TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CE411
HYDRAULICS ENGINEERING
CE42FB1
SUBMITTED BY:
Bug-os, Lester John
Canlas, Franz Jeffrey
Lopez, Juan Miguel
Narcise, Florimar
Santos Keith Emil
SUBMITTED TO:
Engr. Billy Rejuso
DATE SUBMITTED:
March 8, 2016

Object

The object of the experiment was to examine the pressure losses in turbulent pipe
flow due to frictional forces present at the boundaries of the pipes flow area.

Introduction
For turbulent pipe flow, there is no convenient derivation of a velocity
distribution that can be used to describe the pressure losses that occur over a given length
of conduit. The observable pressure drops that occur in turbulent pipe flow are due to
frictional forces due to pipe roughness (see Figure 1), the fluids viscosity, velocity and
the area of the flow. Employing experimental data and dimensional analysis, a friction
factor, f, can be determined. A fluid flows frictional factor is useful in understanding
how the flow behaves and can be used as a tool to aid in the design of hydraulic systems.

Figure 1: Diagram of turbulent velocity distribution and protuberances of a pipe wall

that contribute to the frictional forces experienced by the pipe flow.
In order to generate a dimensionless group to describe the frictional losses
experienced by a pipe flow, the Bernoulli energy equation is used generate an expression
that describes the pressure losses due to friction.
2

P1/ + V1 /2 + gz1 - Ws + q = P2/ + V2 /2 + gz2 + ghL (Equation 1)

where is the density of the fluid, P1 is the pressure of the fluid upstream, V1 is the
upstream velocity of the flow z1 is the upstream height, Ws is shaft work done by the
flow, q is heat addition to the flow, P2 is the downstream pressure, V2 is the downstream
velocity, z2 is the downstream height of the flow and ghL is the head loss.
Assume the pipe flow is fully developed, therefore the velocity at states one and
two are equal and can be neglected. It will also be assumed that the heights of state one
and two are equal and negligible, that there is no shaft work being done by the flow
and that there is no heat addition to the flow. Therefore, Equation 1 can be simplified to
produce the following equation:
P1 - P2/ = ghL

(Equation 2)

The head loss component of Equations 1 and 2 can also be represented as a pressure drop
h. Multiplying both sides of the equation by the fluids density, , yields the hydrostatic
equation (Equation 3).
P = gh (Equation 3)
Another equation used to represent pressure losses in pipe flow is the
Darcy-Weisbach equation. The equation is written as follows:
2

P = f (L/D)(V /2)

(Equation 4)

where P is the pressure difference over a segment of conduit, f is the friction factor of
the flow, L is the length over which the pressure drop is measured, D is the diameter of
the conduit, is the fluids density and V is the average velocity of the flow. Setting the
hydrostatic equation equal to the Darcy-Weisbach equation yields the following
expression:
2
gh = f (L/D)(V /2) (Equation 5)
Rearranging Equation 5 to solve for the dimensionless friction factor of the flow
yields the following equation:
2
f = [2gh] / [V (L/D)] (Equation 6)
It is common to generate a log-log graph of the friction factor plotted against the
Reynolds number for a series of volume flow rates. This diagram is known as the Moody
diagram (Figure 2) and is useful to determine the characteristics of pipe flow. To
calculate the Reynolds number, employ the following equation:
Re = (VD)/

(Equation 7)

where V is the average velocity of the pipe flow, D is the diameter of the conduit and is
the kinematic viscosity of the fluid.

Figure 2: Diagram of friction factors for pipe flow, also known as the Moody diagram.
(Source: The Moody Diagram, Glenn Brown, Oklahoma State University, 2000)

Procedure
Equipment
Pipe Flow Test Rig
Experiment
1) Ensure that the sump tank is full and engage the pump(s) specific to
the pipe(s) that will be used for the experiment.
2) Open and close the appropriate valves on the apparatus (left and right side of
Figure 3) to obtain the desired flow path.
3) Use the valve closest to the pump(s) on the downstream side of the
apparatus to obtain a desired flow rate.
4) With the pump still running, record the pressure drop that occurs from the
manometer board and record the indicated flow rate from the flow meter.
5) Using the valve closest to the pump(s), increase the flow rate and again record
the pressure drops from the manometer board and the indicated flow rate from
the flow meter.
6) Repeat Step 5 until 9 separate pressure drops and flow rates have been
recorded.

Figure 3: Diagram of the pipe flow test rig, indicating the pump, flow meter and valve
locations.

Results
Table 1: Experimental data with lengths converted to feet, calculated friction factor and
calculated Reynolds number for each flow rate.
friction
Q (ft^3/s)
h (ft)
V (ft/s)
Re
factor

Reynolds Number (Re)

10000

100000

1000000

Friction Factor (f)

0.10000

0.01000

Figure 4: Moody diagram of friction factor, f, and Reynolds number, Re, calculated
from experimental data obtained from pipe flow test rig.

Discussion & Conclusion

A comparison of the Moody diagram generated from the experimental data
(Figure 4) to the diagram shown in Figure 2 indicates that the data gathered in this
experiment is flawed. The curve in Figure 4 shows a momentary increase in the frictional
factor as the Reynolds number increases. The curve should be a decreasing exponential
function as seen in the Moody diagram of Figure 2.
A possible cause of the discrepancy between the generated Moody diagram and
Figure 4 would be a sudden expansion of the fluid in the testing apparatus. It was noted
during the experiment that the line that returns fluid back to the sump tank was
exhibiting vibration. This vibration was likely due to an interference with the flow,
thereby interrupting the fully developed flow. The assumptions used to derive the
dimensionless friction factor of Equation 6 rely on the flow being fully developed,
turbulent and steady. A sudden expansion in the line would cause the flow to be unsteady
and would skew the data.
Other sources of error were present in this experiment. One source of error was
due to the measurement of the head loss, h, from the manometer board. Due to unsteady
flow in the testing apparatus, the air over water manometer did not give a steady reading.
In order to compensate for this discrepancy, the lowest value the fluctuating fluid took
was the recorded value. Another source of error was due to the flow meter of the testing
apparatus. The indicated flow rates would fluctuate over a range of five to ten GPM,
preventing an accurate reading of the flow rate and therefore further skewing the data.