VISCOSITY OF OILS and ENERGY LOSSES IN PIPE FLOW

LAB

Access to the two laboratory experiments were affected by Covid-19 restrictions and it was not possible
to run the actual experiment in person. However, a recording of the experiment was made available,
which allowed familiarity with the experimental equipment. And a pre-recorded data was provided and
was used to for this report.

Table of Contents
Experiment 1 : Viscosity of Oil ...................................................................................................................... 2
1 Introduction: .............................................................................................................................................. 3
2 Method:................................................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Apparatus and Setup:................................................................................................................... 3
 2.2 Methodology: .................................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Finding the Viscosity and the Constants k and b: ............................................................... 4
2.4 Sample Calculations for finding k and b for XHVI 4: ........................................................... 5
3 Results: ........................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Graphs:......................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Calculated Data:......................................................................................................................... 5
4 Discussion:................................................................................................................................. 6
4.1 theoretical vs experimental results: ................................................................................. 6
4.2 behavior analysis: ................................................................................................................. 6
4.3 mixture ratio: .......................................................................................................................... 6
4.4 Ratio Sample calculation at 40c : ...................................................................................... 7
5 Conclusion: ............................................................................................................................ 7
Experiment 2 : Energy Losses in Pipe Flow ................................................................................................... 7
6 Introduction: .......................................................................................................................................... 7
7 Method:............................................................................................................................................ 8
7.1 Apparatus and Setup: .............................................................................................................. 8
7.2 Methodology: .............................................................................................................................. 9
7.2.1 recording the fluid’s velocity: ............................................................................................. 9
7.2.2 Recording the pressure difference: .................................................................................. 9
8 Results: ..................................................................................................................................... 10
8.1 major head loss results: .................................................................................................... 10
8.2 minor head loss results: .................................................................................................... 12
9 Discussion:........................................................................................................................... 12
9.1 Objective A:........................................................................................................................... 12
9.2 Objective B:........................................................................................................................... 13
10 Conclusion: ........................................................................................................................ 13
Referencing: ........................................................................................................................ 14

Experiment 1 : Viscosity of Oil

1 Introduction:
Dynamic viscosity is a fluids resistance to any amount of shear force that is applied to it. A fluid
is more viscous when it can resist higher amount of force. A fluid’s dynamic viscosity is not a
constant mechanical property since it is highly dependent on the temperature. Dynamic
viscosity and temperature are inversely proportional- as temperature increases its viscosity
decreases this is justified by the increase in the internal energy as temperature increases and
hence the intermolecular bonds between the molecules are broken.
This relationship between the viscosity and temperature can be represented using Vogel’s
equation:
b
=keT+θ (Knežević and Savić, 2021) (equation 1)

Where:  is the dynamic viscosity in mPa.s

K,b are constants for a particular oil
𝜃 approximated to be equal to 95

T temperature C
Which is supposed to predicts a Newtonian fluid’s dynamic viscosity at different temperature.
This practical focuses on finding the dynamic viscosity of all 4 oils - eXtra High Viscosity Index
(XHVI), highly refined, mineral base oils- using a Brookfield viscometer, then using equation 1 to
find the constants k,b in order to compare the viscosity from the experimental results with that
from equation 1 and indicate the accuracy of its relationship drawn out to temperature.
Furthermore, mixtures A and B are a mixture of different ratios of XHVI 8.2 and XHVI 4 oils
therefore using the data collected from the experiment the ratios will be determined and the
behavior difference will be analyzed.

2 Method:

2.1 Apparatus and Setup:

 Rotational speed dial

Brookfield viscometer

Torque reader motor

Thermometer

Oil chamber
Water jacket Water bath

Figure 1 labeled screenshot of the setup used during the experiment.

2.2 Methodology:
1) After filling the oil chamber of the viscometer with the oil and immersing its
spindle with the studied fluid the water temperature was set at 40C - using a
water bath to heat the oil will provide an even and constant temperature over
the prolonged time and hence improves accuracy in the data and is safer
than an open flame due to the flammability of the oil -.
2) The rotational dial was set at 3rpm and the recorded torque value was noted
down.
3) The rotational speed of the spindle was increased to 6rpm and the torque
value was noted down. Repeating the experiment at different rotational speed
will improve accuracy.
4) The water bath temperature was increased by 5C, and the steps 2 and 3
were repeated.
5) Step 4 was repeated until the temperature reached 70C.
The 5 steps were followed for all 4 different oil samples and the results were noted down on a
table.

