Hydraulics Team Full-Technical Lab Report

Team Technical Report: Experiment 7: Hydraulics
printed 5/22/2016 teame5hydraulics-160522015341
Team: E5
By signing below I acknowledge that I contributed to my fair share of the work described in this
submission, and that the other members of my team contributed their fair share of the work described
in this submission.

Team: E5
Instr/Grader Evaluated by Assessment Symbol/Color Date ___________
Instr/Grader Evaluated by Assessment Symbol/Color Date ___________
Yes No Self-Regulation Issues (to be completed by Instructor/Grader)
A. The electronic report was submitted on time
B. The front pages of the submission was this checklist with all Features self-assessed
Required Items
Yes No Checklist Item
 1. The work meets all expectations of Assignment_formatting.doc
 2. There is Pre-Reflection and a Post-Reflection written in the first person.
 3. The work is professional and ethical
 4. All quoted and non-original work is cited in a references section
 5. Work is free of mathematical errors (arithmetic, algebra, calculus, etc.)
6. All required elements of a full technical report are present.
 a. There is a title page with complete abstract
 b. There is an accurate table of contents and accurate lists of tables and figures
 c. There is an introduction / theory / background section

d. There is a materials and apparatus / procedure section that discusses safety concerns for this
experiment
 e. There is a results section
 f. There is a discussion / conclusions / recommendations section
 g. There is a references section, appropriately (ACS Style) and consistently formatted
 h. There is an Appendix containing the raw experimental data
Comments on the quality of the expectedfeatures and/or how they might be improved
Quality is overall superior. A lot of time was spent analyzing the data to ensure thorough analysis of results. Figures are
appropriately formatted and inserted with equal spacing,and all information is presented in a professionaland easy to read
and understand manner.

Rating*
0 - 5
Rated Items
4 7. Rate the quality of the abstract (succinct, contains a summary of results,has appropriate tone)
Abstract contains clear concise summary of results and discusses correlations seen from the data and relates
them to fluids concepts later discussed in the paper
4.5
8. Rate the presentation and content quality of the introduction/theory/background section(s)(relevant
specific objectives clearly stated,experiment clearly motivated, importance, brief outline of
approach, explicit purpose and scope of report, succinct but sufficient and relevant theory)
Introduction clearly states goals and objectives of lab, and shows sufficient understanding and motivation of
the topics used.Briefly describes general approach to using and operating the apparatus and software and
discusses importance of collecting data that can be compared to theoretical values for the specific pipe
section being tested.Shows clear description of theory prevalent to report and discusses howeach one is
different
4
9. Rate the quality of the apparatus/procedure section (Concise, hardware and software described,
appropriate technically drawn figures, enough detail in procedure to allow reproduction of results)
Hardware described in conjunction with software used to measure data. Simple description of setting up the
software and then using the various subprograms involved. Describes what each subprogramis used for and
when to use it for the different sections ofthe apparatus.Procedure thorough enough to replicate, simple
enough to understand if userhas time to familiarize themselves with the software like we did.
4.5 10. Rate the quality of the results presentation (description of analyzed results,good use made of plots ,
tables, figures, that serve the author’s and audience’s purpose,including all significant findings)
All important data collected from the experiment formatted neatly into very organized figures. Figures are
easy to understand and clearly show differences between what was expected and what was recorded.
Obvious which values were important with use of markers to highlight prevalent values.
4.5 11. Rate the quality of the technical analysis (clarity and depth of presentation,sophistication of
analytical analysis, correctness of ‘error analysis’, sufficiency of theory utilized, explicit
integration of concepts from earlier coursework)
Analysis of each figure is directly after said figure and thoroughly describes values obtained, and what they
mean. Statements made about deviations from trends for each figure. Analysis tied into theory behind
equations used to calculate theoretical values. Describes error in analysis for each figure.
4.5
12. Rate the quality of the discussion / conclusions / recommendations section (explanation of
significant data, patterns,comparison with predictions, including plausible explanations for
discrepancies, findings related to the problem and objectives from introduction,clear statement of
what results do and do not demonstrate)
Ties back into expectations from introduction, and uses data to discuss theory behind values obtained.
Discusses importance of data collected and states what results mean for the theory. Speculations were as to
whether the equations are more accurate or if the apparatus and software were more accurate. Also includes
analysis of errors and imprecisions of measuring devices and their implications on the results.

