Confidence in Fluid System Design

Confidence in Fluid System Design
DON MILLER
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
DON MILLER
Contents
This eBook covers the historical

context which led to the creation
of Internal Flow Systems.
Encompassing both the motives
and the methods behind the book,
the series will inevitably raise
questions about the reliability of
many of the other available sources
of available data. I also hope to
make it clear that this isnt a
subject of academic interest alone;
the subject of loss coefficients and
system design will prove to be a
critical one as global pressure
mounts for energy consumption to
be reduced.
Don Miller
1. Due Diligence
2. 3D Loss Coefficient
4
6
3. Due Diligence not a Literature Review

4. Confidence in Internal Flow System
5. Origins of Internal Flow Systems
10
6. Importance of Static Pressure Measurements 11

7. Validation of BHRA Loss Coefficients
8. Cavitation
13
15
9. Compressible Flow
16
10. Transient Analysis and other Dynamic Events

11. The Origins of Flowmaster
17
20
12. Developments since the BHRA studies and the need for Standards
Postscript Validation of fluid system 3D CFD studies
22
26
page 2
w w w. m e nto r. co m /m e chani c al
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
1 Due Diligence
The approach to engineering due diligence
is based on the ethical requirement of the
common law in that all reasonable practical
precautions are in place based on the balance
of the significance of the risks versus the
effort required to take all reasonable practical
precautions.
This legalistic wording may seem irrelevant
to most stakeholders involved with fluid
systems but risk can be related to the level of
care/attention that one would reasonably be
expected to take to the generation and use of
loss coefficients. The level of care/attention
trail extends from lectures who educate future
engineers, supervise researchers and write
text books on fluid mechanics to government
departments who are now funding studies to
persuade industry to optimise fluid machines/
system performance in order to reduce
environment pollution from needless energy
use.
Virtually all validatable loss coefficient data
was generated by research teams who were
active for more than 5 years from 1935
onwards. Teams were able to build on prior
research work and acquire the skills to measure
component loss coefficients under defined
conditions. Much of the loss coefficient data
in text books and design guides was gathered
prior to the 1960s. Without the understanding
of the variables affecting loss coefficients or

with the experimental facilities and techniques
needed to generate validatable data. One
should bear in mind that many experimenters
could be considered to have exercised due
diligence at the time of their experiments but
that knowledge gained since the experiments
has shown that parameters important to
generating replicable loss coefficients were
not understood or controlled at the time of the
experiments.
Through this series I aim to motivate
stakeholders involved with fluid systems
to adopt and/or to promote validated loss
coefficients and calculation procedures in
simulating fluid systems. For many engineers
involved with the design of fluid systems
such an aim should, rightly, be viewed with
extreme scepticism. They may have tens of
years of experience in designing complex and
often specialised fluid systems in successful
operating plants. Why should they change
from the loss coefficient data they have been
using? Well its because the goal posts have
been moved. Plant owners have come to
understand that they can increase profits by
meeting their moral responsibilities to reduce
environmental pollution through minimum
power use, and that minimum power use
requires fluid machines to operate close to
their design point. What this means in practice
is designing fluid machine installations for
minimum lifetime costs.
DON MILLER
To meet plant owners requirements for

minimum life time costs engineers need to
practice due diligence in regards to the data
and calculation procedures they use. This
is different from past practices where the
fact that a fluid machine was oversized was
often considered a benefit as it guaranteed
a fluid system would never be the cause of
the output of a plant being restricted and an
oversize machine would allow for future plant
expansion. Now if an owner wants an oversized
machine it should be in the specification for
the plant.
IFS was written before the terms validated data
and due diligence gained the prominence
they have today. The experimental work that
underpins IFS was setup as a once and for
all approach to establishing loss coefficients
for common components in large fluid
systems. Some documented changes in loss
coefficients were made between the first
and second edition of IFS. The need to record
changes was brought home by comments
that loss coefficient data from the forerunner
publication (Internal Flow) was used in safety
cases and the presentation of the data had
been changed in IFS.
Since publication of the first edition of IFS users
have provided comments on the content of the
book along with details of typological errors.
One could say these users were practicing due
diligence to the benefit of other users.
page 3
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
2 3D Loss Coefficients
A one-dimensional (1D) approach is taken to
the simulation of fluid system performance.
A system is treated as nodes connected
together by pipes with the nodes representing
components. A component is either
dynamic, such as a pump, or non-dynamic,
such as a bend. Non-dynamic components
are represented by a loss coefficient which
depends on Reynolds number, and geometric
parameters.
Most components are treated as having zero
length. All the pressure loss associated with
a component is assumed to occur at a node,
even if part of the loss occurs many diameters
after a component. If simulation of component
length is important, such as in the study of
local fluid transients in a heat exchanger with
long tubes, a component can be represented
as a series of nodes joined by short pipes with
the component losses distributed across the
nodes.
A non-dimensional bend loss coefficient (K) is
defined as:
K=
DP = DH
1
1 2
tU2
U
2
2
Where (P) is the total pressure loss

