CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

Flowmeters
School of Chemical, Biological, and Materials Engineering and Sciences, Mapua University, Muralla St., Intramuros, Manila,
Philippines 1002

Abstract

Flow measurement is the process of quantifying bulk fluid movement within conduits or open channels. A flowmeter is a device
used to conduct flow measurement. It quantifies the fluid flow rate, which consequentially measures the velocity as well. The
differential pressure type flowmeter measures flowrate by introducing an obstruction with known dimensions in the flow passage.
Three flowmeters were studied for this paper, namely, the orifice meter, venturi meter and pitot tube.To recount, it was discovered
that it is better to use mercury as manometric fluid when the pipe diameter is small and a high range of flowrate is used. On the
other hand CCl4 is the better choice as manometric fluid when the pipe diameter is bigger. Lastly, the student was able to compute
for the fluid velocity at using different flowmeters.

Keywords: flowmeters, flow measurement, orifice meter, venturi meter, pitot tube

1. Introduction
Flow measurement is the process of quantifying bulk fluid movement within conduits or open channels [1].
It is necessary for industrial applications because it provides information about critical process parameters such as
fluid flow rate and velocity. Plant operators and design engineers can efficiently control and design the plant's
processes with that type of data. Additionally, flow measurement plays a vital role in ensuring product quality. With
flow measurement, the plant operator can determine whether the right amount of fluid is being transported to
processing units at the right time [2]. Knowing these exact flow quantities allow plant operators to reach and maintain
the product quality they desire. Moreover, flow measurement is also done to ensure that the amount of fluid flowing
within the conduits is still within the safe range for the people working around it.
A flowmeter is a device used to conduct flow measurement. It quantifies the fluid flow rate, which
consequentially measures the velocity as well [3]. Flow measurement varies depending on the situation, like if the
fluid is gas or liquid or if the measured flow rate is volumetric or mass. Because of these requirements, different types
of flowmeters came about. Ideally, these flowmeters are classified based on their measuring techniques. The common
types of flowmeters include: (a) Obstruction type/head type (differential pressure or variable area) (b) Inferential
(turbine type), (c)Electromagnetic, (d) Positive displacement (integrating), (e) fluid dynamic (vortex shedding), (f)
Anemometer, (g) ultrasonic and (h) Mass flowmeter (Coriolis) [4]. For this experiment, the main focus is on
obstruction meters.
Obstruction meters are further classified into two, namely, the differential pressure type and variable area [4].
This study focuses on the differential pressure type flowmeter. Under this category are two more classifications, which
are full-bore and insertion type flowmeters. The orifice meter and venturi meter falls under the full-bore type, while
the pitot tube is of the insertion type. These three flowmeters mentioned are studied for this experiment.
The differential pressure type flowmeter measures flowrate by introducing an obstruction with known
dimensions in the flow passage [4]. The resulting pressure differential caused by the constriction is related to the flow
rate using Bernoulli's equation (equation 1) along with the continuity equation (equation 2).

𝑃1 𝑢2 𝑝2 𝑢22
+ + ℎ1 = + + ℎ2 (1)
𝜌𝑔 2𝑔 𝜌𝑔 2𝑔

𝑚 = 𝜌1 𝐴1 𝑢1 = 𝜌2 𝐴2 𝑢2 (2)

Where 𝑃 is the pressure in Pa, 𝑢 is the average velocity of the fluid in m/s, 𝑔 is the gravitational constant
which is equal to 9.81 m/s2, 𝜌 is the fluid density in kg/m3, 𝐴 is the cross-sectional area in m2, ℎ is the height in m and
𝑚 is the mass.
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

On the other hand, full-bore meters utilize the entirety of the flow to quantify the flow rate, while insertion
point meters only examine a thin part of the flow. Typically, insertion type meters are placed on the center of the flow
passage to quantify maximum velocity. Then, a relationship is utilized to translate the maximum velocity to average.
Orifice meter
The orifice meter is a full-bore type flowmeter that quantifies flow by introducing an obstruction within the flow
passage in the form of an orifice plate (Fig. 1) [4]. This plate has a drilled hole at the center with a known diameter
and is installed in between two pipe flanges. Because of the sudden change in the area, a significant amount of pressure
drop is measured using a manometer. This is done by placing the manometer taps at each side of the orifice plate.

