due to the vena
contracta effect in an abrupt contraction. [Visit Appendix C for an illustration of this
!
concept].
Moreover, the value of kL strongly depends on!the geometry of the component
under consideration; it may also depend on the pipe Reynolds number;
kL = " (geometry, Re) . However, in most cases the flow is dominated by inertia effects
rather than viscous effects; hence, kL = " (geometry) . [2]

The most precise of the three main obstruction-type pipe flow meters is the
! Venturi meter. It comprises a gradual contraction, followed by a throat and a gradual
! geometry causes a decrease in flow area producing an
expansion (diffuser). This
increase in velocity and compensating it with a decrease in pressure. Correlation of the
pressure difference with the velocity enables the determination of the flow rate by
rearranging the Bernoulli equation with respect to V2 (velocity in the throat) and
substituting it into the continuity equation [4]; hence, obtaining an equation for an
idealized flow: [1]

2g(hRa " hLa )

V˙ideal = A2 4
________________ (Eq. 1)
( )
1" DD12

The gradual obstructions also eliminate separation in the accelerating and

decelerating portions of the device. Therefore, a good design of a Venturi meter only
! along the walls as its main type of head loss, rather than losses
generates friction losses
due to separated flows and its ergo inefficient mixing motion [4].

4
 Despite the precision of the Venturi meter, its head losses are represented as
empirical coefficients, (Cd), due to the complexity involved in calculating a theoretical
one [1]. This coefficient should multiply the right hand side of the idealized above
equation in order to obtain a flow rate that includes the viscous effects of the real world,
where Cd <1.

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

The Technician conducting the experiment had already prepared the apparatus as
shown in Figure 1. and was running at the maximum flow rate permissible.
The first step was to close the system by lowering the ball that acts as a dump
valve. As a result, tank 1 and tank 2 were not interconnected anymore.
We measured the time !t taken for tank 1 to reach 30 litres while recording the
head pressure from the water (hLa and hRa) and mercury (hLm and hRm) manometer. At
the point where tank 1 reached 30 litres, the dump valve was opened, interconnecting
again tank 1 and tank 2 and the inlet valve V2 was adjusted until there was a drop of 10
mm in both manometers.
The experiment was repeated 12 more times, until zero flow rate was achieved.

Figure 1. – Experimental Apparatus

4. CALCULATIONS – Sample Calculation using ! V = 0.03 m3

The raw data collected may have a pressure head error. At zero flow rate, the
difference in head pressure MUST be zero. It may also help to convert to SI units the
original data. [Visit Appendix A to see the raw data and Appendix B to see the corrected
raw data]

5
• 4.1. COEFFICIENT OF DISCHARGE OF A VENTURI METER
"V 0.03
o Volume flow rate: V˙ = = = 2.54 #10$4 m3 /s
"t 118
o Calculation of slope m from Eq. 1 (but including the discharge
coefficient):
2g(hRa " hLa )
! V˙ ! = Cd A2 4
can be rearranged
1" DD12 ( )
V˙ 2g
into = Cd A2 4 = m.
hRa " hLa 1" DD12 ( )
!
! Plotting all the values of V˙ against all the values of hRa " hLa ,
slope m can be obtained:
!
! !

o Calculation of Cd:
2g m 2g 0.0006 2 $ 9.81
m = Cd A2 4 # Cd = 4 = "4 4 = 0.827
1" DD12 ( ) A2 1" D2
( ) 1.54 $10 1" ( 0.014
0.024 )
D1

• 4.2. LOSS COEFFICIENT FOR AN ABRUPT CONTRACTION

! 4V˙ 4 #1.66 $10%4
o Average velocity in smaller pipe: U S = = = 4.31 m/s
"DS 2 " $ 0.007 2
o Head loss:

6
 $ "m ' 2* 4-
U S , $ DS ' /
hL = & #1)( hLm # hRm ) # 1# & )
% "w ( 2g ,+ % DB ( /.

6.612 * $ 0.007 ' -

4

= (13.6 #1)(0.515 # 0.273) # ,1# & )/

2 0 9.81 + % 0.0178 ( .
= 0.88 m
o Calculation of loss coefficient kL:
U 2 U 2
! As hL = k L S " k L = hL ÷ S
! 2g 2g
! Hence, kL can be obtained from the slope of the plot hL against
US 2
2g :

!
!
!