2.3 Finding the Viscosity and the Constants k and b:

To find the viscosity values the following correction factor of 1 and 2 were multiplied by the
torque value at 6 and 3 rpm respectively and then the two viscosity values obtained were
averaged. And to find the constants k and b equation 1 was solved simultaneously at
temperatures 40C and 70 C.
2.4 Sample Calculations for finding k and b for XHVI 4:
 Rearranging equation 1 : 𝑙𝑛(𝑘) = 𝑙𝑛( ) − ∴ at 40̊ c 𝑙𝑛(𝑘) = 𝑙𝑛(24.25) −

And at 70̊ c 𝑙𝑛(𝑘) = 𝑙𝑛(11.75) −

 Equating ln(k) : ln(24.25)-(b)/(40+95)=ln(11.75)-(b)/(70+95)

Therefore b =537.988

 b was replaced in equation 1 and k was found.

.
𝑘= = 0.45082.

3 Results:

3.1 Graphs:

Dynamic viscosity vs Temperature

45

40

35
Dynamic viscosity (mPa.s)

30

25 XHVI 4

20 XHVI 8.2
Mixture A
15
Mixture B
10

0
40 45 50 55 60 65 70
temperature (c)

Figure 2 graph showing the variation of the dynamic viscosity of the 4 different oils in mPa.s with respect to
temperature in c.

3.2 Calculated Data:

 XHVI 8.2 XHVI 4 Mixture A Mixture B
Temperat experime theoreti experime theoreti experime theoreti experime theoreti
ure (°C) ntal cal ntal cal ntal cal ntal cal
40 42.5 42.5 24.25 24.25 26.5 26.5 32 32
45 34.75 34.85 22.25 21.03 22.25 22.09 25.75 26.7
50 28.5 28.9 18.5 18.42 18.5 18.65 21.75 22.57
55 24.75 24.4 16.25 16.27 15 15.9 19 19.29
60 20.5 20.77 14.5 14.5 13.75 13.74 16.5 16.6
65 17.75 17.86 13.5 13.01 12 11.99 14 14.5
70 15.5 15.5 11.75 11.75 10.5 10.5 12.75 12.75
k 0.1656 0.45082 0.1629 0.2028
b 687.384 683.252
748.93 537.988
Figure 3 table showing the theoretical and experimental viscosity values and k and b constants for the 4 oils

4 Discussion:
4.1 theoretical vs experimental results:
The experimental and theoretical values presented in figure 3 show a minimum difference
between them -a maximum difference of 0.5- this is due to the accuracy and low error prone
set up. Moreover, this shows the accuracy of equation 1 I finding a close estimation with
negligible difference to the actual viscosity values (Knežević and Savić, 2021).

4.2 behavior analysis:

Figure 2 confirmed that temperature and viscosity are inversely proportional- increase in
temperature will lead to decrease in viscosity- as all for different fluids were more viscus at
higher temperature.
Mixture B shows that its viscosity at different temperature remains between the viscosity
values of the two fluid its composed of- XHVI 8.2 and XHVI 4-. This result is expected since
by adding a more viscus fluid to XHVI 4 the mixtures viscosity will increases however will not
exceed that of XHVI 8.2 similarly by adding a lower viscus fluid to XHVI 8.2 the over all
viscosity is expected to decrease but its limit will be the viscosity of the lower fluid added.
Mixture A results do not comply with the above analysis since after 55c the mixtures
viscosity starts to decrease below its boundary viscosity. This error could be due to the
following reasons:
 Contaminated mixture, where another fluid of lover viscosity than XHVI 4 is
present.
 The mixtures temperature did not reach the right temperature when finding its
viscosity value since temperature is the only factor that affects viscosity.

4.3 mixture ratio:

to predict XHVI 8.2 and XHVI 4 ratios in mixture B and A, a mass fraction ratio was applied
(mixture)=(𝑥 × (𝑎)) + (𝑥 × (𝑏))+. . . +(𝑥 × (𝑛)) where x is the mass
fraction of a component, and a and b are the components of the mixture (Viswanath
et al., 2007).
 And therefore, it was found that mixture a is 87.67% XHVI 4 and 12.33% XHVI8.2.
the low percentage of XHVI 8.2 oil is justified by the graph in figure 2 since the curve
is closer to XHVI 4 and hence has a low viscosity.
As for mixture B since its curve is situated roughly equally apart from its composite
oil’s curve it is expected to have a close to 1:1 ratio. Following the above equation,
mixture B is 42.46% XHVI 8.2 and 57.54% XHVI 4.