Fig. 1. Orifice meter with manometer [4]

The pressure drop for differential pressure type flowmeters is computed using the formula below.

−∆𝑃 = (𝜌𝑚 − 𝜌𝑓 )𝑔 ℎ (3)

Where −∆𝑃 is the pressure drop in Pa, 𝑔 is the gravitational constant which is equal to 9.81 m/s2, 𝜌𝑚 is the
manometric fluid density in kg/m3, ℎ is the difference in manometric fluid height in m and 𝜌𝑓 is the process fluid
density in kg/m3.
The pressure drop, along with the dimensions of the pipe and orifice diameter are combined with certain fluid
properties to determine the flow through the pipe. The relationship between the flow rate and pressure drop for the
orifice meter is derived from the Bernoulli’s equation (equation 1):

𝐶𝑜 𝑌 2𝑔𝑐 (−∆𝑃)
𝑢𝑜 = √ (4)
√1 − 𝛽4 𝜌

Where −∆𝑃 is the pressure drop across the orifice in Pa, 𝑔𝑐 is the gravitational correction factor, 𝜌 is the
process fluid density in kg/m3, 𝑌 is the expansion factor (𝑌 = 1 for liquids), 𝐶𝑜 is the orifice meter coefficient, 𝛽 is is
the ratio of orifice diameter to main pipe diameter (𝐷o/𝐷m), and 𝑢𝑜 is the fluid velocity at the orifice in m/s.

The orifice meter coefficient 𝐶𝑜 can be determined from Figure 2. The Reynolds number in the x-axis is
solved at the conditions of the orifice (orifice diameter 𝐷𝑜 and fluid velocity 𝑢𝑜).
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

Fig. 2. Coefficients of discharge for circular orifices

Venturi meter
A venturi meter is also a full-bore type meter but it is structurally different from orifice meters. While orifice
meters introduce a sudden change in flow area, venturi meters do not. It is designed in a way that the change in the
flow passage is gradual. It consists of a section with a smooth conical contraction and smooth conical expansion.
Because of the smoothness of the contraction and expansion, the irreversible pressure loss is low. However, in order
to obtain a significant measurable pressure drop, the downstream pressure tap is placed at the “throat” of the meter;
i.e., at the point of the smallest diameter. Similar to the orifice meter, the pressure drop for venturi meters are also
measured with a manometer.

Fig. 3. Venturi meter [4]

The governing equation for the fluid flow across a venturi meter (equation 5) looks the same as the one for
orifice meters:

𝐶𝑣 𝑌 2𝑔𝑐 (−∆𝑃)
𝑢𝑡 = √ (5)
√1 − 𝛽 4 𝜌
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

Where −∆𝑃 is the pressure drop across the throat in Pa, 𝑔𝑐 is the gravitational correction factor, 𝜌 is the
process fluid density in kg/m3, 𝑌 is the expansion factor (𝑌 = 1 for liquids), 𝐶𝑣 is the discharge coefficient for venturi
meter, 𝛽 is is the ratio of throat diameter to main pipe diameter (𝐷o/𝐷m), and 𝑢𝑡 is the fluid velocity at the throat in
m/s.

The discharge coefficient for the venturi meter 𝐶v can be determined from Figure 4. The Reynolds number
in the x-axis is solved at the conditions of the throat (throat diameter 𝐷t and fluid velocity 𝑢t).