Rating*
0 - 5
Rated Items
4.5 13. Rate the effectiveness of presentation (professionalin look, tone, style, vocabulary; consistent use
of terms, matched to audience, goals and purpose addressed throughout,implicit as well as explicit
goals served, structure of paragraphs, sentences appropriate to audience, goals)
Very professional in look and tone. Vocabulary and grammar are consistent throughout and highlight
importance of certain data. Goals were stated and discusses and both mathematical and conceptualgoals
were met. Paragraphs are uniform and appropriately provide context on information presented.
4.5 14. Rate the quality of the Pre-reflection and Post-reflection (addresses issue as described in
Assignment_reqs.doc)
Pre-reflection discussed goals going into lab and what was expected of the group. Outlined basic theory and
concepts needed to understand what was expected. Post-reflection reiterated the importance of what was
discussed in the pre-reflection and explained what was achieved and what it meant to the group. Explained
what could have been better and highlighted most important concepts from the experiment.
Extra Credit* (each can add up to 0.15 to Rated item Average)
Yes Describe features of your work that you believe qualify for “Extra Credit”
 1. Although not specified, the team dug deeper into the practicality vs. accuracy of using simplified Colebrook-
White Equations. For example: the Blasius equation requires the pipe to be hydraulically smooth. This means
that the roughness cannot exceed the laminar boundary layer. By determining the laminar boundary layer
thickness,the team was able to determine which head losses could be calculated using the Blasius Equation.
2.
3.
* If you self-assess arated item at 4 or 5, or claim Extra Credit, you MUST explain WHY, and ideally explain why
using the reasons given in the Course’s Assessment/Grading document.
Results of Initial Assessment (to be completed by Instructor/Grader)
If substantially incomplete (NC), grade is 0; if any requirements not met or average of Rated features less than 2.8,
grade is 50 (NI); otherwise, Grade = average of Rated Features + Extra Credit
E M NI NC
E, all Yes’s for Required Items, no Rated Items below 3, Rated Item average above 4.4
M, all Yes’s for Required Items, Rated Item average at or above 2.8
NI, any No’s for Required Items or Rated Item average below 2.8
NC, there is little to no work to be assessed; Rated itemaverage below 1.8

Team E5
February 12, 2015
Pre-Reflection
Experiment #7: Hydraulics
Team technical laboratory/research report
The hydraulics lab experiment uses past knowledge that we learned in fluid mechanics.
This might be challenging as we need to keep the laws of thermodynamics in mind when finding
the flowrate of different pipes. As a group it is important that we become comfortable with the
unfamiliar software that we will be using. Spending valuable time with testing the software
before we begin will be beneficial throughout conducting the experiment. This will be the most
challenging part because figuring out how the software works is very time consuming, and takes
away time that could be spent collecting data.
Following the procedure in the pre-lab is another key aspect that we will use to keep track
of the time, and make sure we complete every step efficiently. We will all come prepared to lab
with knowledge of the pre-lab procedure we will be conducting. This way we can do the lab
experiment in an orderly fashion and not waste any valuable time. Even though we have two
weeks to complete this lab, it is important that we have good time management skills and stay on
task. This will allow our experiment to run more smoothly and efficiently. Another important
skill that we as a team will be working on is communication within the group. Since this is a
group lab experiment it is extremely important that we are able to communicate as a team. We
will avoid errors and mistakes by recording all our data and comparing it to make sure it makes
logical sense. Using our knowledge of fluid mechanics we will attempt to avoid any possible
errors that could occur. As a group we agree to work together and contribute equally to make
sure the experiment runs as smooth as possible. By following the procedure and keeping track of
our progress we will be able to perform this experiment efficiently.
This lab will allow us to express our ingenuity in multiple ways. The flexibility and
openness of the handout will push us to think about what we know, and how we can apply what
we know to designing the experiment. Almost every process involves some sort of piping to
transport fluids from one point to another. We would like to focus on the head loss because we
feel that it is one of the most crucial parameters. When designing a system, if you know where
some of the energy is being lost to, you can compensate and account for that before building it,
saving time and money.

HYDRAULICS
A Research Report Submitted by:
James Deluca
Mathew Lee
Jeffrey Quinn
Dallas Sigrist
Zoe Yost
in partial fulfillment of the requirements of
CHE 352
Spring Semester, 2015
Arizona State University
Chemical Engineering Program
Abstract
The purpose of this experiment was to observe and attempt to confirm fluid mechanics
correlations between flow rate of a system and pressure. The theory behind fluid flow has been
thoroughly studied and improved upon over the last several hundred years, and as such
experiments can be performed to observe and test several expected trends in pipe systems. Water
was pumped through an apparatus made up of various pipes and fittings, and to test equations
that are used to describe fluid flow through a system, five different flow rates were used. The
experiment was performed on three different pipes of varying diameter and roughness, as well as
two different pipe bends and an orifice. Although there were certain measurements that were
shown to be inaccurate, an overall trend of increasing head loss held for the most part. This is
expected using the equations that have been derived for calculating various aspects of fluid flow.
The study of fluid mechanics has shown this trend to be true and as such the experiment was a
success in replicating the correlation between flow rate and head loss.

