Major and Minor Losses Across Various Fitting Types

Jake Mattix – Team 5

BSEN 3310
October 29 2019

Abstract
In the design and construction of any piping system, major and minor pressure losses
associated with friction and interruptions in smooth flow are vital pieces of information required
to ensure efficiency of the system. This experiment examined the effect of pipe diameter on
frictional forces on major loss and fitting types on minor losses. A copper Technovate fluid
circuit system was used to measure the pressure drop across an orifice of two pipes with
different diameters, and an Edibon Energy Losses in Bends module was used to measure the
head loss in six piping systems with different fittings. The friction factor was calculated from the
pressure differential at each flow velocity in the first system (major loss), and the loss coefficient
for each fitting was calculated from the head loss in the second system (minor losses). It was
determined that frictional forces begin to decrease with a smaller pipe diameter and high
velocity, and that a tighter angle or smaller diameter associated with a fitting results in
increased resistance and more head loss.
Introduction
Major and minor losses in hydraulic systems consist of the head or pressure losses
associated with friction and interruptions in flow from components such as valves, bends,
elbows, inlets, tees, expansions, or contractions in a duct or pipe system. Major losses
specifically refer to the head loss due to friction in the straight sections of the system, and minor
losses deal with any component that interrupts the smooth flow of the fluid and cause additional
losses because of the flow separation and mixing they induce (Cengel & Cimbala, 2014). A
typical piping system will involve pipes of differing diameters connected by various components
leading towards a system of valves and pumps to control and pressurize the fluid. Knowing the
losses associated with all of the components throughout the system is vital in ensuring efficiency
in the system. These losses can be influenced by factors such as diameter and length of pipe,
types of fittings used, material of the pipe, and other environmental conditions.
Currently, the design process of pipe networks can be a tedious and time-consuming
practice. The finite element (FE) approach is commonly used for hydraulic analysis which
involves treating each system component as separate elements with separate equations (Gerrish
et. al, 1996). Minor losses are expressed in terms of the loss, or resistance, coefficient (KL), and
typically require experimental determination since theoretical analysis typically yields uncertain
results when dealing with complex systems because the loss coefficients can vary with pipe
diameter, surface roughness, Reynolds number, and specifics of the design (Moody, 1944).

Objective
The objective of this lab was to measure the effect of pipe diameter on friction factor
regarding major loss and the effect of fitting type regarding minor losses.

Methods and Materials

Major Losses
A copper Technovate fluid circuit system was used to obtain six pressure readings for
pipes 2 and 4 across an orifice, with each reading growing closer to a pressure difference equal to
zero. Flow rate was calculated from equation 1 with given constant Cd=0.656. Beta was
calculated from equation 2 with dorifice=0.01588 m Dorifice=0.01905 m for pipe 2 and
Dorifice=0.00953 m for pipe 4. The head loss was calculated from difference in pressure readings
across the orifice, and used in equation 3 to determine the experimental Darcy friction factor (f)
with given constants L=5 ft and g=9.81 m/s2. In order to calculate the theoretical friction factor
values, the Colebrook equation (4) for turbulent flow was used with 𝜀=0.0000015 m as the given
roughness factor for a pipe made of copper. Note that all units were converted to SI standard
before calculation.
2∆𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒
𝑄 = 𝐴0 𝐶𝑑 √ (1)
𝜌(1−𝛽 4 )

𝑑
𝛽 = 𝐷𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒 (2)
𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑒

𝐿 𝑉2
ℎ𝐿 = 𝑓 𝐷 2𝑔 (3)

1 𝜀/𝐷 2.51
= −2.0 log ( 3.7 + ) (4)
√𝑓 𝑅𝑒√𝑓

Minor Losses
An Edibon Energy Losses in Bends module was used with varying components
including: a long, medium, and short elbow, sudden expansion and contraction, and a right angle
(mitre) fitting. The control valve was used to measure flow rate, and six manometer readings
were recorded for each change in flow rate until the pressure drop was approximately zero. The
flow rate was measured over 2 minute intervals. The minor head loss for each flow rate across
each fitting was obtained from the pressure drops seen in each manometer, and then plotted
versus the square of the velocities. The experimental loss coefficient was obtained from the slope
of the graphs, and the theoretical loss coefficient (K) was then calculated using equation 5.
𝑉2
ℎ𝐿 = 𝐾 2𝑔 (5)

