Item 1: referred to in item 2, recovered using Wayback Machine

(http://www.optimal-systems.demon.co.uk/topic-pressure-at-pipe-end.htm )

Item 2:attempts to demonstrate what is described in the ‘subsonic flow’ part of item 1

(https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=126305)

Item 3: another debate on the topic that concludes with the same result.

(https://www.cheresources.com/invision/topic/19822-exit-loss-coefficient/)

Essentially: the exit loss and the pressure recovery at the tailpipe exit of a subsonic compressible relief will cancel
each other out. The frictional losses AND static pressure changes as flow accelerates are within the relief valve body
and I presume must therefore be inherent in the k value of the valve. For an expansion inbetween allowing only the
friction loss is conservative as there will be pressure recovery as the velocity decreases. So I think that for this
scenario it is acceptable to calculate the pressure change in the tailpipe as the piping friction loss only (and any
negligable static head change through elevation difference). Adding the exit loss builds in a conservatism that
generally isn’t an issue, except when dealing with low set pressures!

ITEM 1

What is the pressure at the end of a pipe which is

discharging to atmosphere?
Discharging to atmosphere is a particular case of the discharge to a large volume where the pressure is fixed and the
discharging gas will decelerate to zero velocity.

Incompressible fluid
The loss coefficient for a liquid flowing through an abrupt expansion into a large volume has been found to be 1.0.
(Crane, ref 5). The loss coefficient is defined as the number of velocity heads which are lost in the transition. Losing a
whole velocity head means that the entire kinetic energy is dissipated in the exit loss and that none is recovered into
pressure by the deceleration in accordance with the Bernoulli principle.

Sub-sonic flow of a compressible fluid

Benedict et al (ref 16) found that except at low velocity the incompressible loss coefficients do not apply to
compressible flow through enlargements and contractions. They found that the losses are best described in terms of
change in stagnation pressure.

For an abrupt expansion into a large volume they found that reduction in stagnation pressure is such that the pressure
in the large volume (which is by definition also a stagnation pressure) is the same as the flowing pressure at the end
of the pipe. In other words, the losses exactly cancel the pressure recovery that would be achieved by the
deceleration in accordance with the Bernoulli principle.

This is analogous to the incompressible flow losses.

In terms of measured pressures then, there is no pressure difference between the tip of the pipe and the downstream
large volume.

Sonic flow of a compressible fluid

When there is a sonic choke at the end of the pipe, the pressure at the end of the pipe is just high enough to allow the
mass flow to pass through the cross-sectional area of the pipe. It sounds obvious, but it can be a surprisingly difficult
concept to grasp, with people making unsupported reference to it being necessary to have a pressure ratio greater
than 2 to achieve sonic flow.
 mass flow rate = cross-sectional area x velocity x density

The area is fixed. The velocity is constrained in that it cannot be higher than the sonic velocity. Although sonic velocity
is a function of temperature, density is the parameter which gives complete freedom. It is a function of pressure and
temperature and by having a high enough pressure, any mass flow can be realised. "You could blow down the planet
Jupiter through a six inch pipe" (Ref Duxbury, private communication, 1992)

For sonic flow, the velocity at the end of the pipe is sonic velocity and the pressure is whatever is required to achieve
the mass flow rate. The difference in pressure is dissipated in sonic shock waves as the gas leaves the pipe.

For an ideal gas sonic velocity and density are simple functions.

(image missing)

So, for a given mass flow rate, the two remaining unknowns are pressure and temperature. They can be found by
solving simultaneously with an energy balance equation.

For a real gas, there is no equation for sonic velocity. The problem can only be solved by searching for a pressure and
temperature combination which satisfies the energy balance and for which flow is possible.

Sub-sonic flow of a compressible fluid : Limiting case

There is obviously a limiting case between the sub-sonic cases and the sonic cases. The figure "Choked flow into a
vessel", illustrates this:

 If the mass flow is steadily increased, the velocity just inside the pipe tip will steadily increase. The losses will
be such that the flowing pressure is equal to the stagnation pressure in the downstream large volume.
 When sonic velocity is just reached, the flowing pressure will still be same as the pressure in the downstream
large volume.
 Further increasing the mass flow rate brings the tip pressure up above the pressure in the downstream large
volume.