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
printed 5/22/2016 teame5hydraulics-160522015341 ii
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... i
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Procedure ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Results ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Discussion and Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 13
References..................................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix A: (Raw Data and Sample Calculations) ..................................................................... 17
Appendix B: (Sample Calculations) ............................................................................................. 18
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1 (Diagram of C6MkII-10 Fluid Friction Apparatus) ......................................................... 4
Figure 2 (Head loss through pipe one) 5
Figure 3 (Head loss through pipe two) 7
Figure 4 (Head loss through pipe three) 8
Figure 5 (Head loss through 90 degree square elbow) 9
Figure 6 (Head loss through 90 degree standard corner) 10
Figure 7 (Head loss through orifice plate) 11
List of Tables
Page
Table 1 (Head losses of all pipes and fittings tested) 17

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
printed 5/22/2016 teame5hydraulics-160522015341 iii
List of Terms
Density (kg/m3) ρ
Head loss (m) ∆h
Fanning friction factor (dimensionless) f
Length of pipe (m) L
Mean fluid velocity (m/s) u
Acceleration due to gravity (m/s2) g
Inner diameter of pipe (m) D
Dynamic viscosity (kg/m·s) µ
Kinematic viscosity (m2/s) ν
Absolute roughness (m) ε
Reynolds number (dimensionless) Re
Equivalent diameter (m) De
Cross sectional area (m2) A
Height (m) z
Flow rate (m3/s) Q

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
printed 5/22/2016 teame5hydraulics-160522015341 p. 1
Introduction
The goal of this experiment is to apply fluid mechanics knowledge to flow through
various pipes and fixtures, and to determine if a relationship between flow rate and pressure
exists. Pressure changes as a function of various conditions such as pipe geometry, diameter,
length, roughness, and flow rate, and in this experiment the flow rate will be manipulated and
pressures at various locations around the apparatus will be measured using the Armfield
statistical software provided in lab. This experiment will be run by varying the flow rate into the
system and testing various points around the apparatus and recording the pressure drop. These
experimental values can then be compared to theoretical values that will be calculated using
knowledge of fluid systems. Many of the equations used in fluid mechanics are derived from the
Bernoulli equation, which is an equation used to balance energy inside of pipes1. Below is the
simplified Bernoulli equation for conservation of energy in pipes.
2 2
1 1 1 2 2 2
1 1
2 2
P u gz P u gz        [1]
In fluid mechanics there are many variables that have effects on the pressures inside
piping systems, and in this experiment the correlations between flow rate and pressure drop
inside a pipe will be tested. Equations for calculating the head loss in different sections of the
apparatus will be used to determine whether or not the experimental values are accurate to
theoretical values. Below is an equation that is used to calculate the head loss in a straight pipe.
2
2 fLu
h
gD
  [4]
From this equation it can be seen that as velocity increases so will the Head loss. Head
loss occurs differently for various geometries and conditions inside the pipe, as well as bends in
the pipe or an orifice, and as such these pressure drops are calculated differently. The pressure
drop across an orifice can be calculated using a separate equation that takes into account the
diameter of the pipe before the orifice and the diameter of the orifice itself. Much like the general
trend of fluid velocity in a pipe has shown, the sudden decrease of the diameter of the orifice
causes the fluid velocity to increase and the fluid pressure to decrease. After the fluid passes
through the bore of the orifice the diameter of the fluid flow decreases slightly before expanding.

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
This area, where velocity is highest and pressure is lowest, is known as the vena contracta5.
Below is an equation used to calculate head loss across an orifice plate.
2 2
1 1
2
1
1
2
u A
h
g A
 
   
 
[3]
Bends use a different equation that takes into account the sharpness of the bend using the
equivalent diameter of the pipe, which for a circular pipe, is just the diameter. As such, the
equation used is different to take into account these changes. Below is an equation for calculating
head loss of a fluid moving through a bend in a pipe.
2
2
e
L
fu
D
h
g
 
 
   [3]
Each of these conditions varies for different types of fluid flow and it is important to
know how the fluid is flowing within the pipe. Fluids moving at lower velocities tend to mix less
and have less turbulence; this flow is known as laminar. However, when the fluid is moving at a
higher velocity there tends to be more mixing and turbulence, and this type of flow is known as
turbulent2. Below is the equation for the dimensionless Reynolds number.
Re
Du Du
 
  [4]
The Reynolds number is a very important number used in fluid mechanics that
determines whether a fluid is categorized as laminar or turbulent, where Reynolds numbers lower
than 2,100 signify laminar flow and Reynolds numbers higher than 3,000 signify turbulent flow2.
Some of the energy lost in the system is lost in the pipes due to friction in the forms of heat and
vibration, and it is obvious that this energy will increase or decrease based on the characteristics
of both the fluid and the pipe. Friction inside a pipe is determined using equations based on an
energy balance, and these equations incorporate a friction factor, which is calculated using the
equation below.
2
0.269 2.185 14.5
1.737ln ln 0.269
Re Re
f
D D
 

   
      
   
[3]