4.4 Ratio Sample calculation at 40c :

∴ (mixture A)= 𝑥 .× (𝑋𝐻𝑉𝐼 8.2)) + (𝑥 × (𝑋𝐻𝑉𝐼 ))

26.5 = 𝑥 . (42.5) + 𝑥 (24.25)
Note 𝑥 = 1−𝑥 .

∴ 26.5 = 𝑥 . (42.5) + (1 − 𝑥 . )(24.25)

𝑥 . = 0.123288

∴ 𝑥 = 1 − 0.123288 = 0.876712

5 Conclusion:
The dynamic viscosity’s theoretic and experimental values were extremely similar and
therefore Vogel’s equation is an accurate way to find the viscosity of a fluid. Moreover,
mixing two oils with different viscosity is important to obtain a mixture with the desired
viscosity that could be used for lubrication of machines. In this report a close prediction as
found for the two mixture however finding the kinematic viscosity and using Double
logarithmic equation of Refutas is a more accurate and widely used method to find mixture
ratios for a desired viscosity (Moe, Schorr and Valdez, 2017).

Experiment 2 : Energy Losses in Pipe Flow

6 Introduction:
Internal flowing fluid possesses energy -kinetic and potential - however these energies and the
pressure on the fluid are subjected to loss due to bends, turbulence, viscosity shearing…etc .
These losses are categorized into 2 categories, major and minor head loss, h L and hM
respectively.
A major head loss is energy lost due to the friction along its flow in a pipe. In a circular pipe h L is
found using the following equation:

ℎ =𝑓 (ward, 2021) (equation 1)

where : f is the pipe friction factor (unitless)

L is the pipe length in m
 D is the inner diameter of the pipe in m
g is gravitational acceleration in m/s2
U mean velocity of the fluid in m/s
However, the relationship between hL and the U is said to be heavily dependent on the nature of
the flow. At laminar flow -when velocity is low-, hL and U are directly proportional while at
turbulent -when velocity is high-, hL is proportional to Un -where n is a constant-. However,
during the transitional region a relationship couldn’t be identified. Finding Reynolds number (Re)
helps to identify the nature of the flow. When Re<2000 the flow is laminar and when Re>3500
the flow is turbulent however, when 2000<Re<3500 the fluid is in the transition region (Laminar
and Turbulent Flow, 1992). Equation 2 calculates Re:

𝑅𝑒 = (Rehm and Schubert, 2008) (equation 2)



Where: : 𝜌 is the density of the fluid in kg/m3

D is the inner diameter of the pipe in m

 is the dynamic viscosity in Pa.s

A minor head loss is energy lost due to bends and curves in the pipe-area change- and is
calculated by:

ℎ = (ward, 2021) (equation 3)

where : KL is the fitting loss factor (unitless)

g is gravitational acceleration in m/s2
U mean velocity of the fluid in m/s
This practical focuses on studying the difference in hM in a 90° long radius elbow and 90° elbow
fittings by using a manometer to find the pressure difference before and after the fittings.
Similarly, this practical will study the change in the relationship between h L and U with respect to
the flow type, and the change in the friction factor by using a rough and a smooth inner surfaced
pipe and measuring the pressure difference between two points along the linear pipes. And
finally, the relationship between the friction factor and Reynolds number (Re) for the above
cases will be discussed, and the equivalent roughness, є for the smooth and rough pipes are
found from the moody diagram.

7 Method:
7.1 Apparatus and Setup:
 Monometer

Cylinder
funnel
Water
source(hydraulic Smoot and rough pipes
bench) and multiple pipe fittings
rig
Figure 4 labeled screenshot of the setup used.

Additional equipment: stopwatch and Vernier Calliper.

7.2 Methodology:
7.2.1 recording the fluid’s velocity:
 for small flow rates the cylinder was used to measure the waters flow rate by
timing the time -using the stopwatch- needed for the water to fill up a certain
volume.
 For high flow rates the flow rate was measured by the volumetric tank attached to
the hydraulic bench for better accuracy since the water flow is too fast to
effectively find the right flow rate by the cylinder.
 Then the volume recorded was divided by the time, to find the flow rate “Q”.
Q=V/T .
 In order to find the velocity v=A/Q where A is the area of the pipe In m 2. For
smooth pipe diameter was 0.017m and for rough diameter was 0.016m.
 12 different water flow rates were recorded to obtain a wider range that is
sufficient to plot on a graph.

