EXPERIMENT REPORT NO.

11 | DETERMINATION OF LOSSES IN PIPE BENDS

AND FITTINGS

I. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE

In this experiment we used the Hydraulic bench, F1-22 Energy Losses in Bends
and Fitting apparatus, stopwatch, clamps for pressure taping connection tubes and hydrometer.
The experiment started after the supply hose was connected to the apparatus. The connections
were then observed and the hose was secured to avoid leakage. The hydraulic bench was then
turned on to allow water to flow to the apparatus. After this the readings and discharge were
recorded. These steps were repeated for two more trials.
On the other hand, the following steps are done on the second exercise. First the supply
hose was connected to the apparatus and was checked to avoid leakage. The valve was then
partially opened around 50 % to allow the water to flow in. This is for the three discharges and
for three different trials. The reading on the gauge, the differential gauge that measures the
pressure on the inlet and outlet of the valve, pressure and discharge were recorded. Prior Steps
were followed except for the 50 % opening which was changed to 75 % for the next three trials
with three different discharges. The data were recorded and analyzed below.

II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

FIRST EXERCISE:

Dynamic
Cross- Volume Time to
Trial Flow Rate Velocity Head
Pipe Fitting Sectional Collected collect
No. (m3/s) (m/s) (m)
Area (m2) (mL) (sec)
v2/2g

1 4.43 0.0002709 0.6527 0.0217

Long Bend 4.1510-4 2 1200 3.34 0.0003593 0.8657 0.0382
3 3.16 0.0003797 0.9151 0.0427
Area 1 4.43 0.0002709 0.6527 0.0217
Enlargement 2 3.34 0.0003593 0.8657 0.0382
4.1510-4 1200
(Upstream
Section) 3 3.16 0.0003797 0.9151 0.0427
Area 1 4.43 0.0002709 0.3949 0.0079
Enlargement 2 3.34 0.0003593 0.5237 0.0140
6.8610-4 1200
(Downstream
Section) 3 3.16 0.0003797 0.5536 0.0156

1
 Area Reduction 1 4.43 0.0002709 0.3949 0.0079
(Upstream 6.8610-4 2 1200 3.34 0.0003593 0.5237 0.0140
Section) 3 3.16 0.0003797 0.5536 0.0156
Area Reduction 1 4.43 0.0002709 0.6527 0.0217
(Downstream 4.1510-4 2 1200 3.34 0.0003593 0.8657 0.0382
Section) 3 3.16 0.0003797 0.9151 0.0427
1 4.43 0.0002709 0.6527 0.0217
Short Bend 4.1510-4 2 1200 3.34 0.0003593 0.8657 0.0382
3 3.16 0.0003797 0.9151 0.0427
1 4.43 0.0002709 0.6527 0.0217
Elbow Bend 4.1510-4 1200
2 3.34 0.0003593 0.8657 0.0382
3 3.16 0.0003797 0.9151 0.0427
1 4.43 0.0002709 0.6527 0.0217
Mitre Bend 4.1510-4 2 1200 3.34 0.0003593 0.8657 0.0382
3 3.16 0.0003797 0.9151 0.0427
Table 1. 1 Results of Exercise from different Pipe Fittings in three trials for each pipe.

Sample Computations: [For trial 1 in Long bend]

Flow Rate
Volume
Q=
Time
1200∗10−6 m 3
Q=
4.43 secs
m3
Q=0.0002709
sec
Velocity
Flow Rate
V=
Area
m3
0.0002709
sec
V=
0.000415 m2
m
V =0.6527
sec

Dynamic Head
2
v 2 (0.6527) v 2
= = =0.0217 m
2g 2∗9.81 2 g

2
 0.1

0.08

0.06
Head Loss (m)

0.04

0.02

0
0.0200 0.0250 0.0300 0.0350 0.0400 0.0450
-0.02

-0.04
Dynamic Head (m)

Long Bend Area Enlargement Linear (Area Enlargement)

Area Reduction Linear (Area Reduction) Short Bend
Linear (Short Bend) Elbow Bend Linear (Elbow Bend)
Mitre Bend Linear (Mitre Bend)
Graph 1. Head loss vs Dynamic Head

Manometer Reading

Trial Head Loss, Coefficient,

Pipe Fitting Time Before
No. After hL (m) K
Fitting
Fitting (cm)
(cm)

1 4.43 30.9 30.1 0.008 0.368

Long Bend 2 3.34 36.4 35.2 0.012 0.314
3 3.16 34 32.6 0.014 0.328
1 4.43 27.6 29.2 -0.016 -0.737
Area
2 3.34 31.5 33.8 -0.023 -0.602
Enlargement
3 3.16 29.5 31.7 -0.022 -0.516
1 4.43 22.7 16.4 0.063 2.901
Area Reduction 2 3.34 24.2 16.8 0.074 1.937
3 3.16 24.5 17 0.075 1.757
1 4.43 20 17.5 0.025 1.151
Short Bend 2 3.34 21 18.2 0.028 0.733
3 3.16 19.5 16.3 0.032 0.750
1 4.43 18 11.3 0.067 3.085
Elbow Bend 2 3.34 17.8 9.2 0.086 2.251
3 3.16 16.5 7.2 0.093 2.179
Mitre Bend 1 4.43 9.1 8.6 0.005 0.230

3
 2 3.34 6.7 5.9 0.008 0.209
3 3.16 5.8 4.6 0.012 0.281
Table 2: Accumulated Data for Pipe Fitting