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
Procedure
Several different flow rates were tested and measurements of the pressures of various
geometries and pipe configurations were measured. In order to do so the apparatus was inspected
and we familiarized ourselves with the setup. After familiarizing ourselves with the setup of the
Armfield C6MkII-10 Fluid Friction Apparatus, and opening program ‘A’ on the software, flow
rates for testing were determined amongst the group. The valve allowing flow through pipe one
(Labeled as ‘9’ in Fig. 1) was opened while the other valves were shut, and then the pump was
turned on, and after allowing the bubbles to clear out of the system, the flow rate was adjusted to
0.15 L/s and measurements began. The pressure sensors were inserted into the two taps on pipe
one and head losses were recorded for 30 seconds at six second intervals, allowing ample time
for the flow to equalize for more accurate data. Once these measurements were taken the valve
to pipe two (‘8’ in Fig 1.) was opened and then the valve to pipe one was closed. The sensors
were then inserted into the two taps on pipe two and head losses were recorded for 30 seconds at
six second intervals. After this, the valve to pipe three (‘7’ in Fig 1.) was opened and then the
valve to pipe two was closed. The sensors were then inserted into the two taps on pipe 3 and
head losses were recorded for 30 seconds at six second intervals. After this, program ‘B’ was
opened on the Armfield software and after making sure the valve to pipe three was opened, and
that the program was set to record the 90 degree square elbow, the sensors were inserted across
the 90 degree square elbow (‘14’ in Fig 1.) of the apparatus and data was recorded for 30
seconds at six second intervals. After data was recorded the sensors were removed from the 90
degree square elbow, and after setting the program to record for the 90 degree standard corner,
the sensors were inserted into the 90 degree standard corner (‘15’ in Fig 1.) at the top of the
apparatus and data was recorded for 30 seconds at six second intervals. After this was completed
program ‘D’ on the Armfield software was opened and the program was set to record head loss
at the orifice. Once this was complete the sensors were placed in the taps across the orifice plate
(‘19’ in Fig 1.) and data was recorded for 30 seconds at six second intervals. After all of this was
complete the steps involving programs ‘A’ for straight pipes, ‘B’ for bends and ‘D’ for the
orifice plate were then repeated for flow rates of 0.60 L/s, 0.38 L/s, 0.01 L/s, and 0.019 L/s
This experiment was performed using the Armfield C6MkII-10 Fluid Friction Apparatus
with the provided Armfield software, and although other materials such as dial calipers for

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
measuring the diameters of pipes and a graduated cylinder and stop watch for recording flow
rates were used, the main component of this lab was the pipe apparatus that we ran the
experiment on. This apparatus is complex at first glance and it is important to know which
sections of it the experiment was run on. Below is a figure with important sections of the
apparatus that were used for the purpose of this experiment.
Figure 1: Diagram of Armfield C6MkII-10 Fluid Friction Apparatus6.
Since this experiment deals with pipes under pressure it is very important to be aware of
safety hazards and procedures. When opening and closing the valves care needs to be taken to
ensure that there is always at least one valve that is open so that the fluid can flow through the
system. If this were to not be followed then pressure would build up inside the pipes until
something either started to leak or fail catastrophically. For this exact reason certain smaller
diameter pipes were not used during the experiment. In case of emergency it is important to
make sure that all valves are opened to allow the fluid to flow through the system and then
measures can be taken to turn off the pump. There are first aid kits located around the lab, and in
case of injury, the assistants in lab will be informed and if necessary 911 may be dialed.

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0.0097 0.01856 0.15 0.38 0.45
HeadLoss(m)
Flow Rate (L/s)
Pipe 1 Theoretical
Pipe 1 Experimental
Pipe 1 Blasius
Results
As briefly outlined in the introduction and procedure, data was obtained for five different
flow rates through three different straight pipes, two different pipe bends, and one pipe fitting.
Three of the five flow rates were in the turbulent region and two of the flow rates were in the
laminar region. In the following figures, the last three points demonstrate turbulent flow, while
the first two points represent the laminar flow region. Pipe one had the smallest diameter at 15.8
mm, while pipe two and three had equivalent larger diameters of 16.7 mm with pipe three being
rougher than pipe two. The two bends that were investigated included the 90 degree square
elbow and the 90 degree standard corner. The one fitting that was measured was the orifice.
Below is a figure containing the measured head losses through pipe one for five different flow
rates.
Figure 2: Head loss through pipe one.
Examining the first three runs for pipe one which were all in the turbulent flow regime in
order of flow rate (0.15 L/s, 0.38 L/s, 0.45 L/s), it was observed that the pressure drop increased
for each successive higher flow rate. Specifically, the experimental head loss values increased
from 0.09 m to 1.08 m to 2.5 m. This confirmed Bernoulli’s principle because in order for a
fluid’s velocity to increase, there needs to be a corresponding force that is responsible for that