It is therefore just possible to have sonic flow with no difference between the measured pressures across the tip.
ITEM 2

Mech85 (Mechanical)

(OP)

13 Jun 05 03:21

We have an existing conventional pressure safety valve which relieves vapour to atmosphere (0 kPa gauge). The PSV is
being checked for use for a new operating scenario. The PSV has a tailpipe (discharge piping) consisting of  elbows and
straight pipe run.

In determining the pressure drop ( ie back pressure ) for the PSV, I am unsure whether the exit loss from the discharge
piping ( ie (k* v^2)/g) should be included or excluded. Section 5.4.1.3 of API 520 does not seem to clarify the issue. 

Can anyone comment?

Latexman (Chemical)13 Jun 05 09:14

Perth1,

The exit loss is real and is going to happen, therefore it must be included.  It accounts for converting the kinetic
energy (velocity) of the stream inside the exit to the potential energy level (pressure) of the atmosphere outside the exit.

Good luck,
Latexman

Mech85 (Mechanical)

(OP)

13 Jun 05 23:10

Latexman,

Thanks for your reply. However if there is no tailpipe on the PSV and the valve is reliefing directly to atmosphere, then the
backpressure is considered zero.
Hence by adding a tailpipe I'm not sure that adding the exit loss to the pressure loss from the pipe run and elbows is
correct. The exit loss has just been transferred from the discharge flange of the PSV to the discharge of the tailpipe.

Due to a low PSV setting, the backpressure calculation is important and I wonder if anybody else has come up against this
problem.

TD2K (Chemical)14 Jun 05 00:27

Saying the backpressure with a PSV open to atmosphere is 0.0 isn't correct in my opinion though people may just write that
down on the data sheet.  To get the flow from the outlet of the PSV to the atmosphere takes a positive dP which implies
'some' back pressure on the PSV.  

Now, for most applications even with a conventional PSV that allows you up to 10% backpressure, it's very likely a moot
point.
I either include the exit loss or if I have chocked flow through the outlet piping, I'll calculate the outlet pressure that gives
me sonic flow and then calculate the pressure back at the PSV outlet.

EGT01 (Chemical)14 Jun 05 13:07

Perth1,

There may be a basis for you to exclude the exit loss when piping is discharging to atmosphere if you are relieving a
compressible fluid.

There used to be a very good website that covered compressible flow and had a good discussion about your question but
I've had problems accessing it lately.  Here's the actual link that discusses your question..
http://www.optimal-systems.demon.co.uk/topic-pressure-at-pipe-end.htm

Just in case, here's cached version of it....

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=www.optimal-systems.demon.co.uk&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-
8&n=10&fl=0&u=www.optimal-systems.demon.co.uk/topic-pressure-at-pipe-
end.htm&d=F5E9F1D9D9&icp=1&.intl=us

A similar discussion can be found in the "Guidelines for Pressure Relief and Effluent Handling Systems" which is an AICHE,
CCPS publication.  Here's an excerpt...

"The pressure change at the exit (change from station 2 to station 3) is not included in the calculations on this section for
the following reasons:
  - If the flow is choked at station 2, P3 cannot be computed from a value of
    P2 (see para 2.10.2 for a discussion of the pressure discontinuity across a 
    choke point).
  - If the flow is not choked and the pipe discharges to a large reservoir (or 
    to a same-size section of piping), P2 = P3 and no computations across the 
    exit are required (exit loss and velocity head recovery are equal).
In contrast to the above conditions, a pressure change at the exit must be determined if the pipe connects to a downstream
piping run of a smaller size (reduction).  The pressure change must also be determined if the pipe connects to a
downstream piping run of larger size (expansion), if the flow is not choked at station 2."

I would suggest you get the AICHE publication and review the complete section on the referenced subject.

