Introduction and Background:

This experiment aims at observing the head losses that are due to friction in a pipe and to

determine the friction factor under a range of flow rates and flow regimes. These regimes are laminar,

critical and turbulent. Noting that, laminar flows happen at a Reynolds range of less than 2100 while

turbulent flow happens at a range greater than 4000 and the critical flow is between laminar and turbulent

Reynold ranges. The experiment is divided into two parts: first part consists of the usage of a water

manometer and the second part the mercury manometer to measure the head loss and deduce the friction

factor using Darcy equation or moody chart.

This experiment is important since it helps in understanding the concepts of the difference

between two fluids used in a manometer to measure head loss, and the relation of Reynolds with head loss

and friction factor. Such procedures could allow engineers to understand the importance of the type of

manometer and the different results that each tube gives according to its required output, cost and

reliability. As a result, it could allow the engineer to understand which procedure is the best to address

according to the situation at hand.

The total energy loss is the sum of the major losses and the minor losses. The major losses are related

to the frictional energy loss that is caused by the viscous effects of the fluid and the roughness of the pipe

wall. Major losses create a pressure drop along the pipe since the pressure must work to overcome the

frictional resistance. The Darcy-Weisbach equation or the moody charts are known to determine the

energy loss in a pipe flow. In this equation, the friction factor (f ), a dimensionless quantity, is used to

describe the friction loss in a pipe. In laminar flows, f is only a function of the Reynolds number and is

independent of the surface roughness of the pipe. In fully turbulent flows, f depends on both the Reynolds

1
number and relative roughness of the pipe wall.  In engineering problems, f is usually determined by

using the Moody diagram.

The pressure difference between two points in the pipe is due to the frictional resistance, and the head

loss hL is directly proportional to the pressure difference.

L v2
The head loss due to friction can be calculated from the Darcy-Weisbach equation: h L =f
D 2g

With: hL:  head loss due to flow resistance , f:   friction factor , L: pipe length, D: pipe diameter,

v: average velocity g: gravitational acceleration.

For laminar flow, the Darcy-Weisbach coefficient or friction factor f  is only a function of the Reynolds

64
number (Re) and is independent of the surface roughness of the pipe. f=
ℜ

For turbulent flow,  f  is a function of both the Reynolds number and the pipe roughness e .The Moody

diagram relates f to the pipe wall relative roughness ( e/D) and the Reynolds number.

This report will contain the results obtained throughout the experiment and a final discussion of the

obtained values will be compared with that of the theoretical background of the process and the

experimental procedure.

2
 Results and Sample Calculations:
For table 1:

Head loss(m): H =  x (L / d) x (V2 / 2g)

Head loss coefficient:  = (H x d x 2g) / (V2 x L)

Reynolds: Re = (V x d) /  with kinematic viscosity () for water: 1.12x10-6 m3/s

Flowrate: Q = V x A with V = velocity of fluid

π 2
A = cross sectional area of pipe= D with: D = diameter of pipe = 3.4 mm L = length of pipe = 400
4
mm

At: Q=2.2L/hr set flowrate by rotameter

P1=596mm and P2=590mm
596−590
∆ H =P1−P2= =0.006 m
1000

L 0.001 −7 3
Q=2.2 =2.2× =6.11 ×10 (m /s)
h 3600

π π
A= D2 = (3.4 ×10−3)2=9.07 ×10−6 ( m2 )
4 4
Q 6.11 ×10−7
V= = =0.067( m/ s)
A 9.07 ×10−6

(V ×d ) 0.067 × 3.4 ×10−3

ℜ= = −6
=204.3
ν 1.12× 10

∆ H × d ×2 g 0.006 × 0.0034 ×2 × 9.81

λ= 2
= 2
=0.221
V ×L (0.067 ×0.4)

At Q=100L/hr:

Turbulent so mercury manometer used

3
 289−208
∆ H =P1−P2= x 13.6=1101.6 mmH20 (conversion from mmHg to mmH20)
1000

∆ H × d ×2 g 1.1016 × 0.0034 ×2 ×9.81

λ= = =0.021
V2×L (3.0592 × 0.4)

Rest of calculations are as seen above

Table 1. Calculations of head loss , velocity, Reynolds and head loss coefficient at different flowrates set
by Rotameter

Recorded Calculated Measurements

Q(L/hr) P1(mm) P2(mm) ∆H ∆H (mmH20 Velocity(m/s) Re λ (friction Laminar using water
(mmH20) and mmHg) factor) flow manometer
2.2 596 590 6 6 0.067 204 0.221 ∆H(mmH20)
4 597 587 10 10 0.122 372 0.111
7 600 583 17 17 0.214 650 0.062
7.5 602 582 20 20 0.229 697 0.063
9.9 605 578 27 27 0.303 920 0.049
10.8 607 576 31 31 0.330 1003 0.047
13 610 573 37 37 0.398 1207 0.039
15.2 615 569 46 46 0.465 1412 0.03547
16 617 566 51 51 0.490 1486 0.03549
20 630 552 78 78 0.612 1858 0.0347
Critical
24 645 537
108 108 0.734 2229 0.0334 flow
50 259 237 299.2 22 1.530 4644 0.0213 Turbulent Measurements
60 264 232 435.2 32 1.836 5573 0.0215 Flow using mercury
74 271 225 625.6 46 2.264 6873 0.0204 manometer
100 289 208 1101.6 81 3.060 9288 0.0196 ∆H(mmHg)
112.5 299 194 1428.0 105 3.442 10449 0.0201
125 313 182 1781.6 131 3.824 11610 0.0203
150 339 155 2502.4 184 4.589 13932 0.0198
162.5 359 137 3019.2 222 4.972 15093 0.0203
Graph 1: Representation of the variation of head loss in function of Reynolds number Re