Sample Computations: [For Trial 1 in Long Bend]

Head Loss
h L =Manometer Readingbefore fitting−Manometer Reading after fitting
cm∗1 m
h L =( 30.9−30.1 )
100 cm
h L =0.008 m

Coefficient K
h
K= L2
v
2g
0.008 m
K=
0.0217 m
K=0.368
3.500
3.000
2.500
2.000
Coefficient K

1.500
1.000
0.500
0.000
0.0002600 0.0002800 0.0003000 0.0003200 0.0003400 0.0003600 0.0003800 0.0004000
-0.500
-1.000
Flow Rate Q

Long Bend Linear (Long Bend) Area Enlargement

Linear (Area Enlargement) Area Reduction Linear (Area Reduction)
Short Bend Linear (Short Bend) Elbow Bend
Linear (Elbow Bend) Mitre Bend Linear (Mitre Bend)

4
 Graph 2. Coefficient K vs Flow rate Q

SECOND EXERCISE:

Volume Flow Pressure Diameter Dynamic Loss

Valve Trial Time Velocit Head
Collecte Rate Reading of Pipe Head Coefficient,
Opening No. (sec) y (m/s) Loss, hL
d (mL) (m3/s) (psi) (cm) (m) K

1 1200 5.6 0.000214 26 0.5203 0.01380 18.27832 1324.858

50% 2 1200 11.8 0.000102 42 2.29 0.2469 0.00311 29.52652 9502.396
3 900 2.9 0.00031 13 0.7535 0.02894 9.139161 315.8178
1 1100 4.4 0.00025 22 0.6070 0.01878 15.46627 823.6164
75% 2 900 2.8 0.000321 14 2.29 0.7804 0.03104 9.842174 317.06
3 750 3.7 0.000203 30 0.4922 0.01235 21.09037 1708.38
Table 3. Accumulated Result in Exercise 2

Sample Computations: [For trial 1 at 50% valve opening]

Flow Rate
Volume
Q=
Time
1200∗10−6 m 3
Q=
5.6 secs
m3
Q=0.000214
sec

Velocity
Flow Rate
V=
Area

5
 m3
0.000214
sec
V=
π
¿¿
4
m
V =0.5203
sec

Dynamic Head
2
v 2 ( 0.5203)
=
2g 2∗9.81
v2
=0.01380m
2g

Head loss
Pressure Reading
h L=
γ
h L =26 psi ¿ ¿
h L =18.27832m

Coefficient K
h
K= L2
v
2g
18.27832 m
K=
0.01380 m
K=1324.858

35

30

25
Head Loss (m)

20

15

10

0
0.00000 0.00500 0.01000 0.01500 0.02000 0.02500 0.03000 0.03500
Dynamic Head (m)

50% Linear (50%) 75% Linear (75%)

6
 Graph 3. Dynamic head vs Head loss.

10000
9000
8000
7000
Coefficient K

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Flow Rate Q

50% Linear (50%) 75% Linear (75%)

Graph 4. Coefficient K vs the flow rate Q

Discussion:

In this experiment different types of pipe fitting and opening of valve is under
investigation. Piping systems are very complex especially on the case of different pipe fittings.
On Graph 1 above between the head loss and dynamic head, it showed that in each pipe fitting a
different qualities of head loss are available. At second Trial, the estimation of head loss is lower
than the second and third trial under Pipe fitting. It can also be observed that there is a direct

7
straight relationship among Long Bend, Short Bend, Elbow Bend, Area Reduction and Mitre
Bend. While the Area Enlargement its pattern line has a reverse straight relationship. As the
dynamic head builds, the head loss decreases. On the other hand, the coefficient (K) was
determined due to the complexity of piping system it is empirically needed as means to
calculated minor head losses.
The Graph 2: Coefficient (K) vs flow rate Q shows that in each pipe fitting there are
different estimations of coefficient (K) available. For Area Enlargement, Mitre Bend shows a
linear relationship. This means as dynamic head expands the head loss also expands. While for
the Long Bend, Area Reduction and Mitre Bend has an inverse linear relationship. Lastly, for the
second exercise the results recorded in the table was better represented in Graph 3: Dynamic
Head vs Head Losses and Graph 4: Coefficient K vs the flow rate Q where a linear relationship
was observed.

III. CONCLUSION

Piping System are very complex especially when dealing with different pipe fittings and
valve openings. Therefore it is important to understand the value of determining the coefficient
K. The accuracy of value of k for fittings and valve in Pipe system is important to determine the
actual head loss around the pipe system. In knowing K value it will enable us to design an
efficient and safe Pipe system.
It can also be observed that the result of constant coefficient K for a given fitting, the loss
coefficient can also be treated as constant because the changes that will be made in it affects
other parameters. From the data obtained we can also calculate for the total head loss due to
fittings by multiplying the sum of the K values by the velocity head. Knowing these values
engineers are enable to design and choose a proper pipes in the system and that is why this
experiment is essential to learn.
It cannot be disregarded that in every experiment, errors can occur. In order to obtain less
value of percent error it is right to observe the proper handling of devices, to be attentive in
recording the readings and to check for the apparatus or machine’s efficiency.

IV. REFERENCE
 Crowe, C., Elger, D., Williams, B. & Roberson, J. (2009). Fluid Mechanics (9th
ed., pp. 32-52). United States of America: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

 Russel, D. (2014).Calculating Piping Losses and Their Effect on Pumping.

Retrieved from https://modernpumpingtoday.com/calculating-piping-losses-
effect-pumping/