Typically, I have always accounted for an exit loss in the outlet piping when discharging to atmosphere and it is only
recently that I have found the above references.  For new designs, I'll continue to leave the exit loss in the calculation just
as an additional allowance for piping runs that may not be well defined.  For checking existing systems, certainly no harm to
include the exit loss if pressure drop is not a problem.  If it is a problem, I may have to think more about that since old
habits die hard.

davefitz (Mechanical)14 Jun 05 16:51

SME sect VIII has a non-mandatory appendix that includes explicit calculation methods for computing the relief valve
backpressure.

Latexman (Chemical)14 Jun 05 21:06

Do they include the exit loss or not?

Good luck,
Latexman

davefitz (Mechanical)15 Jun 05 12:10

You can include the exit loss, by your determination of the total fL/d loss for the piping , elbows, entrance , exit losses. The
curves that are porvided for determining the pressure ratio are based on the Bectel Lios paper ( whose objective was to
prevent blowback in the drippan) and the use of Fanno relationships for flow that is choked.

EGT01 (Chemical)15 Jun 05 14:38

Just for clarification, ASME Section VIII does have a non-mandatory Appendix M which gives some general design criteria
for relief valve piping but I believe it is the Power Piping Code, ASME B31.1 to which Davefitz is referring.  ASME B31.1 has
a non-mandatory Appendix II that goes into detail as to how to calculate the backpressure in the outlet piping and uses the
fanno line approach to solve.

ASME B31.1 does include an example problem for a relief valve which discharges steam through a typical atmospheric vent
type arrangement.  The vent arrangement baically has the valve discharge connected to an elbow then a short section of
pipe which is then inserted (not connected) into a larger, straight run pipe.  For the example shown, it appears that sonic
flow is attained at the ends of both sections of pipe diameters and it does not look like an exit loss is counted which would
be consistent with references I've cited and what TD2K has mentioned about sonic flow.

sailoday28 (Mechanical)16 Jun 05 03:11

Consdider incompressible flow or low Mach numbers

H=p/rho     subscript ex   exit
                      amb  ambient

Hex  +  Vex^2/2     =  Hamb  +Vamb^2/2   + losses    (1)

Losses are based on higher velocity   =  K*Vex^2/2

For sudden exp to ambient  K=1

 Eq (1) becomes

Hex  +  Vex^2/2     =  Hamb  +Vamb^2/2   + 1* Vex^2/2   (2)
or
Hex -  Hamb      =  Vamb*2/2
Vamb  approx  =0     or much lower than V ex

Therefore   back pressure =   exit pressure.

K=1     may be derived from  energy and momentum equations.

Latexman (Chemical)16 Jun 05 07:31

Equation (1) and equation (2) are the same equation, just restated.  With one equation and one unknown (losses or
1*Vex^2/2), on the second pass through the equation you got a trivial solution, Vamb = 0, which was your assumption on
the first pass.  I don't see how this proves exit pressure = ambient pressure.

Good luck,
Latexman

EGT01 (Chemical)16 Jun 05 13:32

Looking at both the web reference and the AICHE Guidelines I mentioned before, it appears that both are saying that an
exit term should be included for incompressible flow which would include liquids or gas but gas only at low pressure
drop/velocity.  I'm not able at the moment but for what it is worth, I'll try to get some more info out of the AICHE
Guidelines for reference and post it.  

sailoday28 (Mechanical)16 Jun 05 17:57

Latexman (Chemical)

Consdider incompressible flow or low Mach numbers  into a large flow area called the ambient.
H=p/rho     subscript ex   exit
                      amb  ambient
A= area
Hex  +  Vex^2/2     =  Hamb  +Vamb^2/2   + losses    (1)

consveration of mass with rho approx const.

With
Aex*Vex  =Aamb*Vamb
(1) becomes
Hex  +  Vex^2/2=  Hamb  +(Aex/Amb)^2*Vex^2   + K*Vex^2  

Hex  =  Hamb  +[(Aex/Amb)^2-1]*Vex^2   + K*Vex^2 

With the area of the exit much smaller than the area of the ambient one obtains the result

Hex=Hamb  +  (K-1)*Vex^2

For discharge to the atmosphere, K=1

and Hex=Hamb

  

EGT01 (Chemical)17 Jun 05 00:45

Don't know if this will help any but here's a link to some excerpts of the AICHE Guidelines for those who are interested.