Fig. 4. Venturi discharge coefficients for varying 𝛽

Pitot tube
The pitot tube is an insertion point type meter. It is very different from the prior two meters in terms of
structure and measurement technique. Structurally, it consists of a tube with an impact opening towards the
approaching fluid (Fig. 5). As explained, insertion point meters only examine a thin part of the flow. Typically, it is
placed on the center of the flow passage to quantify maximum velocity. Then, a relationship is utilized to translate the
maximum velocity to average. The same applies for the pitot tube, it only measures the velocity at one point which is
at the center of the flow passage. Essentially, pitot tubes measure the velocity of a fluid moving through a pipe by
taking advantage of the fact that the velocity at the height of the bend in the tube (stagnation point) is zero. The
stagnant portion of the flowing fluid at the tip of the pitot tube is pushed by the fluid resulting to a pressure drop.
Similar to the past flowmeters, the pressure drop for pitot tubes is also measured with a manometer.
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

Fig. 5. Pitot tube [4]

The maximum fluid velocity 𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 for a pitot tube centered on a flow is determined from equation (6):

2𝑔𝑐 (−∆𝑃)
𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝐶𝑝 √ (6)
𝜌

Where −∆𝑃 is the pressure drop across the throat in Pa, 𝑔𝑐 is the gravitational correction factor, 𝜌 is the
process fluid density in kg/m3,) 𝐶𝑝 is the pitot tube coefficient and 𝑢𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum fluid velocity in m/s.

Most of the time, the pitot tube coefficient 𝐶𝑝 is near a value of 1 because there is little frictional loss unlike
for the venturi and orifice meters. It can be determined experimentally.

The relationship used to convert the maximum velocity to average velocity is given by Figure 6.

Fig. 6. Relationship between average and maximum velocities

 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

For this experiment, the researcher mainly attempted to: (1) compute for flow velocities using different types
of flowmeters; and (2) determine the appropriate manometric fluid for different flow velocities.

2. Methodology

Three flowmeters were studied for this paper, namely, the orifice meter, venturi meter and pitot tube. The
experiments for the venturi and orifice meters were conducted on separate simulators created by the National Institute
of Technology Karanataka (NITK). The simulators for these flowmeters were accessed using the links, http://uorepc-
nitk.vlabs.ac.in/exp3/index.html# and http://uorepc-nitk.vlabs.ac.in/exp4/index.html#, respectively. Meanwhile, the
necessary files for the pitot tube simulator were downloaded from http://www.learncheme.com/simulations/fluid-
mechanics/measuring-flow-rates-with-a-pitot-tube. The resources for this simulator were produced by the Department
of Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder.

In line with the main objectives, the experiment proper was divided into four parts, which were: (A)
determination of the effect of the manometric fluid; (B) computation for the discharge coefficient; (C) computation
for the pitot tube coefficient; and, (D) the computation for the average fluid velocity from the pitot tube readings. The
orifice and venturi simulators were utilized for the first and second parts. Meanwhile, the pitot tube simulator was
used for the last two parts.

2.1. Set-up layout

The pieces of equipment used for the orifice and venturi simulator, were: a pump, rotameter, and u tube
manometer. Straight pipes, fittings, and valves were used to connect the equipment and complete the piping system.
The pump was responsible for the energy input to move the fluid while the rotameter measured the volumetric
flowrate. The manometer was used to indicate the pressure difference. An orifice and venturi meter were fitted on the
respective simulators. The setup layout for the orifice and venturi meter simulators are shown by Figures 7 & 8. On
the other hand, the setup layout for the pitot tube simulator is given by Figure 9. The arrangement for the pitot tube
simply shows the pipe, pitot tube and a manometer.

Fig. 7. Set-up layout for orifice meter

 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

Fig. 8. Set-up layout for venturi meter

Fig. 9. Set-up layout for pitot tube

2.2. Simulation

The student used the orifice and venturi meter simulators for part A and B. Initially, the proponent set the
parameters of the simulation at the setup tab. For the two parts, different combinations of pipe diameter and
orifice/throat diameter was utilized to compare the flow when carbon tetrachloride or mercury is used as manometric
fluid. For part A, the student performed three runs for each manometric fluid. Each run had a corresponding
combination of pipe and orifice/throat diameter. In a single run, the student used the flowrates 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30,
35 and 40 L/min for every trial.

To initialize the simulation, the student opened the experiment tab and pressed the green button to turn on
the pump. Then, the student turned the main valve counterclockwise to increase the volumetric flowrate. As they
increased the flowrate, the manometer showed the manometric fluid height necessary to determine the given flowrate's
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

manometric reading. For part B, different combinations of pipe diameter, orifice/throat diameter, and flowrate were
used to determine the venturi and orifice meters' coefficient. Five runs were done for each manometric fluid. Each run
compared the data of orifice meters to venturi meters, given that both meters have the same parameters applied.