! Therefore, kL = 0.401

• 4.3. DETERMINATION OF REYNOLDS NUMBER (RE)

!
In order to compare the experimental Cd value to the published one, it is
necessary to know the Reynolds number of the corresponding pipe flow.

"D1U average
o Re =
µ
! " = 999.19 kg/m3 (at 15ºC) [6]
! D1 = 0.024 m
! ! = 0.001139 kg/ms (at 15ºC) [6]
! V˙
! Uaverage = average
A1 = 0.000166
0.024 2 "
= 0.367 m/s
4

! 7
 999.19 " 0.024 " 0.367
o = = 7725.6
0.001139
o Therefore, Re = 7.7•103

!
5. RESULTS

Experimental Data Published Data

Discharge
0.827 0.922 - 0.960 [4]
Coefficient (Cd) *1 (geometry dependant)
Loss Coefficient
0.401 0.317 [3]
(kL) *2

*1. – The published data for Cd represents the coefficient for

the pipe flow with Reynolds number Re = 7.7•103. The calculation of Re is
explained in section 4.3.
*2. – Abrupt contraction loss coefficients are between 0 and
0.5 (for AS/AB = 1 and AS/AB = 0 respectively) as opposed to abrupt expansions that
can be from 0 to 1 [3].

6. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The experimental loss coefficient kL is around 26% greater than the published
one. This higher value indicates that the fitting used in the experiment is of greater
efficiency or, in other words, its head loss is smaller. This can be by dint of a slight
rounding of the wetted edge of the 90º-angle pipe contraction, resulting in a reduction or
even elimination of the vena contracta effect and of flow separation originating at the
stated corner [3].
Contrarily, on the other hand, the experimental discharge coefficient Cd differs
by approximately 10% from the published one. The lower coefficient denotes an
inferior efficiency or poorer design (causing additional losses if e.g. separation occurs)
on the shape of the converging and diverging sections and the throat-to-pipe diameter
ratio [4] of the meter used in the experiment. Nevertheless, the experimental value is also
affected by the fact of having an insufficient volume flow rate in order to occupy the
whole cross section of the pipes and meter. This is the case for the lower volume flow
rates near the zero flow rate. This alters shear stress between the walls and the fluid, as
there is less pipe surface, as well as obtaining a lower, and ignored, cross sectional area
in pipes and meter (i.e. becoming "D 16 instead of "D 4 ) and possibly creating turbulence
2 2

in some parts of the pipe system. In addition, when the pipe system is operating at these
specifications, for example, potential energy added to the flow by a difference in height
between the abrupt contraction pipe and the pipe where the Venturi meter is installed
!
(as seen in Figure 1.) combined !
with surface irregularities, may trigger sinusoidal wave
propagation.

7. DISCUSSION

There exists a difference of about 0.5 between the two types of coefficients. This
highlights the superior design of the Venturi meter over a sudden contraction when

8
talking about the high efficiency fittings or devices. The reason behind this disparity lies
on the different types of flows that each artefact produces.
The Venturi flow meter is designed to reduce head losses to the minimum and
owes its success to the relatively streamlined flow that its geometry generates.
Therefore, most of the head loss that occurs is due to friction losses along the walls,
hereinafter the importance of the Reynolds number. [4]

Opposingly, likewise many other head loss situations, an abrupt contraction

generates a dissipation of kinetic energy as the fluid accelerates inefficiently. [3]
This comparison between the two components is not to be misunderstood as they
both have very different applications. The Venturi meter is used by industry when there
is the need to measure the flow rate of substances through a pipe or even by jet engines
to measure the airflow to calculate the velocity of airplanes. Thus, the determination of
a correct Cd is important to calculate the net flow rate. Besides, abrupt contractions are
frequent in several processes and chemical plants, for example. Along these lines, the
optimum determination of its minor head losses is important in the case there is a need
to pump a fluid through pipes containing contractions. What is more, determining the
extension of the flow separation in the vicinity of the contraction edges may be
important to avoid the installation of delicate devices on that area.