I'm trying a little trick I learned from TD2K and this is the first time to try so I hope it works okay.  The link is only good for
7 days.

http://s21.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=183QDNOSEM79Z2X694M3QSCH75

TD2K (Chemical)17 Jun 05 01:23

It worked EGT01

sailoday28 (Mechanical)18 Jun 05 14:29

Latexman, EGT01 and others.

Are there any disagreements/agreements or further comments on my post of Backpressure=Pambient=Pdischarge
pressure?

EGT01 (Chemical)18 Jun 05 16:58

Sailoday28,

I'm still trying to come to an understanding of what I've read in the references cited above and I may have misinterpreted
the references to say that you should include an exit "fitting" for incompressible fluids or compressible fluids at low velocity.

From typical text book presentations, the exit loss is equal to the velocity head just before the expansion.
http://www.efm.leeds.ac.uk/CIVE/CIVE2400/pipe%20flow2.pdf

As I read from the other references cited above, when the pressure recovery equals the exit loss, then you can ignore the
exit as a "fitting" in the piping system.

Looking at page 269 and 270 of the AICHE Guidelines, there is usually a pressure rise across an expansion but
some designers follow the practice of taking no credit for a possible pressure increase on expansion.

In another section of the AICHE Guidelines, not included in the sections I posted, there was mention of accounting for the
pressure rise across expansions in cases when the designer wanted to avoid overdesigning the outlet piping.  This was
specifically mentioned when an expansion fitting was used directly at the PSV outlet flange.

Latexman (Chemical)18 Jun 05 17:50

Sailoday28,

I accept you proved K = 1.  I cannot see where exit pressure = ambient pressure is proven though.  I do know from many
textbooks on compressible flow they say exit pressure = ambient pressure if the flow is from subsonic to just sonic at the
exit.

Good luck,
Latexman

sailoday28 (Mechanical)18 Jun 05 17:50

EGT01 (Chemical)states
From typical text book presentations, the exit loss is equal to the velocity head just before the expansion."
From my previous postings, K*Vamb^2/2  = Vexit^2/2
I agree and with that statement

Hex=Hamb  +Vamb^2/2       and the velocity in the much large area will be very small.  Hence Hex=Hamb

Generall the losses in a reducer/expander are based on the higher velocity.   Therefore  losses to atmosphere (where area is
large compared to exit)
are
K*Vexit^2/2=Vexit^2/2    and K=1

Sorry for harping on this.

EGT01 (Chemical)19 Jun 05 03:52

We haven't heard from Perth1 so I'm not sure if any of this is any help for them but I appreciate the discussion.

I may be finally understanding how all this relates to the condition that when the pressure recovery equals the exit loss, the
pressure at the end of the pipe is equal to that outside the pipe.

To take it from another approach, look at equation 18 in the linked pipe%20flow2.pdf, 

h L = (u12 - u22)/2g - (p2 - p1)/ρg

and rearrange
(p2 - p1)/ρg = (u12 - u22)/2g - h L

If all there is between points 1 and 2 is a pipe exit, I believe the right side of the equation represents the pressure recovery
and exit loss respectively.

then for h L representing the head loss for the exit, and as defined otherwise
h L = K * u12/2g
and for an exit loss K = 1
h L = u12/2g
Then for (u12 - u22)/2g representing the pressure recovery and if we use the relationship
u2 = u1*A1/A2 and substitute

(p2 - p1)/ρg = (u12 - u12*A12/A22)/2g - u12/2g   

or
(p2 - p1)/ρg = u12*(1 - A12/A22)/2g - u12/2g

In the case that A2 is very large compared to A1, then A12/A22 ~ 0 and
(p2 - p1)/ρg = u12*(1 -0)/2g - u12/2g
or the pressure recovery equals the exit head loss and 
(p2 - p1)/ρg = 0   or 
p2 = p1

Then it would seem for any discharge to atmosphere, you can neglect the exit fitting loss if you choose to account for the
pressure recovery.  If you ignore the pressure recovery, there will be a difference in pressure between the end of the pipe
and outside the pipe which will be equal to the head loss due to the exit fitting.