On the other hand, the pitot tube simulator was used for part C and D. For both parts, 5 runs were done for
each manometric fluid. It was ensured that the fluid velocity across the 5 runs were evenly distributed. Initially, the
fluid density of mercury was used. Additionally, it was assumed that the process fluid was at 30°C for the calculations.
To use the simulation, the student simply opened the change fluid velocity tab and inputted the preferred fluid density
and velocity. After setting a desired fluid velocity, the manometric reading shown by the manometer was recorded.

2.3. Data acquisition and analysis

∆ℎ
For part A, the manometric reading given by the manometer was used to calculate for the ratio. The
∆𝑄
equation for the ratio is given as:

∆ℎ ℎ1 − ℎ2
= (2)
∆𝑄 𝑄2 − 𝑄1

Where Qx is the volumetric flowrate in L/min and hx is the manometric fluid height at a certain point in cm.

For part B, the average fluid velocity was acquired by dividing the volumetric flow rate by the pipe's cross-
𝜋
sectional area (𝐴 = 𝐷2 ). Before this point, the necessary water properties like viscosity and density at 25°C were
4
taken from Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook [5]. The values employed for the computations are in the
appendix of the paper. Meanwhile, the height difference recorded from the manometer was used to determine the
pressure drop (equation 3). After that, the average fluid velocity is converted to the velocity at the orifice, 𝑢𝑜 or throat
(for venturis), 𝑢𝑡 using the continuity equation:

2 2
𝑢𝑚,𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝐷𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒 = 𝑢𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐷𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒
2 2 (3)
𝑢𝑚,𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝐷𝑝𝑖𝑝𝑒 = 𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑡 𝐷𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑜𝑎𝑡
Then, the computed velocity at the orifice, 𝑢𝑜 or throat (for venturis), 𝑢𝑡 is used to solve for the experimental
discharge coefficient using equation 4 and 5. Lastly, the theoretical coefficient is estimated from figures 2 and 4. For
the analysis, the % difference of the experimental and theoretical coefficients of discharge was determined by using
equation 9.

|𝐶𝑒𝑥𝑝 − 𝐶𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 |
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 100
𝐶𝑒𝑥𝑝 + 𝐶𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜 (4)
( )
2
For part C, the manometric reading and maximum fluid velocity is used to solve for the pitot tube coefficient
using equation 6. While, in part D, it was assumed that the main pipe was a 2-in schedule 40 steel pipe. The maximum
𝒖
fluid velocity utilized was applied to determine the 𝒂𝒗𝒆 factor from figure 6. Finally, the average fluid velocity is
𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒙
computed from the factor and maximum fluid velocity.

3. Results and discussion

A portion of the results gathered from this study is shown in the Appendices of the paper. The more detailed
and expounded data sets and computations are found in the MS excel attached along with this paper.
3.1. The effect of manometric fluid
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

Orifice
Actual Pipe Diameter, m: 0.0157
Actual Orifice Diameter, m: 0.007
Flowrate Q, L/min ∆ℎ ∆ℎ
[CCl4] [mercury]
∆𝑄 ∆𝑄

5 0.8 0.04
10 3.24 0.16
15 7.36 0.36
20 13.12 0.64
25 0 0.96
30 0 1.4
35 0 1.92
40 0 2.52
∆ℎ
Table. 1. Comparison of ratio for orifice meter with 0.5 in pipe diameter and 0.7 cm orifice diameter
∆𝑄

Venturi
Actual Pipe Diameter, m: 0.0157
Actual Throat Diameter, m: 0.007
Flowrate Q, L/min ∆ℎ ∆ℎ
[CCl4] [mercury]
∆𝑄 ∆𝑄

5 1.8 0
10 6.8 0.4
15 15.2 0.8
20 26.4 1.2
25 41 2
30 58.6 2.8
35 0 3.8
40 0 4.8
∆ℎ
Table. 2. Comparison of ratio for venturi meter with 0.5 in pipe diameter and 0.7 cm throat diameter
∆𝑄