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
increase. A liquid with a higher flow rate must flow faster because it travels from higher pressure
to lower pressure, or in other words, it has a larger pressure gradient than a liquid with a smaller
flow rate. Although the basic Bernoulli correlation was supported, the error of the experimental
pressure drop value from the theoretical pressure drop was quite substantial. The Blasius error
assumes that the pipe is hydraulically smooth. In theory, this could greatly simplify the
calculation process. This would be, however, at the expense of model accuracy. It seems,
however, that assumption does not seem to be valid in the case of pipe one as the experimental
value of head loss was calculated to be a 54.7 percent error from the Blasius solution predicted
value in run one, a 280 percent error in run two, and a 249 percent error in run three. The second
error calculation assumed a general pipe of any roughness. This error was generally lower in
magnitude than the Blasius error, but it was still not close to the experimental readings. Run one,
run two, and run three had errors of 54.7 percent, 188 percent, and 182 percent respectively.
Runs four and five occurred in the laminar flow regime rather than the turbulent flow
regime like runs one through three. The flow rate for run four in all three pipes was .01 L/s, and
the flow rate for run five in all three pipes was .02 L/s. The head loss for all three pipes in both
runs was 0.20 m. The head losses should not have all been identical. They should have followed
the Bernoulli principle where the head loss increases with an increase in volumetric flow rate. In
all likelihood, the pressure transducers were not sensitive enough to register the pressure
difference at such low flow rates through the pipe. In such a case, it was not appropriate to
measure data in the laminar region for the equipment that was provided in the lab. Another
possibility for identical data could be attributed to not enough water being in the pipes. It was
theorized that such low flow rates did not provide enough water to actually fill the pipe full of
water. This could have led to inaccurate readings from the pressure transducers because the
water level did not rise to the level in the pipe where the transducers made their readings.
Because of the observed trend in the head loss while in the laminar flow regime, and due to the
assumptions made for these trends, head losses in the laminar flow regime will not be discussed
for subsequent pipes as the trends observed are the same. These values can be compared to flow
through other pipes with varying diameters, and as such the figure below summarizes the results
for head loss through pipe two for five flow rates.

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.0097 0.01856 0.15 0.43 0.73
HeadLoss(m)
Flow Rate (L/s)
Pipe 2 Theoretical
Pipe 2 Experimental
Pipe 2 Blasius
Figure 3: Head loss through pipe two.
Examining the first three runs for pipe two in order of increasing flow rate from 0.15 L/s
to 0.43 L/s to 0.73 L/s, the pressure gradient did not necessarily correspond to Bernoulli’s
principle. The experimental head loss for the smallest flow rate was 0.16 m and the head loss for
the largest flow rate was 0.33 m. However, the pressure drop was zero for the middle flow rate.
This reading was most likely a human error in the setup of the trial. The error could have also
stemmed from the equipment, but no other pressure drops were zero. During the second run on
pipe two, it was most likely that the pressure transducers were not correctly snapped into place or
were not actually moved to the second pipe at all. This mistake was not realized until analyzing
the data after the experiment concluded in lab, so an accurate pressure drop could not be
obtained. The Blasius errors for runs one and two were 258 percent and 53.7 percent while the
errors not assuming a smooth pipe still gave large discrepancies of a 224 percent error in run one
and a 65.3 percent error in run two. The results from this figure showed some major
discrepancies that may have been due to software issues or lack of attention to experimental
detail. The figure below shows head losses through pipe three, which has a different roughness
than pipe two.

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0.0097 0.01856 0.15 0.41 0.68
HeadLoss(m)
Flow Rate (L/s)
Pipe 3 Theoretical
Pipe 3 Experimental
Pipe 3 Blasius
Figure 4: Head loss through pipe three.
Examining the first three runs for pipe 3 also in order of increasing flow rates, the flow
rates increased from 0.15 L/s to 0.41 L/s to 0.68 L/s. The corresponding head loss values were
found to be 0.40 m, 0.85 m, and 2.56 m, so Bernoulli’s principle was once again supported for
the turbulent flow rates in pipe 3 just like pipe 1. Just like the first two pipes, the errors for the
pressure drop in the pipe three were also large even though it followed Bernoulli’s principle. The
Blasius errors were 794 percent, 296 percent and 201 percent while the calculated errors
including friction were 710 percent, 200 percent and 145 percent. Even though these errors were
rather large, the experimental data followed the theoretical trend extremely well, further
supporting the theory behind these calculations. The same relationship was expected in the pipe
bends and below is a figure showing head loss through the 90 degree elbow for five flow rates.