H is the head loss
U is the bulk velocity
DON MILLER
The Reynolds number is given by:
A sufficiently long hydraulically smooth

outlet pipe or passage to re-establish a
developed friction gradient downstream of
a component
Re = UD/
Known Reynolds numbers
Where is the kinematic viscosity
Pressure loss over and above developed

pipe friction loss attributed to a component.
is the fluid density
D is the pipe diameter or the hydraulic

diameter given by:
D = 4 x cross sectional area/perimeter
This definition attributes to a component
all the pressure loss P caused by the
component. Although this loss coefficient
is used in 1D fluid system simulations it is in
effect a 3D coefficient as it accounts for the
effects of complex 3D flows within a piping
system.
In Internal Flow Systems (IFS), loss
coefficients are put into three classes. Class
1 loss coefficients are for components with
installation conditions that meet the following
requirements:
Flow passage geometries that are accurately
described, usually by two non-dimensional
geometric ratios and by one or two shape
descriptors.
Hydraulically smooth component internal
surfaces
To apply Class 1 coefficients to industrial fluid

systems correction factors are applied to the
loss coefficients to account for:
Geometric parameters including surface
roughness that differ from those of Class 1.
Installation parameters that affect inlet and
outlet conditions, such as inlet and outlet
pipe lengths, pipe surface roughness and
interaction effects with other components
caused by flow conditions generated by one
component affecting another component.
Reynolds number corrections if loss
coefficients are provided at a fixed Reynolds
number.
Applying corrections to Class I coefficients
puts them into Class 2.
Class 3 coefficients in IFS were considered
to be the best available loss coefficients but
over which there are uncertainties of their
reliability.
A sufficiently long hydraulically smooth inlet

pipe to provide a developed friction
gradient prior to a component
page 4
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
The method of calculating fluid system

performance in IFS is the most scientifically
based method devised. It provides a simple
to understand and coherent approach for
the application of loss coefficients in the
simulation of fluid system performance. Loss
coefficients are provided for basic component
flow geometries installed in defined piping
arrangements. Correction factors are
applied to these loss coefficients to account
for departures in component geometric
flow paths and from the defined piping
arrangements. This approach requires that
loss coefficient researchers think deeply about
arriving at correction factors rather than just
publishing more loss coefficients that are
unlikely to be accessed.
The most troublesome parameter in
determining fluid system pressure losses
is flow surface roughness. There are no
satisfactory methods of measuring pipe
wall roughness, as will be discussed in later
articles. The best way to get around the
problem is to carry out definitive experiments
with hydraulically smooth surfaces, which
eliminates roughness effects, and then
determine or estimate correction factors
to apply to account for expected surface
roughness.
The scientific method of measuring loss

coefficients goes back to research studies in
the 1920s at the Hydraulic Institute of the
Munich Technical University in Germany on
pressure losses caused by bends. Members of
the Hydraulic Division of the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) recognised
the importance of the Munich work and
in 1935 a translation of the Munich work
was published by ASME. The need to base
replicable loss coefficient on experiments
with pipes and components with hydraulically
smooth surfaces was a conclusion from
experimental work at the US National Bureau
of Standards on bend loss coefficients in the
late 1930s.
Adverse gradient
Adverse gradient
Ideal flow through a bend
Inside
Secondary flows
The history of the Munich work and that

at the Bureau of Standards, although often
referenced, has not been understood at
the fundamental level by researchers. As a
result numerous studies to determine loss
coefficients over the past 70 years have not
generated replicable loss coefficients.
When I started experimental work on loss
coefficients I joined colleagues whose
experimental practices were similar to those
of the Munich researchers, and making
measurements with hydraulically smooth
pipe surfaces was the norm. Many other
researchers did not start out with the
advantage I had.
Secondary flows
Outside
Why use loss coefficients in the

form in IFS in Fluid System Design
DON MILLER
22.5
45
90
Inside
Bend outlet velocity contours (local/mean velocity ratios)
page 5
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
3 Due Diligence not a Literature