8. CONCLUSION

Theoretically, the Venturi meter is highly efficient (0.98 at Re>30,000 [5]);

however, depends drastically on its shape and geometry. Losses are mainly caused by
fluid friction against the walls and its coefficient of discharge is also notably dependant
on the Reynolds number of the flow.

An abrupt contraction, in a different manner, is mainly influenced by the area

ratio (ASmall/ABig). Losses are principally due to flow separation in edges and corners and
its loss coefficient ranges between 0 and 0.50, unlike Cd other minor losses.

9
REFERENCES

[1] – Munson, Bruce R. (2009). Chapter 3: Elementary Fluid Dynamics – The Bernoulli
equation. In: Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons. Page 118-120.

[2] – Munson, Bruce R. (2009). Chapter 8: Viscous Flow in Pipes. In: Fundamentals of
Fluid Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons. Page 415-416.

[3] – Munson, Bruce R. (2009). Chapter 8: Viscous Flow in Pipes. In: Fundamentals of
Fluid Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons. Page 417-421.

[4] – Munson, Bruce R. (2009). Chapter 8: Viscous Flow in Pipes. In: Fundamentals of
Fluid Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons. Page 441-444.

[5] – Cimbala, John M. (09th December 2009). Volume and Mass Flow Rate
Measurement. Available:
www.mne.psu.edu/me345/lectures/Volume_flow_rate_measurement.pdf. Last accessed
28th December 2010. Page 4.

[6] – ThermExcel. (June 2003). Physical characteristics of water (at the atmospheric
pressure). Available: http://www.thermexcel.com/english/tables/eau_atm.htm. Last
accessed 29th November 2010.

10
APPENDIX A

Table of Raw Results:

"! (Litres)! "t (s)! hLm (mm)! hRm (mm)! hLa (mm)! hRa (mm)!
"#! $$%! &$&! '()! &#%! (*'!

'%! $$&! &#&! '+)! &$"! ("(!

'(! $$$! *)&! '%)! &$%! ("#!

'*! $$#! *%&! '))! &'$! (''!

''! $#(! *+&! "#)! &'(! ($&!

'#! $#'! *(&! "$)! &"$! (#)!

$%! ))! *&&! "')! &"&! (#"!

$(! )(! **&! "")! &")! &)+!

$*! )&! *"&! "&#! &*&! &)#!

$'! )"! *'&! "($! &*)! &%*!

$#! )&! *$&! "+$! &&"! &+%!

%! $#)! *#&! "%'! &&)! &+'!

(! ! ")&! ")$! &("! &(+!

11
APPENDIX B

Table of Raw Results with the correction of 4 mm of pressure difference

applied:

"! (m3)! "t (s)! hLm (m)! hRm (m)! hLa (m)! hRa (m)!
#,#"! $$%! #,&$&! #,'+"! #,&$'! #,(*'!

#,#'%! $$&! #,&#&! #,'%"! #,&$+! #,("(!

#,#'(! $$$! #,*)&! #,')"! #,&''! #,("!

#,#'*! $$#! #,*%&! #,"#"! #,&'&! #,(''!

#,#''! $#(! #,*+&! #,"$"! #,&"! #,($&!

#,#'! $#'! #,*(&! #,"'"! #,&"&! #,(#)!

#,#$%! ))! #,*&&! #,"""! #,&")! #,(#"!

#,#$(! )(! #,**&! #,"*"! #,&*"! #,&)+!

#,#$*! )&! #,*"&! #,"&*! #,&*)! #,&)!

#,#$'! )"! #,*'&! #,"(&! #,&&"! #,&%*!

#,#$! )&! #,*$&! #,"+&! #,&&+! #,&+%!

#,##%! $#)! #,*#&! #,"%(! #,&("! #,&+'!

#! ! #,")&! #,")&! #,&(+! #,&(+!

12
APPENDIX C

Figures scanned from: Munson, Bruce R. (2009). Chapter 3: Elementary Fluid

Dynamics – The Bernoulli equation. In: Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics. John Wiley
& Sons. Page 418.

13
14