Orifice
Actual Pipe Diameter, m: 0.0266
Actual Orifice Diameter, m: 0.009
Flowrate Q, L/min ∆ℎ ∆ℎ
[CCl4] [mercury]
∆𝑄 ∆𝑄

5 0.12 0
10 0.4 0
15 0.92 0.04
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

20 1.64 0.08
25 2.6 0.12
30 3.72 0.16
35 5.08 0.24
40 6.64 0.32
∆ℎ
Table. 3. Comparison of ratio for orifice meter with 1 in pipe diameter and 0.9 cm orifice diameter
∆𝑄

Venturi
Actual Pipe Diameter, m: 0.0266
Actual Throat Diameter, m: 0.009
Flowrate Q, L/min ∆ℎ ∆ℎ
[CCl4] [mercury]
∆𝑄 ∆𝑄

5 0.04 0
10 0.16 0
15 0.4 0
20 0.68 0.04
25 1.04 0.04
30 1.48 0.08
35 2 0.08
40 2.64 0.12
∆ℎ
Table. 4. Comparison of ratio for venturi meter with 1 in pipe diameter and 0.9 cm throat diameter
∆𝑄

∆ℎ
The tables above compare the ratio between the two manometric fluids at certain process variables
∆𝑄
combinations. The gray table makes use of a small pipe diameter while the red table uses a bigger pipe diameter. In
looking at the values of the gray tables, it is evident that carbon tetrachloride cannot handle high flowrates when the
pipe diameter is small. On the other hand, mercury can easily handle the highest flowrate of the setup. But even if
CCl4 cannot handle high flowrates, it is obvious that the ratio for this fluid is far more sensitive and specific than of
the mercury. This can be attributed to the fact that CCl4 has a significantly lower density compared to mercury. Since,
CCl4 is less dense, it only takes a smaller amount of energy to generate obvious height difference. On the other hand,
mercury is significantly denser. By this, it takes a lot of energy to even generate an obvious height difference. So, in
the context of a small pipe diameter and high range of flowrates, the better manometric fluid to use is mercury.
Additionally, mercury is also better if it desired to use a smaller scale manometer for the flowmeter since it only
generates low height difference.
∆ℎ
Moving on, in looking at the values of the red tables, it can be observed that CCl4 provides more specific
∆𝑄
ratio than mercury. Again, this is attributed to its low density. Unlike on the smaller pipe diameter, CCl4 can handle
larger values of flowrates when the pipe diameter is big. The reason behind this is because bigger pipe diameter lessens
the kinetic energy of the fluid hence CCl4 can generate smaller height differences even if the flowrate is high. On a
different note, the data for mercury, is too small and close to one another. This indicates precision but not accuracy.
Basically, in the context of larger pipe diameters, it is better to use CCl4 than mercury because it can provide more
accurate flow measurement.
3.2. Orifice and Venturi meters
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

Orifice and venturi meters are both part of the full-bore type meter. The biggest difference between the two
is the structure of the obstruction it introduces. Orifice presents an abrupt change in area at the orifice plate, while
venturi meters gradually introduce restrictions by using smooth conical expansions and contractions. Because of the
structural difference, the pressure drop between the two flowmeters also differ.
Orifice meters are the most common and cheap flowmeters because it only requires an orifice plate along
with the manometer. Additionally, the orifice diameter can easily be manipulated because the plate is changeable.
Moreover, this flowmeter is easier to install. It occupies a smaller area of the pipe since it only requires the orifice
plate and flanges. Its disadvantage is that it incurs a tremendous amount of head loss because of the sudden constriction
it introduces as demonstrated by the pressure drop in part B of the data sheet. As the flow rate increases the head loss
becomes more significant compared to the data gathered from the venturi meter. This energy loss greatly affects the
downstream fluid velocity to a point that the energy of the fluid is permanently lost. If a fluid has low velocity to begin
with, it might become slower to a point that fluid flow will be halted. But to counter this, design engineers plan more
powerful pumps to overcome this challenge. More energy input is provided to compensate for the head loss. As cheap
orifice meters are, it uses greater energy that is more costly to accommodate.
On a different note, venturi meters generate significantly lower pressure drop. It is also a more accurate flow
measurement tool because the % difference of the experimental and theoretical coefficient of discharge is lower for
venturi meters as given by the data gathered from the experiment. But, as good as venturi meters sound, it is harder to
install compared to the orifice meter. Furthermore, it is more expensive because of its parts. Unlike the orifice meter,
the throat diameter cannot be manipulated.
3.3. Pitot tube
To recall, pitot tubes are considered as insertion point type meters. By this, it doesn’t use the whole fluid
flow to measure. Based on the data, the pitot tube coefficient is almost always equal to 1. This is due to the fact that
pitot tubes only incur small frictional loss unlike the orifice and venturi meter. However, this does not mean it is the
better flowmeter because it tends to be less accurate than the other two flowmeters.

