Minor Losses in Bends Lab Report

Group 6B
Minor losses in bends and

fittings
By Alex Starrett
C3200095
Due date: 11/4/16
Aims: the aims of this experiment were to determine the

dimensionless loss coefficient K for various bends and fittings, and
compare them to published values.
Experimental:
1. Apparatus.
The components of the apparatus are listed below.
Hydraulics bench.
Losses in bends and fittings pipe network.
Stop watch on mobile phone.
Pump.
Picture of the hydraulics bench and pipe network are shown in figure
1.
F1-22 Armfield (2010).

Figure 1: hydraulics bench and pipe network
2. Procedure
Engage the pump to bleed all the air from the line. By turning the
flow control valve located at the right hand rear of the apparatus
start increasing the flow rate. Make sure that the flow rate does not
increase to the point were the menisci in the manometers go off the
scale (at the top or the bottom of the manometer). The pipe
network consists of a water inlet, long radius bend, a small radius
bend, mitre, 90 elbow an enlargement and a contraction (a sketch
of the enlargement/contraction is shown in figure 2). Take time to
identify the direction of the flow and which manometers correspond
to each bend/fitting. Take manometer readings for all the fittings
and bends in the pipe network, h1 and h2. Drop the rubber ball to
seal off the hole in the collection basin. Record the time taken to
collect a measured quantity of water using a stopwatch and the
tanks volume gauge. A greater accuracy is obtained by collecting a
larger amount of water. Raise the rubber ball to let the collected
water return to the system. Repeat this process 6 times making sure
to decrease the flow rate each time by adjusting the flow control
valve.
D is the diameter of the pipe in (mm).
Figure 2: Sketch of the enlargement and contraction in the

pipe network
Results and discussion:
There are two types of losses associated with bends and fittings in
pipes. The shear stress between the water and the internal pipe
surface is referred to as major loss. The energy loses due to the
bends and fittings of a particular pipe network are called minor
losses, together they determine the head loss of the system Potter,
et al (2012).
3
Minor loses can be shown in terms of the loss coefficient K and is

defined by:
H=
KV 2
2g
(1)
Where H is the water column height (mm), K is the dimensionless

loss coefficient, V is velocity of the fluid (m/s) and g is the
gravitational constant (m/s^2).
The K value for each individual bend and fitting must be determined
experimentally. For the bends in the system H can be taken as the
difference between h1 and h2. The cross sectional area of the pipe
and therefore the velocity does not change due to the conservation
of mass equation.
Q V1 A1 V2 A2
(2)
Where Q is the flow rate, V1 & V2 are velocities (m/s) in the

respective areas of the pipe A1 & A2 in (m^2).
For the Expansion and contraction shown in figure 2 the Bernoulli
equation must be used to determine P1 & P2.
z1
2
1
(3)
2
2
V
p
V
p
1 z2
2 hL
2g g
2g g
Where P1 & P2 are the liquid pressure between the pipe sections (m
of water), is water density (kg/m^3), g is the gravitational
constant (m/s^2), V1 & V2 are velocities at each point (m/s) and Z1
& Z2 are the relative elevations at each point (m). Note Z1 & Z2 are
negligible for this experiment. Rearranging for head loss and using
equation (2) we can use:
hL
V V h h
z z
2g
2
1
2
2
(4)
The raw data collected during the experiment is shown in Appendix

A. Sample calculations of the expansion/contraction pressure
differences are contained in Appendix B.
A graph showing the results of the experiment taken over 6 different flow
rates is shown in figure 3.
H vs V2/2g.
0.1
0.09
Delta H (m)
0.08
mitre
0.07
Linear (mitre)
0.06
Linear (elbow)
elbow
short bend
0.05
Linear (short bend)
0.04
long bend
0.03
Linear (long bend)
0.02
enlargement
Linear (enlargement)
0.01
contraction
0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Linear (contraction)
v^2/2g (m)
Figure 3 experimentally determined values of H and V2/2g.

It can be noted from the graph in figure 3 that all results are trending
towards the origin. From the graph it can also be shown that the tighter
bends had greater losses when compared to the longer drawn out bends
and the enlargement or contraction.
When comparing the mean values of k with the published values as in
Appendix E, the experimentally derived values are within the calculated
error range for the mitre, elbow, short bend and the long bend. Error
analysis is shown in Appendix C and the error for each bend is shown in
Appendix D.
The published K values for the expansion and contraction were not
within the error range of the derived K values. The omission of z from
Equation (4) may have contributed to this.
Due to time management problems during the experiment the final
attempt, flow rate 6 was nearly identical to flow rate 5. The flow control
volume valve wasnt adjusted correctly and this has effectively
shortened our experimental range. This may have contributed
unfavourably to our mean value of K. Flow rate 5 and 6 were both taken
over a lesser volume, which may have led to some inconsistencies.
Conclusions and recommendations:

The pressure difference across 6 bends and fittings were measured
under differing flow rates to determine the loss coefficient K. The results
were displayed on a graph of pressure drop over the velocity squared on
twice the gravitational constant.
Over the test that where carried out it was found that H increases with
increasing Velocity squared for all bends and fittings. The tighter bends
showed greater losses as the flow rate increased compared to the
Expansion/contraction and the long bend.
Overall the results were close to the published data. The exceptions
being the expansion/contraction.
For future experiments it is recommended to use the same volume for
all test and to account for the relative elevations in the pressure
difference calculations for the expansion and contraction.
Nomenclature:
K
D
H
Q
A
V
V^2
g
s
z
Loss coefficient
Pipe diameter
Height of water in manometer
Volumetric flow rate
Area
Velocity
Velocity squared
Gravitational constant (9.81)
Liquid density
Time in second
Relative elevation
mm
m
m^3/s
m^2
m/s
(m/s)^2
m/s^2
kg/m^3
s
m
References:
Discover with Armfield (2010).,
http://discoverarmfield.com/media/transfer/doc/f1.pdf
Pipe fitting data base (2016).,http://www.pipeflow.com/pipe-flow-expertsoftware/pipe-flow-expert-software-screenshots/expert-screenshotspipes-fittings
Potter, M.C., Wiggert, D.C., & Ramadam, B.H. (2012) Mechanics of fluids.
Cengage learning .,11.2: p 544.
Potter, M.C., Wiggert, D.C., & Ramadam, B.H. (2012) Mechanics of fluids.
Cengage learning., Table 7.2: p 316.
Vinidex technical manual (2013)., http://www.vinidex.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2013/03/VIN014_PVC_Technical_Manual.pdf

Minor Losses in Bends Lab Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Minor Losses in Bends Lab Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Minor Losses in Bends Lab Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group 6B

Minor losses in bends and

Aims: the aims of this experiment were to determine the

F1-22 Armfield (2010).

Figure 2: Sketch of the enlargement and contraction in the

Minor loses can be shown in terms of the loss coefficient K and is

Where H is the water column height (mm), K is the dimensionless

Where Q is the flow rate, V1 & V2 are velocities (m/s) in the

The raw data collected during the experiment is shown in Appendix

Linear (short bend)

Linear (long bend)

Figure 3 experimentally determined values of H and V2/2g.

Conclusions and recommendations:

Vinidex technical manual (2013)., http://www.vinidex.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2013/03/VIN014_PVC_Technical_Manual.pdf

You might also like