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.0097 0.01856 0.15 0.43 0.69
HeadLoss(m)
Flow Rate (L/s)
90 degree Square Elbow
Theoretical
90 degree Square Elbow
Experimental
Figure 5: Head loss through 90 degree square elbow.
The 90 degree square elbow contained flow rates of 0.01 L/s, 0.02 L/s, 0.15 L/s, 0.43 L/s,
and 0.69 L/s. From the previous data obtained regarding the straight pipes in runs four and five,
the data for the laminar flow regime runs in the pipe bends should not be given much credence.
This would result in the readings for head loss being 0.32 m, 0.07 m, and 0.42 m for the three
turbulent readings. The elbow does not fit the expected Bernoulli relationship. The head loss in
run two was lower than run one even though the volumetric flow rate was increased. This
contradicts the theoretical relationship that an increase in flow rate should result in a larger head
loss. The calculated errors for the corresponding runs were 455 percent, 82.8 percent, and 62.2
percent. The errors proved that the first run was the outlier and that reading should have been
lower which would have helped support the Bernoulli relationship. The same data can also be
collected for a 90 degree standard corner, and results can be compared between the two. Below is
the figure containing head loss through the 90 degree standard corner for five flow rates.

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.0097 0.01856 0.15 0.38 0.68
HeadLoss(m)
Flow Rate (L/s)
90 degree Standard
Corner Theoretical
90 degree Standard
Corner Experimental
Figure 6: Head loss through 90 degree standard corner.
The 90 degree standard corner had flow rates of 0.01 L/s, 0.02 L/s, 0.15 L/s, 0.38 L/s, and
0.68 L/s. Once again, the laminar region data points were neglected because of the inability of
the equipment to correctly decipher between the flow rates. The results for the head loss for the
standard corner were then 0.31 m, 0.04 m, and 0.11 m in the three turbulent regime readings. The
90 degree standard corner had a head loss in run one, the slowest turbulent flow rate, which was
higher than either of the two runs which had higher flow rates. This once again contradicts the
expected Bernoulli relationship of higher flow rate corresponding to larger head loss. The error
for each result was calculated to be 1,150 percent, 77.0 percent, and 76.3 percent. Similarly to
the square elbow, the large error for run one helped validate that the first measurement was
wrong and should be closer to a true Bernoulli relationship. The significant error for both pipe
bends most likely stemmed from the equipment itself. However, it is possible that the procedure
to acquire the data was done incorrectly or outside the specifications of the equipment. It could
also be possible that the flow rate was simply measured incorrectly leading to an inaccurate
reading that would correspond to different flow rate. Head loss can also be recorded through an
orifice, which applies simple effects of Bernoulli’s at pipe contractions. Below is the figure
containing head loss through an orifice for five flow rates.

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.0097 0.01856 0.15 0.41 0.68
HeadLoss(m)
Flow Rate (L/s)
Orifice Theoretical
Orifice Experimental
Figure 7: Head loss through orifice plate.
The orifice had flow rates of 0.01 L/s, 0.02 L/s, 0.15 L/s, 0.41 L/s, and 0.68 L/s. Its
corresponding head losses were observed to be 0.21 m, 0.22 m, 0.23 m, 0.14 m, and 0.4 m.
However, it was observed that the laminar flow rates had water levels so low that the pipe did
not fill uniformly with water. This means that the head loss across the orifice plate could not be
measured correctly. Because of this observation the laminar flow regime values can be ignored.
These data points do generally agree with the Bernoulli relationship seen by increasing head loss
values with increasing flow rate. The exception to the relationship was the fourth data point. The
errors calculated for the three turbulent flow rates were calculated to be 3,723 percent, 211
percent, and 223 percent respectively. This means that the head loss recorded at a flow rate of
0.15 L/s was the outlier and if this data point had been more accurately measured then the trend
would have been more closely related to the expected Bernoulli relationship.
It is important to note that the flowrates that were measured in each run using the
electronic flowmeter varied by around 0.01 L/s from measurement to measurement. It is thought
that this occurred from environmental noise, ambient vibrations, and equipment variation.
Another possible source of this error could be air bubbles, which distort and interrupt flow. In
order to account for these errors, the average of the five samples was taken.

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
Another possible source of error could originate from the measurement devices. The
flowmeter did not provide any indication of precision nor accuracy in the software or the device
itself. The digital caliper also did not provide any indication of precision nor accuracy on the
device itself. The value of the resolution of the digital caliper was found online to be 0.01 mm,
with an accuracy of 0.02 mm if less than 100 mm and 0.03 mm if greater than 100 mm7. The
precision of the flowmeter was unable to be located; however the software gave values to two
decimal places. Diameter measurements are crucial as they are used very often in the
calculations used to find head loss, therefore it is highly likely that error can easily propagate.
This could be a major contributing factor to the difference in the measured values and calculated
values. The flowmeter accuracy and precision is also important, but slightly less than diameter
due to its lower occurrence in calculations.