Results and Discussion

Major Losses
Figures 1 and 2 show the obtained experimental and theoretical friction factor values for
Pipes 2 and 4 plotted versus the square of the velocities. The experimental and theoretical values
for pipe 2 are reasonably close aside from an outlier at a lower velocity of V2=0.1350 m2/s2,
which could be attributed to increased environmental effects at lower velocities that are
unaccounted for in the theoretical analysis. The experimental friction factors for pipe 4 were
consistently lower than the theoretical values. The friction factors for pipe 4 were also
consistently lower than the friction factors for pipe 2, displaying that an increase in velocity in a
smaller diameter pipe yields lower friction factors that steadily decrease as the velocity of the
fluid increases.
0.07
0.06
Friction factor (f)

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
V2 (m2/s2)

Experimental f Theoertical f

*Figure 1 – Pipe 2 Experimental and Theoretical Friction Factor versus V2

0.04
0.035
0.03
Friction factor (f)

0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
V2 (m2/s2)

Experimental f Theoretical f

*Figure 2 – Pipe 4 Experimental and Theoretical Friction Factor versus V2

Minor Losses
Figure 3 shows the head loss obtained from each respective fitting plotted versus the
square of the velocities. Disregarding the diaphragm, the 90 degree bend had the highest head
loss and the sudden enlargement had the lowest head loss. The order of increase shown in the
graph is as expected, since a tighter angle or smaller diameter of a fitting creates more resistance
resulting in an increased head loss.
 0.12
y = 0.1627x (diaphragm)

0.1
y = 0.0513x (mitre)
y = 0.0317x (narrowing)
0.08
y = 0.0296x (short bend)
Head loss (m)

y = 0.0148x (long bend)

0.06
y = 0.0109x (elbow)
y = 0.0099x (widening)
0.04

0.02

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
elbow widening V2 (m2/s2) long bend short bend
narrowing mitre diaphragm Linear (elbow)
Linear (widening) Linear (long bend) Linear (short bend) Linear (narrowing)
Linear (narrowing) Linear (mitre) Linear (diaphragm)
*Figure 3 – Head loss (hL) versus V2 for various fittings

The slope of each given trendline in Figure 3 was multiplied by 2g (g=9.81 m/s2) to
provide the experimental loss coefficients, which are compared to the theoretical values below in
Table 1.

Pipe Experimental K Theoretical K Percent Error

Long Bend 0.33124 0.25 32.496
Elbow 0.21364 0.5906 63.826617
Short Bend 0.58016 0.4 45.04
Widening 0.19404 0.5 61.192
Narrowing 0.62132 0.74 16.03783784
Mitre (90 degree) 1.00548 1.1 8.592727273
Diaphragm 3.18892 2.3 38.64869565
*Table 1 – Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Loss Coefficients between Fittings

The K values shown in Table 1 further confirm the trend shown in Figure 3. As the angle
or diameter of the fitting decreases, resistance increases and results in more head loss. The
relatively high percent error in some of the readings can possibly be attributed to human error
from rushing through the lab, or for a failure to take into account different factors that can affect
resistance in the piping that come with age and specifics of the equipment used.

Conclusion
Major losses across an orifice for two sections of pipe with different diameters were
calculated using the flow rate through a copper Technovate fluid circuit system to measure the
effect of pipe diameter on friction factor. It was determined that frictional forces begin to
decrease with a smaller diameter and high velocity. Minor losses across various fittings were
calculated from the pressure drops measured by an Edibon Energy Losses in Bends Module to
measure the effect of fitting type on losses. It was determined that the 90 degree bend (K=1.005)
yields the highest resistance, and the sudden enlargement (K=0.194) yields the least resistance
due to the fact that as the angle or diameter of the fitting decreases, resistance increases and
results in more head loss.

References

Çengel, Y. A. (2010). Fluid Mechanics. New York, NY: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.

P. J. Gerrish, W. H. Shayya, & V. F. Bralts. (1996). An Improved Method for Incorporating

Pipe Components into the Analysis of Hydraulic Networks. Transactions of the
ASAE, 39(4), 1337-1343. doi:10.13031/2013.27625

Moody, L. F. (1944). Friction Factors for Pipe Flow. Transactions of the ASME, 66(8), 671–684.