.....Right?

sailoday28 (Mechanical)19 Jun 05 12:59

EGT01 (Chemical)"Then it would seem for any discharge to atmosphere, you can neglect the exit fitting loss if you choose
to account for the pressure recovery.  If you ignore the pressure recovery, there will be a difference in pressure between
the end of the pipe and outside the pipe which will be equal to the head loss due to the exit fitting.

.....Right?"
I believe what you are stating is correct.

In calculating a system resistance or equivalent K or L/d

IF the final downstream component is the atmosphere (a large volume and flow area), then if one is using gage
pressures    P/rho and V^2/2 should be taken as zero.

IF instead, one desires to use the exit area of the last fitting upstream of the (large area) atmosphere, then use at the
exit plane   P/rho=0 and the correct exit velocity.
Either approach should give the same answers.
Regards

Mech85 (Mechanical)

(OP)

20 Jun 05 01:45

Gee, this query certainly started some good discussions! Thanks to everyone for all the input.

EGT01, thanks for the link to the AICHE guidelines. It is quite useful. In discussions with colleagues here, there is a tendecy
to agree with ignoring the exit loss as we are discharging to atmosphere and only account for the pipe and fittings friction
loss. Your posts seem to concur with this.

sailoday28 (Mechanical)21 Jun 05 06:08

My original post stated K=1 may be derived from momentum equation.

Reference "Elementary Mechanics of Fluids--By Hunter Rouse, John Wiley and Sons
---Pg 259

I have modified his equations

 H=P/rho
A1= flow area inlet
A2  flow area outlet
V velocity

Q=A1*V1=A2*V2     
MOMENTUM EQUATION  H1*A2-H2*A2 =Q(V2-V1)=A1*V1(V2-V1)
H1-H2=A1/A2*V1^2( A1/A2  -1)
(H1-H2)/(V1^2/2)=  2(A1/A2)[  (A1/A2)-1)

substitue in energy equation   and K=1  when A1/A2 approaches zero

ITEM 3

ryn376
Posted 13 January 2014 - 03:08 PM
Can anybody verify that the K-value for a pipe exit is zero if a fluid exits into an unconfined space? 
 
Ron Darby (of 3-K Method fame) indicates that it should not be used if a fluid exits into an unconfined space. In his book Chemical
Engineering Fluid Mechanics on page 213 he writes:
 
A note is in order relative to the exit loss coefficient, which is listed in Table 7-5 as equal to 1.0. Actually, if the fluid exits the pipe
into unconfined space, the loss coefficient is zero, because the velocity of a fluid exiting the
pipe (in a free jet) is the same as that of the fluid inside the pipe (and the kinetic energy change is also zero). However, when the
fluid exits into a confined space the kinetic energy is dissipated as friction in the mixing process as the velocity goes to zero, so the
loss coefficient is 1.0. In this case the change in the kinetic energy and the friction loss at the exit cancel out.

Edited by ryn376, 14 January 2014 - 01:38 PM.

#2  latexman
Posted 14 January 2014 - 07:56 AM
All the examples I looked at in Crane TP410 which discharge to atmosphere have K = 1.0 for an exit loss.  My old college textbook,
McCabe and Smith, was the same.  Cameron Hydraulic Data reports K = 1.0 for an exit loss with no qualifications whether the end
destination is confined or unconfined.
 
I see no parameter in the Bernoulli Equation that translates whether "point 2" (the exit) is confined or unconfined.  Does anyone
else?
 
I have used K = 1.0 for an exit loss into confined and unconfined areas my entire career.  No issues came of it. 
 
I think Mr. Darby may be outnumbered on this view.  Let's see what others think.

#3  PingPong
Posted 14 January 2014 - 10:46 AM
I agree more or less with Mr. Darby, although I would formulate it differently.
 
If a fluid leaves a pipe without the fluid occupying the whole width of the space it enters then there is no frictional exit loss.
 
