Brian Sit Project Manager of Group 2

Lab Status Report - Friction Factor

2013-09-16

Experiment Description
This experiment is set up to find the friction factor by measuring the head loss through various pipes and measuring the flow rate using a Venturi Meter. The setup of the experiment consisted of 5 pipes of various diameters, one of which had a venture tube and the other four had three pressure taps located equidistant from each other. The measurements were made using the first and last pressure tap on each tube which were 5 feet apart. Measurements for pressure difference for the length of the pipers were made using a manual UTube manometer board while the Venturi tube measurements were made using a Sper digital manometer. Multiple trials occurred with different flow rates which were controlled by the use of two semi serial gate valves.

Sample Data
Two pieces of data were collected for each the Venturi tube and the head loss through the pipes. Density of Water .01639 kg/in^3 Length of Pipe 60in
Trial Pipe Diameter Venturi Tube (inWC) Pipe Head loss (in WC)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.545 0.545 0.545 0.545 0.545 0.545 0.545

20.1 19.8 19 20 18.5 18.5 17.4 16.9 17.1 10.7 10.8 10.7 10.7 12.5 12.5 11.7 10.5 14.8 14.7 14.7 14 14.4 16.2 16.5

8 6 2 5 4.75 4.75 4.88 4.75 4.5 13.38 13.5 13.38 13.38 13 12.75 12.12 11.5 54.5 53.5 53.5 53.88 54 53.25 51

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Brian Sit Project Manager of Group 2

Lab Status Report - Friction Factor

2013-09-16

Theoretical Calculations
Venturi Effect ( Volumetric Flow Rate ( ( ) ) ) ( )( )

Final Equation for Friction Factor: (( ) )

( )

Head Loss from Friction in the Pipes:

Sample Calculations
Venturi Area Ratio Pipe Area Trial Diameter
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 1.025 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.785 0.545 0.545 0.545 0.545 0.545 0.545 0.545

( Area
0.825159 0.825159 0.825159 0.825159 0.825159 0.825159 0.825159 0.825159 0.825159 0.48398 0.48398 0.48398 0.48398 0.48398 0.48398 0.48398 0.48398 0.23328 0.23328 0.23328 0.23328 0.23328 0.23328 0.23328

) Line P (inWC)
8 6 2 5 4.75 4.75 4.88 4.75 4.5 13.38 13.5 13.38 13.38 13 12.75 12.12 11.5 54.5 53.5 53.5 53.88 54 53.25 51

Ven. P (inWC)

Vol. Flow Rate

11.57349613 11.48680206 11.25235286 11.54467044 11.10330849 11.10330849 10.76815173 10.61230918 10.67491922 11.12436873 8.444198444 8.48356555 8.444198444 8.444198444 9.126863359 9.126863359 8.82997498 8.36490844 8.658096378 9.931101025 9.897493142 9.897493142 9.658964279 9.795977708 10.3902034 10.48596767 10.00817148

Friction Factor
2.879457211 2.192314013 0.761540657 1.808659061 1.857541738 1.857541738 2.029024418 2.033403678 1.903851643 1.924814906 2.383515565 2.382624864 2.383515565 2.383515565 1.982343887 1.944221889 1.97452399 2.087633214 2.190236817 1.132177894 1.118964559 1.118964559 1.183257962 1.152951801 1.010612072 0.950311787 1.232184682

20.1 19.8 19 20 18.5 18.5 17.4 16.9 17.1 Average: 10.7 10.8 10.7 10.7 12.5 12.5 11.7 10.5 Average: 14.8 14.7 14.7 14 14.4 16.2 16.5 Average:

From these Numbers, the flow rate and friction factor can be plotted to find a correlation but currently, the friction factor and the flow rate correlations are within variance and dont seem to be affected by

Line 2

Line 3

Line 4

Brian Sit Project Manager of Group 2

Lab Status Report - Friction Factor

2013-09-16

the flow rate and seems to be constant. The head loss however does vary in regards to Flow rate by the stated equation and does show a positive correlation with the flow rate.

Operational Issues
Many issues occurred during the course of this experiment that severely restricted our ability perform the experiment including issues with the valves, connectors, and manometers. The first 2 lab periods, no data measurements were performed because the setup only had 4 connectors and not enough tubing. A few piping connectors were included when signing out equipment, but they were a variety that had metal cleated washers which are meant as a permanent use item and not one that easily detaches as reattaches yet, not enough connectors were included for each necessary valve. The lab technician did not have the valves either and Many of the valves leaked and Teflon tape helped but some leaks were very substantial and not easily fixable especially in the case of the Line 1 valve which is directly over the electric pump. The piping that was included and attached to the Venturi Tube line was not long enough to reach the manometer board so the data measurements were all made using the digital manometers. The digital manometers had very high variations in readings with fluctuations of 6 in WC or 40% being a common occurrence on some lines. When the digital manometer ran in differential mode which should compare the pressures in two different tubes, the value would creep after a period of time. This effect was verified on both the computer and by sight readings off the manometer screen. Also, the manometer would reset upon pressing the DIF button. The problem was not resolved but a clearer manual would have been very useful Instead, the head loss readings were made using the manometer board which provided much more stable measurements. While the manometer board seemed more reliable for measurements, it was very difficult to read. It was obvious that the tubes within the board were replaced but the translucent tubing married with the dirty walls of the board meant that identifying the water level was a test in patience and false starts.

Safety Issues
The first large issue was the filling of the tank. The first group prepares the experiment for the groups that follow and the instructions state to fill up the tank to at least 7 gallons. The tank max is 12 gallons but when the apparatus was operating, extra pressure made the water in the tank spill out. This event at the beginning of the experiment meant the floor would be flooded with water and had to be cleaned using a push broom since no squeegee was found. Cleaning up spills were a common occurrence since many valves and connections leaked. The only remedy beyond more Teflon tube on the valves was to clean up the water from the floor using the broom. The manometer board required a fully primed flow of water in order to show an accurate reading which meant that the bubbles had to be flushed out and the water in the board also had to be emptied which left water on the floor with more accumulating as the lines were switched. The antifatigue and spill mat allowed work to continue while the floor was wet and allowed cleanup to happen at the end of every period instead of during the experiment.

Brian Sit Project Manager of Group 2

Lab Status Report - Friction Factor

2013-09-16

The largest issue was the valve on line 1 which leaked a lot of water over the electric pump. At that time, the safety officer recommended a stop work order; the pump was unplugged and the valve was closed. With no remedy, the experiment ended.

Improvements
Relining the manometer board with clear tubing and cleaning the gunk out from the plastic walls would greatly improve visibility. Adding a line about not filling the tank above 11 gallons would also help reduce spills. The gate valves should be replaced with ball valves with the exception of the valve used to control flow which can remain with a globe or a gate valve. Replacing the pipe connectors with a non-cleated all plastic variety would also reduce the amount of damage that the metal and the plastic tubing will encounter. Also, a short lesson on plumbing should be included as part of the lab so students know how to use Teflon tape and how to make connections. If no training is provided, the connectors should not be included in the kit and the lab technician should have tubing and connectors already attached.