4. Conclusions
All in all, the objectives set at the beginning of the study were met. The researcher was able to compute for
flow velocities using different types of flowmeters and determine the appropriate manometric fluid for different flow
velocities. The simulator created by the National Institute of Technology Karanataka (NITK) and Department of
Chemical and Biological Engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder was efficiently used to gather relevant
data for the study. To recount, it was discovered that it is better to use mercury as manometric fluid when the pipe
diameter is small and a high range of flowrate is used. On the other hand CCl4 is the better choice as manometric fluid
when the pipe diameter is bigger. Lastly, the student was able to compute for the fluid velocity at using different
flowmeters.
In conclusion, the study was successful because the researcher was able to meet the objectives and apply the theories
and concepts in understanding the results of the study.
5. References
[1] McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Engineering. S.v., "flow measurement," Retrieved from
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/flow+measurement, 2000, (accessed January 4, 2021).
[2] J. Walton, " the importance of mass flow measurement and the relevance of coriolis technology," Retrieved from
https://www.bronkhorst.com/int/blog-1/the-importance-of-mass-flow-measurement-and-the-relevance-of-coriolis-technology/, 2020,
(accessed January 4, 2021).
[3] Mathesontrigas, " Basic Flowmeter Principles," Flow Measurement & Control, pp. 351-354, 2010.
[4] Kharagpur, "System Measurement," Retrieved from https://nptel.ac.in/content/storage2/courses/108105063/pdf/L-
07(SS)(IA&C)%20((EE)NPTEL).pdf, 2013.
[5] R. H. Perry, & D. W. Green, "Perry's Chemical Engineers' Handbook," New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

6. Appendices
Experiment #3
Flowmeters
Final Data Sheet
A. Effect of manometric fluid
Run 1 (Orifice meter) [Run 3 of sheet 1 and 2 in excel]

Process conditions:
Nominal pipe diameter: 1 inch
Actual pipe diameter: 0.0266 m
Orifice diameter: 0.009 m
Orifice tapping: Corner taps
Process fluid: Water

For mercury
Flow rate Q, L/min Manometric Reading ∆𝒉, cm ∆𝒉/∆𝑸
0 0 -
5 0 0
10 0 0
15 0.2 0.04
20 0.4 0.08
25 0.6 0.12
30 0.8 0.16
35 1.2 0.24
40 1.6 0.32

For CCl4
Flow rate Q, L/min Manometric Reading ∆𝒉, cm ∆𝒉/∆𝑸
0 0 -
5 0.6 0.12
10 2 0.4
15 4.6 0.92
20 8.2 1.64
25 13 2.6
30 18.6 3.72
35 25.4 5.08
40 33.2 6.64

Run 1 (Venturi meter) [Run 3 of sheet 3 and 4 in excel]

Process conditions:
Nominal pipe diameter: 1 inch
Actual pipe diameter: 0.0266 m
Throat diameter: 0.009 m
Type of venturi tube: Welded tube
Process fluid: Water

For mercury
Flow rate Q, L/min Manometric Reading ∆𝒉, cm ∆𝒉/∆𝑸
0 0 -
5 0 0
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