For example:
- if water flows from a pipe and falls into a tank (or whatever), the diameter of the water stream after the exit does not change, its
velocity does not change, there is no turbulence outside the pipe-exit, and there is no exit loss.
 
- however if water from a pipe flows into a much bigger pipe (or tank) that is water filled, then there is an exit loss.
#4  katmar
Posted 15 January 2014 - 04:02 AM
The widespread confusion over the exit loss is mostly caused by the sloppy way we conventionally use the terminology. In the
overwhelming majority of cases where we talk of an exit loss, it is not an exit loss at all. If we go back to the Bernoulli Equation it is
very clear that one of the terms takes into account the change in velocity (i.e. acceleration) of the fluid. However, in the Darcy-
Weisbach Equation there is no term for acceleration and we compensate by adding a K=1 exit loss.

Why is it called an exit loss?  The acceleration usually occurs at the start of the pipe, so wouldn't it be more logical to call it an entry
loss? At the pipe entry there are two phenomena that consume energy. The first is the forcing of the fluid into the reduced cross
sectional area of the pipe entry and this results in flow separations, eddies and losses. This loss can be significantly reduced by
using a bell mouth entry (page A-29 in the old Crane 410 manual). This is a side issue and has nothing to do with the exit loss.

The second phenomenon occuring at the pipe entry is the acceleration from the usually stagnant tank to the velocity in the first
section of pipe. The reason we do not take this into account at the start of the pipe is that there will be more acceleration (or
deceleration) along the length of the pipe each time the pipe ID changes. The velocity at the end of the pipe is the net result and is
all that we need to account for and so we have come to talk of an exit loss. But it is important to remember that the loss is not
actually occurring at the exit - that is simply the convenient point to calculate the net acceleration.

With a liquid discharging to atmosphere or into an open tank, or for a compressible fluid discharging to atmosphere, all the velocity
head at the exit is lost and we can include a value of K=1 in the Darcy-Weisbach Equation when calculating the overall pressure
drop.

The exception to this situation is for a compressible fluid discharging into a closed vessel. In this situation the velocity head can be
partially recovered as pressure.  It will usually not be totally recovered because the situation is similar to the sudden enlargement
situation. In my opinion this is the only situation where we can truly speak of an exit loss, but every writer on fluid mechanics uses
the convention of the exit loss representing the acceleration loss and there is no way to change that now.

Luckily it is very rare for the exit loss to be significant in normal process piping calculations and any errors that we have made over
the years are masked by all the other uncertainties and inaccuracies in the overall piping calculation.

On a related note, there is often also confusion over what losses the K value takes into account when a fluid flows through a
reducer or diffuser in a pipeline. In line with the convention used above (where all the acceleration is accounted for at the exit) the K
value for a reducer ignores the velocity head component and only considers the losses due to changes in flow path. In a situation
where a fluid flows through a reducer from a small diameter pipe to a much larger pipe pressure gauges installed on both ends of
the reducer could show that the static pressure has actually increased as the fluid flows into the larger pipe because the velocity
head recovery can be larger than the friction loss.

#5  PingPong
Posted 15 January 2014 - 02:00 PM
The frictional pressure drop at the entrance or the exit of a pipe is not related to Bernoulli.
 
When a fluid from a tank enters a pipe with a sharp edged entrance (K=0.5) there is a frictional pressure loss of 0.5 velocity
heads. On top of that there is a pressure drop of 1.0 velocity heads due to acceleration (Bernouili), so the total pressure drop over
the entrance will be 0.5 + 1.0 = 1.5 velocity heads. If the entrance is not sharp but well rounded (K=0.04) then the total pressure
drop (friction + acceleration) will be 0.04 + 1.0 = 1.04 velocity heads.
 
When a fluid from a tank exits a pipe (K=1.0) into a wider fluid filled pipe or tank there is a frictional pressure loss of 1.0 velocity
heads. On top of that there is a pressure gain of 1.0 velocity heads due to deceleration (Bernouili), so the total pressure drop at
the exit will be 1.0 - 1.0 = 0.0 velocity heads.
 