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
Discussion and Conclusions
The tests performed were excellent representations of what can be expected when
working with fluids in a future career. By learning about what turbulent or laminar flow does to a
certain pipe size, roughness, bend style, or special fitting, more educated choices can be made
that reduce both cost to the company and potential errors. By testing a multitude of different pipe
aspects, this experiment accomplishes a great deal, and answers many questions about fluid flow.
Granted, there are many more different styles of pipe that could have been tested, but were not
provided with the experimental apparatus. Examples include U-turns, or even other additional
fittings. However, for covering the most basic and common pipe styles normally encountered in
a professional environment, this experiment was well designed.
Through analysis of the data, certain trends that had been predicted based on the
theoretical model were found to be accurate, and others deviated, but still have explanations or
theories as to why they deviated. In most cases of the straight pipe tests, due to the changes in
flow rate, the data varied quite disorderly, and therefore was not quite as useful. However, the
first run performed resulted in turbulent flow, which produced results that lined up with model
predictions. More directly, the small diameter pipe had a lesser head loss compared to the large
diameter pipe, and therefore this resulted in less friction. The smooth pipe had a higher head loss
which resulted in giving the rough pipe greater friction. These results were predicted through
both the Bernoulli's equation, and the equation for the Fanning Friction Factor.
While performing this experiment, by testing all aspects of a single flow rate before
moving on, slight deviances that could have arisen were noted, and a general idea of what could
be expected at a higher or lower flow rate was established. Another approach that was highly
beneficial was having the team split up into two groups, one that collected the data for the lab
and one that ran calculations. This was perhaps most beneficial when a flow rate was needed in
the laminar region, as the calculation team was able to find a worst-case scenario for laminar
conditions. This way, a flow rate had been determined well before the data team had finished the
tests in the turbulent region. With respect to the trends observed for each section of the apparatus
it was noted that the data more closely mirrored the theoretical values when at higher flow rates.
This shows that either the equations for fluid mechanics that deal with turbulent flow regimes are

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
more accurate than those that deal with the laminar flow regimes, or that the software used in the
experiment is not very well suited for laminar flow regimes.
The beginning of the experiment involved studying how the software worked for this
experiment, and trial and error was one of the factors that led to finally learning how to collect
the data. While usually a fairly standard, and occasionally reasonable approach, this method did
not work in this instance as most of the data collected on the first day was either completely
useless, or highly inaccurate. Fortunately, by having two days to work on this experiment, a good
amount of data could be collected on the second day. However, it would have been better to be
able to either collect more data on different pipes or fittings, or rerun all of the previous tests to
try to reduce random error.
Much of the sophomore year of the chemical engineering degree focuses on both material
balances and fluid flow, and both the junior and senior years go further in depth on those topics.
Therefore, it is highly beneficial to receive hands-on experience to better understand the theory
behind the normal coursework. Furthermore, the work done in this lab heavily relates to many of
the suggested career paths engineers can follow. While learning about turbulent and laminar may
not help in day to day life at this moment in time, future employers would be much more willing
to take on potential employees who possess a greater understanding of the processes that the
theory is based on, rather than pure theoretical knowledge.
Since the main objective of this experiment was to test the theoretical model of fluid
mechanics, most of the group learned that while models are beneficial for establishing a base
understanding, application is not as predictable. As such, the limitations of theory were perhaps
one of the major concepts gleaned from the experiment. This is most clearly shown through the
large errors in the data section. However, many of the general trends in the data, for instance the
greater head loss with higher volumetric flow rates, did follow the basic principles of the
theoretical model. Therefore, while actual learning of how the theory works was not furthered
much, the concepts behind the application were highly beneficial. One aspect that was intriguing,
but never quite answered, was why the theoretical model deviated so drastically from the actual
tests. Usually, error values that are higher than one would normally anticipate can be explained
through analysis of both the process used and the data obtained, but errors surpassing one-
hundred percent by a great amount is both concerning, and confusing.

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
One major change that would be beneficial to this experiment would be giving additional
material or handouts on how to use the software. Due to losing essentially a whole day of
potential data, strategic measures had to be put in place where the team was divided into groups
where only one group got to use the software and the other only got to run calculations. If
additional material had been provided, the two group dynamic might still have been used, but the
groups would potentially have a chance to swap roles and both sets would have a much better
understanding of what was done. After having completed the experiment, aspects of fluid
mechanics that were initially unclear while taking the course have now been explained through
hands on experience. In addition, the parts of fluids that were only slightly misunderstood now
appear to be incredibly simple. As such, new interest has been generated in areas that were once
regarded as uninteresting.