7.2.2 Recording the pressure difference:

 Before measuring the pressure differences for the major and minor loss the
manometer was zeroed to make sure accurate values were taken.
 For major losses valve as the fluid was flowing in the pipes the two tubes of the
manometer were inserted in the pipe 1m apart and the difference between the
two pressure values were noted down.
 For the minor loss the two pipes where inserted one directly before the start of
the area change( bend) and one after and the difference between the two
pressure values were noted down.
8 Results:
8.1 major head loss results:

Fluid Velocity Vs. Major Head Loss

1

0.8

0.6
rough pipe
hL (m)

0.4 smooth pipe

Linear (rough pipe )
0.2
Linear (smooth pipe )
0 ysmooth = 0.1131x - 0.0315
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 yrough = 0.5378x - 0.1986
-0.2
U (m/s)

Figure 5 graph showing the variation of hL in m as a function U in m/s in a smooth and rough inner surfaced pipe and
displaying the linear trendline of both curves and their equations.

Ln(U) vs. Ln(hL)

0
-1.6 -1.1 -0.6 -0.1 0.4
-1

-2
smooth pipe
Ln(hL) (m)

-3 rough pipe
Linear (smooth pipe )
-4
Linear (rough pipe )
-5 ysmooth = 1.6081x - 2.8273
yrough = 2.1527x - 1.3689
-6
Ln(U) (m/s)

Figure 6 graph showing the variation of the Ln values of hL in m as a function the Ln values of U in m/s in a smooth
and rough inner surfaced pipe displaying the linear trendline of both curves and their equations.

nuber of Q Re smooth Re rough friction factor friction factor rough

runs smooth
1 5.19E-05 3378.100472 3589.231752 0.108363958 0.042367589
2 5.78E-05 3760.821682 3995.873037 0.030857933 0.072164646
3 0.00008 5204.977208 5530.288283 0.02416495 0.128887874
 4 0.000114 7393.433534 7855.52313 0.019960893 0.063878893
5 0.00012 7806.841265 8294.768844 0.003580565 0.052885537
6 0.000132 8581.141532 9117.462878 0.031611195 0.087544222
7 0.000192 12507.154 13288.85112 0.023250595 0.081389376
8 0.000203 13186.50488 14010.66144 0.03764993 0.089593183
9 0.000267 17368.45037 18453.97852 0.031829722 0.087259015
10 0.000314 20408.474 21684.00362 0.020433646 0.071324779
11 0.00032 20799.94089 22099.93719 0.008238591 0.103184198
12 0.000375 24386.13759 25910.27119 0.025809374 0.074977063
Figure 7 table showing the friction factor and Re value for rough and smooth pipe

Figure 8 moody diagram.

8.2 minor head loss results:

Loss Factor vs. Fluid Velocity

4
3.5
3
2.5
KL (m)

2
long radius
1.5
Mitre elbow
1
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5
U (m/s)

Figure 9 graph showing the variation of minor head loss in m with respect to the velocity U in m/s for long radius and Mitre
elbow pipe elbows.

9 Discussion:
9.1 Objective A:
The 2 curves in figure 5 fluctuates around a linear line which ends at a velocity of
approximately 0.8469m/s and 1.3277m/s for smooth and rough pipe, respectively.
However, fluctuations occurring in the smooth pipe are more minute than that in the
rough. According to the relationship discussed in the introduction between hL and U
a linear line indicated a laminar flow. Yet, when calculating Re in figure 7, the flow
starts from an ending transitional flow and a starting turbulent flow since the
minimum value of Re was 3378.1 and 3589.23 for smooth and rough pipe,
respectively. This means that the fluid in both cases did not pass through a laminar
region during the experiment and hence the relationship between hL and U at laminar
is not shown in figure 5.

The curve representing the smooth pipe did not show a change in the curve at U=
0.3524 m/s indicating that it’s still transitional, yet Re was 5204.977>3500 therefore
turbulent. Similarly for the rough pipe, the curve did not show any change at the
beginning of the turbulent flow indicated by Re. Therefore, from figure 5 it is not
possible to accurately determine the flow type nor to indicate the start and the end of
a transitional flow.

According to Re the turbulent region for smooth and rough pipe starts at ln(U)= -1.04
and -0.9 m/s respectively and the curves in figure 6 starts to form a linear line . At the
beginning of the turbulent flow the line shows some anomalies however as the
velocity increases and turbulence increases the curve conforms to the linear line.
Therefore at turbulence the following relation can be drawn out : ln(hL)  aln(U)
where a is the gradient ∴ ln(hL)  ln(𝑈 ) ∴ hL 𝑈 and a=n therefore hLUn.
 By plotting the linear trendline of the curve n was found from the gradient where n is
equal to the coefficient of x. n= 1.608 and 2.1527 for smooth and rough pipe,
respectively, which are greater than 1 and hence further confirms that the flow is
turbulent.