So in most situations there will not be a pressure drop at the exit of the pipe because most of the time the frictional pressure loss is
compensated by the pressure gain due to decelleration. Make a sketch when in doubt and it should be clear whether that is the
case in a given situation.
 
Obviously it should be known to everybody that Darcy-Weisbach should always be used together with Bernoulli when determining
thetotal pressure drop over a system from origin to destination.

Edited by PingPong, 15 January 2014 - 02:49 PM.

#6  katmar
Posted 15 January 2014 - 03:04 PM
PingPong and I obviously disagree on the definition of the exit loss. I cannot see how there is a velocity head pressure recovery
from deceleration when a pipe discharges freely to the atmosphere. Have a look at Crane's example 4-6 (in my metric 1988 version
- I think it should be the same in most others). There is no mention of acceleration from the stagnant fluid from the tank into the
pipe - because it is covered by the "exit loss".

This aspect is generally not well covered in the standard fluids texts - or at least not in the ones I have.  Quoting from 2 of those on
my shelf:

IE Idelchik, "Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance", 3rd Ed, Pg 628 : In the case of free discharge of the flow from a straight section of
a tube of constant cross section into a large volume, the total losses are reduced only to the losses of the velocity pressure at the
exit.

RK Bansal, "Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machines", 9th Ed, Pg 477 Loss of Head at the Exit of Pipe: This is the loss of head (or
energy) due to the velocity of liquid at outlet of the pipe which is dissipated either in the form of a free jet (if the outlet of the pipe is
free) or it is lost in the tank or reservoir (if the outlet of the pipe is connected to the tank or reservoir).
 
I still believe my earlier post gives the correct definition.

#7  PingPong
Posted 16 January 2014 - 09:57 AM
Quote
I cannot see how there is a velocity head pressure recovery from deceleration when a pipe discharges freely to the atmosphere.
I never said there is in that situation. When a fluid discharges freely into the atmosphere there is no frictional exit loss (so K is not 1
but 0) but there is no gain due to deceleration either.
 
In post #5 I was referring to the situation that: when a fluid from a tank exits a pipe (K=1.0) into a wider  fluid filled pipe or tank
there is a frictional pressure loss of 1.0 velocity heads.
In that case there is a considerable frictional pressure loss and there is also a pressure gain due to deceleration (Bernoulli).
 
 
Quote
PingPong and I obviously disagree on the definition of the exit loss.
I am not sure whether we disagree on definition.
 
Post #1 in this topic is about the K-value of a pipe exit, not about Bernoulli.
The K-value of an exit, or any pipe fitting (bend, Tee, whatever) refers to frictional loss only, irrespective of any possible Bernoulli
related loss or gain.
 
For a widening (enlargement) of a pipe the K-value depends on the value of the enclosed angle θ.
As θ increases so increases K due to flow separation and eddy formation.
A very gradual widening with (say) θ = 20o will have a K = 0.45 while a sudden enlargement (θ = 180o) is everywhere reported to
have K = 1.
There is a formula for that in Crane, and a formula plus graph in Ludwig (see attached figure).
This means that as long as θ is small enough the value of K is less than 1 and the pressure gain due to deceleration (Bernoulli) will
exceed the pressure loss due to friction.
 
According to that Ludwig figure 2-16 the maximum value of K occurs around θ = 60o and could be as high as 1.2 and gradually
drops to around K = 1 at θ = 180o.
I would assume that that graph is based on actual measurements.
 
It seems to me that it is to simple to state that the generally used K=1 for a sudden enlargement is due to loss of velocity, as you
seem to do in post #4, as that would not explain why K > 1 for θ = 60o.
Note also that for a 90o mitre bend, or a Tee Branch, K is also greater than 1 for sizes smaller than 4" (see Crane) although there is
no velocity loss there.
 