10 0 0
15 0 0
20 0.2 0.04
25 0.2 0.04
30 0.4 0.08
35 0.4 0.08
40 0.6 0.12

For CCl4
Flow rate Q, L/min Manometric Reading ∆𝒉, cm ∆𝒉/∆𝑸
0 0 -
5 0.2 0.04
10 0.8 0.16
15 2 0.4
20 3.4 0.68
25 5.2 1.04
30 7.4 1.48
35 10 2
40 13.2 2.64

B. Computation of the discharge coefficient

For mercury [Run 1 of sheet 5 in excel] Orifice Venturi

Main pipe diameter 𝐷𝑚 , cm 0.920 0.920
Orifice diameter 𝐷𝑜 , cm 0.700 0.700
3
Process fluid density 𝜌, kg/m 997.025 997.025
Manometric fluid density 𝜌𝑚 , kg/m3 13533.610 13533.610
Rotameter reading Q, L/min 5.000 5.000
Manometer reading ∆ℎ, cm 1.000 0.400
Fluid velocity from rotameter 𝑢𝑚,𝑒𝑥𝑝 , m/s 1.254 1.254
Experimental constriction fluid velocity 𝑢𝑜 or 𝑢𝑣 , m/s (from
2.165 2.165
rotameter reading)
Experimental discharge coefficient 𝐶𝑜 or 𝐶𝑣 (from equation 1 or 3) 1.124 1.777
Theoretical discharge coefficient 𝐶𝑜 or 𝐶𝑣 (from figures 2 and 4,
0.630 0.960
estimate)
% difference 56.337 59.719

For CCL4 [Run 1 of sheet 5 in excel] Orifice Venturi

Main pipe diameter 𝐷𝑚 , cm 0.920 0.920
Orifice diameter 𝐷𝑜 , cm 0.700 0.700
Process fluid density 𝜌, kg/m3 997.025 997.025
3
Manometric fluid density 𝜌𝑚 , kg/m 1600.000 1600.000
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

Rotameter reading Q, L/min 5.000 5.000

Manometer reading ∆ℎ, cm 22.400 10.200
Fluid velocity from rotameter 𝑢𝑚,𝑒𝑥𝑝 , m/s 1.254 1.254
Experimental constriction fluid velocity 𝑢𝑜 or 𝑢𝑣 , m/s (from
2.165 2.165
rotameter reading)
Experimental discharge coefficient 𝐶𝑜 or 𝐶𝑣 (from equation 1 or 3) 1.083 1.605
Theoretical discharge coefficient 𝐶𝑜 or 𝐶𝑣 (from figures 2 and 4,
0.630 0.960
estimate)
% difference 52.889 50.287

C. Computation of the pitot tube coefficient

Density of the manometric fluid: 13,521.36 kg/m3

Manometer reading ∆𝒉,

Run Fluid velocity 𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒙 , m/s Pitot tube coefficient Cp
cm
1 1 0.4 1.0032
2 2 1.6 1.0032
3 3 3.6 1.0032
4 4 6.5 0.9955
5 5 10.1 0.9983

Density of the manometric fluid: 1,600 kg/m3

Manometer reading ∆𝒉,

Run Fluid velocity 𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒙 , m/s Pitot tube coefficient Cp
cm
1 0.25 0.5 1.0245
2 0.5 2.1 0.9998
3 0.75 4.8 0.9919
4 1 8.5 0.9939
5 1.25 13.3 0.9932

D. Computation of average velocity from pitot tube reading

Density of the manometric fluid: 13,521.36 kg/m3

Maximum fluid velocity 𝒖𝒂𝒗𝒆 Average fluid velocity

Run factor
𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒙
𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒙 , m/s 𝒖𝒂𝒗𝒆 , m/s
1 1 0.82 0.82
2 2 0.83 1.66
3 3 0.84 2.52
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

4 4 0.845 3.38
5 5 0.85 4.25

Density of the manometric fluid: 1,600 kg/m3

Maximum fluid velocity 𝒖𝒂𝒗𝒆 Average fluid velocity

Run factor
𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒙
𝒖𝒎𝒂𝒙 , m/s 𝒖𝒂𝒗𝒆 , m/s
1 0.25 0.78 0.195
2 0.5 0.805 0.4025
3 0.75 0.82 0.615
4 1 0.825 0.825
5 1.25 0.83 1.0375