From figure 5 the major head loss in the rough pipe in both transitional and turbulent
flows is greater than that of the smooth pipe and had a rapid increases rate. This
highlights the effect of roughness on the friction factor- proportional relation-.

Using the moody diagram, the relative roughness for the smooth pipe was between
0.001 and 0.00001 which represent a smooth surface as for the rough pipe the
relative roughness was between 0.048 and 0.05. by multiplying the following rages
by the respected diameter, the equivalent roughness was found to be: 0.8-0.768mm
for rough pipe and 0.017-1.7×10-4mm for the smooth pipe. The smooth pipe rage is
acceptable since it represents a typical smooth surface. However, the measured
roughness for the rough pipe was 0.5mm which doesn’t belong to the range found
using the diagram. This means that there was high error in the data collected.

9.2 Objective B:
Figure 9 shows that kL for the long radius elbow is less than that of a Mitre elbow.
these results comply with the theories, since the sudden and more tortuous change
in the Mitre elbow bend this will cause a higher-energy loss due to the increase In
fluid acceleration around a bends. The acceleration is caused by the increase in
pressure of the inner pipe surface around the curve. In addition, the greater the bend
in a pipe the more flow separation occurs and therefore higher turbulence which
leads to higher energy loss.

The average value of kL is 1.02 and 1.9 for long radius and Mitre elbow respectively.
however, the theoretical values were 0.2 and 0.7 (Unit F3: Internal Incompressible
Flow, 2021). the Mitre elbow has a 63% error, and the long radius has an error of
80.3%. these large error values could have been reduced by increasing the number
of readings at the same velocity.
Moreover, using a volumetric flask and a stopwatch to record the fluids flow rate is
another factor that resulted in this error since this method is highly susceptible to
human error.

10 Conclusion:
Measuring the change in flow rate and the pressure loss as well as using the moody diagram
allowed us to study the minor and major head loss in pipes and get a general understanding of
how bend will cause high energy losses. However, the experimental data were not well fitted to
what the theories and this was due to the high human error during the measurement of the flow
rate. This error was further assured since the roughness found from the moody diagram did not
match the actual roughness of the rough pipe.
Referencing:

Engineeringlibrary.org. 1992. Laminar and Turbulent Flow. [online] Available at:

<https://engineeringlibrary.org/reference/laminar-and-turbulent-fluid-flow-doe-
handbook#:~:text=For%20practical%20purposes%2C%20if%20the,facilities%20operate%20with%20turb
ulent%20flow.> [Accessed 26 March 2021].

Knežević, D. and Savić, V., 2021. MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF CHANGING OF DYNAMIC

VISCOSITY, AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE, OF MINERAL OILS FOR
HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS. [online] Facta.junis.ni.ac.rs. Available at:
<http://facta.junis.ni.ac.rs/me/me2006/me2006-03.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2021].

minerva. 2021. Unit F3: Internal Incompressible Flow. [online] Available at:
<https://minerva.leeds.ac.uk/bbcswebdav/pid-8340801-dt-content-rid-
18242078_2/courses/202021_28507_MECH2670/UnitF3.pdf> [Accessed 26 March 2021].

Moe, P., Schorr, D. and Valdez, D., 2017. Simplification Process of Determining the Mixing Oil Ratio for
Ascertaining the Kinematic Viscosity Oil Mixtures..pdf. [online] Academia.edu. Available at:
<https://www.academia.edu/36610804/Simplification_Process_of_Determining_the_Mixing_Oil_Ratio_for
_Ascertaining_the_Kinematic_Viscosity_Oil_Mixtures_pdf> [Accessed 26 March 2021].

Rehm, B. and Schubert,, J., 2008. Reynolds' Number - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. [online]
Sciencedirect.com. Available at: <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/reynolds-number>
[Accessed 26 March 2021].

ward, D., 2021. Practical 3: Friction and Minor Losses in Pipes. [online] Lo.unisa.edu.au. Available at:
<https://lo.unisa.edu.au/mod/book/tool/print/index.php?id=466227> [Accessed 26 March 2021].

Viswanath, D., Ghosh, T., Prasad, D., Dutt, N. and Rani, K., 2007. Viscosity of liquids. Dordrecht:
Springer.