Frictional pressure loss at a pipe exit (sudden enlargement), or a (mitre) bend, or a Tee Branch, or a pipe entrance, is caused
byturbulence, irrespective whether the fluid velocity stays the same, or increases, or decreases. I therefor suspect that a sudden
enlargement (θ = 180o) just happens to create so much turbulence that K is ~1, just as that happens to be the case for a 4"
90o mitre bend.
Attached Files
   Figure 2-16 from Ludwig Vol 1.jpg   179.74KB   4 downloads

Edited by PingPong, 16 January 2014 - 10:01 AM.

#8  latexman
Posted 16 January 2014 - 11:46 AM
I believe post #1 came about for the simple reason that Mr. Darby did mix frictional loss and kinetic energy changes (Bernoulli)
together without being perfectly clear verbally/written.  I do appreciate PingPong's discipline to keep the two separate, and,
therefore more simple.  I'm still struggling to understand this confined/unconfinded concept that Mr. Darby did not fully define to my
satisfaction, so I am following this post with ineterest.
#9  katmar
Posted 16 January 2014 - 03:07 PM   BEST ANSWER
PingPong, I agree with latexman that the way you have described the relationships between the friction losses and the changes in
kinetic energy is accurate in terms of what is actually physically happening in the pipe - and you have certainly explained it more
clearly than Prof Darby did. Thank you for bringing about this clarification.  But the way you have described it is not the way
engineers conventionally employ the exit loss in their calculations.

You (and Prof Darby) have stated that for a fluid issuing into an unconfined space the exit loss is zero. Apart from the two of you I
know of no other reference that states this.  Everybody from Crane to Hooper gives a blanket statement that the exit loss K value is
1.  Your procedure requires a rigorous application of Bernoulli to every change in pipe diameter along the length of the pipeline and
then a careful consideration of the exit situation. What everybody does is to combine all of this into the K = 1 exit loss and be done
with it.  The net result of the two procedures is the same answer. That was why I said right at the beginning that the conventional
procedure is sloppy and disregards the actual phenomena occurring.

Your statement that K values refer to frictional losses only describes how things should be, but in conventional usage the exit loss
of K = 1 does describe the Bernoulli equivalence between static and velocity head - like I said, sloppy terminology.

If we add the PingPong clarifications into the quoted section from Darby's book included in Post #1 we would get something like
(my additions in bold)

A note is in order relative to the exit loss coefficient, which is listed in Table 7-5 as equal to 1.0. Actually, if the fluid exits the pipe
into unconfined space, the loss coefficient is zero, because the velocity of a fluid exiting the pipe (in a free jet) is the same as that of
the fluid inside the pipe (and the kinetic energy change is also zero giving no recovery or conversion of kinetic head to
pressure). However, when the fluid exits into a confined space the kinetic energy is dissipated as friction in the mixing process as
the velocity goes to zero(and the kinetic energy is converted to pressure), so the loss coefficient is 1.0. In this case the change
in the kinetic energy and the friction loss at the exit cancel out.

Edited by katmar, 16 January 2014 - 03:13 PM.

#10  PingPong
Posted 17 January 2014 - 09:44 AM
Being a process design engineer for the past 30 years I have had to do or supervise many hydraulic calculations to determine
required pipe diameters, pump heads and control valve pressure drops. Believe it or not, but most of those calculations were done
by me or my coworkers without us knowing the length of the pipe or the number of bends in it. However our piping department will
not start work on the piping layout until they have the line sizes. Catch 22.
By the time they are done it is very difficult to change any pipe diameter. So we have to make sure that we, process engineers,
design conservative by (hopefully) overestimating pipe length and number of bends. You will understand that I therefore do not
really care what the exact K value of any fitting, bend, tee or exit is. I have to make sure it will work later on, and so I will always
use a K=1 for an exit loss, whether I feel it is applicable in a particular case or not. Better safe than sorry, and moreover I do not
want to have this kind of discussions with my young coworkers if I would instruct them otherwise and they would come up with a
design manual or textbook that says ..........
 
Bernoulli should not be applied for each change in pipe size, but only for the difference in kinetic energy, pressure and height
betweenorigin and destination.
 
The discussion in this topic is rather academic, but so was the question of the topic starter. In actual practice it will make no real
difference as the exit loss will usually be small in the whole picture anyway.