Hydraulics Team E5
February 12, 2015
References
[1] Nave, R. Bernoulli Equation. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html.
(Accessed February 10, 2012).
[2] Fluid Dynamics. http://www.che.boun.edu.tr/Courses/che302/Chapter%203.pdf.
(Accessed February 10, 2012).
[3] Wilkes, J. Fluid Mechanics for Chemical Engineers with Microfluidics and CFD, 2nd ed.;
Prentice Hall Professional Technical Reference: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2006.
[4] Subramanian, R. S. Pipe Flow Calculations http://web2.clarkson.edu/projects/
subramanian/ch330/notes/Pipe%20Flow%20Calculations.pdf. (Accessed February 11,
2015).
[5] Smith Metering, Inc. Fundamentals of Orifice Metering. http://www.afms.org/Docs/
gas/Fundamenatls_of_Orifice.pdf. (Accessed February 12, 2015).
[6] Pipe friction loss. http://www.jfccivilengineer.com/pipe_friction_loss.htm. (Accessed
February 12, 2015).
[7] VXB Ball Bearings. NationSkander California Corp. 2015. http://www.vxb.com/page/
bearings/PROD/inch/Kit7426. (Accessed February 12, 2015).

Appendix A Team E5
February 12, 2015
Appendix A: (Raw Data and Sample Calculations)
Table 1: Head losses of all pipes and fittings tested.
Pipe/Fitting
Head loss
run 1 (m)
Head loss
run 2 (m)
Head loss
run 3 (m)
Head loss
run 4 (m)
Head loss
run 5 (m)
Pipe one 0.09 2.49 1.08 0.2 0.2
Pipe two 0.16 0.32 0 0.2 0.22
Pipe three 0.4 2.56 0.85 0.19 0.2
90 elbow 0.32 0.42 0.07 0.28 0.13
90 corner 0.31 0.11 0.04 0.29 0.13
Orifice 0.23 0.4 0.14 0.21 0.22
Example calculation for the head loss of a straight pipe.
2
3
2
2 8.58 10 0.765 1
0.065
9.81 0.0158
m
m
s
h m
m
m
s
  
    
   

Example calculation for the head loss of an orifice plate.
 
 
2
24
3
24
2
0.33157 4.52 10
1 6.02 10
3.14 102 9.81
m
s
h m
m
s



  
           
     
 
Example calculation for the head loss of a bend.
2
3
2
2 8.58 10 0.765 70
0.0577
9.81
m
s
h m
m
s
  
   
   
Example calculation for Reynolds number.
2
6
.0158 0.765
Re 11,110
1.09 10
m
m
s
m
s


 


Appendix B Team E5
February 12, 2015
Appendix B: (Sample Calculations)
Example calculation for Fanning friction factor.
2
5 5
4.6 10 2.185 4.6 10 14.5
1.737ln 0.269 ln .269 8.58 10 3
.0158 11110 .0158 11110
m m
f
m m

         
            
        
Example calculation for velocity.
3
4
4 2
1.5 10
0.765
1.96 10
m
Q msu
A m s



  

Example calculation of friction factor using Blasius equation.
1 1
34 4
0.079Re 0.079 11110 7.7 10f
 

    

Team E5
February 12, 2015
Post-Reflection
Experiment #7: Hydraulics
Full technical laboratory/research report
For the hydraulics lab our biggest obstacle as a group was getting familiar with the
software that we were using. When we first began the experiment we were all a little intimidated
by this software. It was in our best interest to test this software multiple times before performing
the experiment so that it would run more smoothly. This definitely benefited us as a group
throughout the whole experiment. For future labs we will test run and get a better feel on the
equipment that we are working with before performing the experiment to prevent errors.
Avoiding this error was somewhat easy for us because we all came prepared with many
equations and theories during the first week of this lab. When problems arose it was quite easy
for us to pick ourselves back up because we were confident in the procedure of the experiment.
We were organized and had great time management skills that paid off during the
experiment, and will be beneficial for future labs. The most important aspect in team lab
experiments is communication and respecting the team leader. This was a strength that each team
member contributed to, which allowed for the experiment to run more smoothly. For future labs
we will continue to go into lab with a positive and goal oriented mindset. Also, planning out how
much time each step of the procedure we as a group can spend on makes the experiment easier to
perform. This work was fundamental to our understanding of head loss. It is easy to calculate a
head loss using an equation from a textbook, however it is not always easy to accurately
represent the real head loss with a theoretical model. Along the way, we noticed that most of our
models were off by 50 percent to 700 percent. Although errors like these are normally
impermissible in industry, it is fundamental to the learning experience. By learning and
observing more about where these errors are coming from, we can fix them in our future work.
Some further things to consider in the future include ways to reduce error, and how we
can limit said error to a smaller range. We found it to be very interesting how the apparatus
communicated with the computer. Using the computer software, while although difficult to learn,
became very helpful in taking quick measurements. In the future, we hope to apply what we have
learned to quickly implement these models into the design of processes, and also to identify
some of the common losses and problems that occur in piping systems.

Hydraulics Team Full-Technical Lab Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Hydraulics Team Full-Technical Lab Report

Similar to Hydraulics Team Full-Technical Lab Report (20)

More from Alfonso Figueroa

More from Alfonso Figueroa (10)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Hydraulics Team Full-Technical Lab Report