4
 Head loss vs Reynolds
3500

3000
Head loss (mmH20)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Reynolds number Re

Graph 2: Representation of the friction factor in function of reynolds

Head loss coefficient vs Reynolds

0.25

0.2
Head loss coefficient(λ )

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Reynolds number Re

Discussion:
It can be seen from table 1 that as the flowrate set by the rotameter increases from 2.2L/hr to

162.5L/hr. The head loss increases from 0.006 to 3.019 mH20. However, it could be seen from table 1

that there was a switch in the unit of measurement from mmH20 to mmHg. Two types of manometers

were used, the water and the mercury manometer. The water manometer was used to measure the head

5
loss from a rotameter that sets 2.2L/hr until a flowrate of 24L/hr. Now, another rotameter that sets 50L/hr

to 162.5L/hr, at these flowrates the manometer switched to mercury. It is known that water manometer

measurement is 13.6 times larger than that measured by the mercury manometer, provides a better

resolution and is lighter than mercury. So, if the head loss measured by the mercury manometer was

0.022mHg at 50L/hr that is equivalent to 0.299mH20 measured by the water manometer as can be seen in

table 1. Thus, more pressure is needed to move mercury and so it is later used as the velocity increases

causing higher pressure difference. The water manometer is usually more applicable for small range of

flowrates while the mercury manometer is for larger flowrates.

A switch was done due to the fact that the velocity was increasing which causes an increase in the

Reynolds that resulted into the water manometer reaching its maximum height of the chosen instrument

(beyond this range there won’t be any reading). Thus, it could be seen that once the head loss was

converted all to mmH20(unified unit), an increase is graphically shown in graph 1. This head loss is

related to the fluid’s velocity, which means that the faster the fluid is moving, the higher the head loss

will be.

An increase in flowrate means an increase in Reynolds number, so it could be seen that since the

Reynolds formula is dependent on velocity, then an increase of velocity will cause an increase in

Reynolds as can be seen in table 1. Now, the head loss is seen to increase as a higher-pressure difference

is reached as Reynolds increase. It could be seen at a laminar flow of flow rate of 2.2 L/hr, the head loss

is 0.006m, velocity is 0.067m/s and the Reynolds is 204.33; then at a flowrate of 24L/hr, the head loss is

0.108m, velocity is 0.734m/s and the Reynolds is 2229.113 reaching its transitional phase. This increase

is again related to the velocity of the fluid. After which, the flow becomes turbulent and the mercury

manometer takes place as seen in table 1. So, the head-loss is actually increasing as Reynolds increases

since the pipe is subject to more losses that cause high pressure difference as can be seen in graph 1;

once the head losses in mmHg were multiplied by 13.6 to convert to mmH20, and this is due to the

6
increase in velocity of fluid in the pipe which is making the flow turbulent. Turbulent flows have a higher

Reynolds number and this is why it could be seen in graph 1 that the head-loss increases with Reynolds.

Moreover, the flow is seen to shift from laminar flow, which is a steady smooth flow from 2.2L/hr

(Re=204) to 20L/hr (Re=1857.6), to transitional flow at 24L/h with Re=2229.1, until it reaches turbulent

flow, where a faster chaotic flow happens at 50L/hr to 162.5L/hr as can be seen in table 1. Laminar flows

have lower Reynold values due to lower velocity values than turbulent which have higher velocity. So, as

can be seen in graph 2, the head loss coefficient tends to decrease as the Reynolds number increases. In

other words, the largest values of the friction factor was found during the laminar regime at 2.2L/hr which

is 0.221 and then seems to decrease as it reaches the turbulent regime as can be seen in graph 2 with the

lowest at around 0.020. This is due to the fact that at laminar flows, the friction factor is independent of

the surface roughness and varies linearly with inverse of Reynolds. While at turbulent flows, both the

Reynolds number and wall roughness influence the friction factor which causes a significant decrease for

turbulent regimes. As a result, it could be understood that the head loss is proportional to velocity in

laminar while for turbulent it is proportional to velocity squared. Moreover, the friction factor is inversely

proportional to velocity which could explain graph 2 where at a laminar flow the friction factor is at its

highest and as the velocity increases to reach turbulent, the friction factor reaches its lowest.

Graph 2 must be corresponding to one of the lines in the Moody chart as it is similar in shape. It is known

that the variation of friction factor in function of Reynolds and according to relative roughness is what the

Moody chart indicates.. However, due to the fact that there is incomplete information regarding the

relative roughness of the pipe then there cannot be a comparison between the graph and the chart.