Review
Reviewers of papers submitted to refereed

journals can often judge the submitters
understanding of the papers subject by a
quick look at the references and the comments
about the references in the literature review.
All too often it is clear that the writers have
not critically reviewed the papers and set up
their experiments to both validate and extend
existing knowledge its more a question of
going through the motions of including a
literature review.
The description literature review does not
concentrate the mind sufficiently on the
objectives for accessing and assessing prior art.
If a research study aims to produce loss data
that is to be used in industry to design systems,
that may be life critical, then the term due
diligence study rather than literature review
is appropriate in determining how relevant
literature is accessed and interpreted.
An important reason why I stress the need
for due diligence is researchers all too often
quote design guides as their main references.
Quoting design guides is acceptable provided
the sources of the data on which a design
guides is based are accessed and critically
assessed. Unfortunately, accessing the original
source of data is seldom carried out.
DON MILLER
Numerous literature reviews
Further Reading:
Concern over the lack of agreement between

loss coefficients generated by different
researchers has resulted in numerous
literature reviews aimed specifically at arriving
at definitive loss coefficients. The most
extensive of these reviews were funded by
government related organisations and carried
out by acknowledge fluid dynamics experts.
Common conclusions of reviews:
Dean, W. R., 1927, Note on the motion of fluid

in a curved pipe, Philosophical Magazine,
4(20), pp. 208-223.
Results from different researchers are not

reconcilable
Coffield, R. D., Hammond, R. B., Koczko, J. P.,

McKeown, P. T., Zirpoli, P. J., 1998, Irrecoverable Pressure Loss Coefficients for a Short Radius
of Curvature Piping Elbow at High Reynolds
Numbers, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory: US
Department of Energy, Pennsylvania.
Further research is necessary in which

important component geometric and flow
parameters should be varied systematically.
My observations of reviews of loss coefficient
data include:
Reviewers are seldom critical of individual
experimental studies
Reviewers do not specify how experimental
studies should be carried out to generate loss
coefficients that others could replicate
Beij, K., 1938, Pressure Losses for Fluid Flow in

90 Degree Pipe Bends, Journal of Research of
the National Bureau of Standards, 21, pp. 1-18.
Ito, H., 1960, Pressure Losses in Smooth Pipe
Bends, J Fluid Eng, 82(1), p131-140.
dos Santos, A. P. P., Andrade, C. R., Zaparoli, E.

L., 2014, \CFD Prediction of the Round Elbow
Fitting Loss Coefficient, International Journal
of Mechanical, Industrial Science and Engineering, 8(4), p94-98.
Reviewers do not comment on the fact that

researchers do not experimentally replicate
others loss coefficients before proceeding
with their own measurements; that is to say
they had no reference points to anchor their
results in the real world.
page 6
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

Who is a fluid dynamics expert?
A web survey of CVs of professors of fluid
dynamics throws up hundreds of fluid
dynamics speciality areas. Steady state
single phase flow of Newtonian fluids in
industrial piping systems the dominate
type of industrial flows - is not one of these
specialities. The lack of specialists in piping
system flows has meant that reviewers of loss
coefficient data may have strong credentials,
as regards one or more areas of fluid dynamics,
but not in fluid system performance. Without
a deep knowledge of the subject there is a
problem for supervisors of research studies
on fluid systems. Not only do academics have
a problem in supervising research programs
related to fluid systems there is also a problem
with inappropriate loss coefficients and
unscientific methods of calculating system
pressure losses being included in modern fluid
mechanics text books.
Due diligence reviews of the

literature
When someone is spending many tens
of thousands of dollars of someone elses
money - usually taxpayers on measuring
loss coefficients one should at least expect
that researchers carry out a literature
review diligently. This requires setting clear
objectives, one of which is to establish that the
experiments are anchored in the real world. To
do this the experimenter needs to accurately

replicate one, and preferably more, validated
sets of data.
One of the few measurements in fluid system
research that is readily reproducible is the
hydraulically smooth pipe friction coefficient
versus Reynolds number relationship. If this
relationship is established an experimenter has
a check on the accuracy of flow measurement
and on the pressure measuring systems.
Next an experimenter should, if possible,
reproduce validated data for a component of
similar geometry to those to be used in their
experimental programme.
If you are carrying out a literature review you
should not accept uncritically loss coefficients
in published work. Informed scepticism is
required given the frequency of even quite
basic errors. The fact that a paper has been
through a journals review process and
has been referenced numerous times is no
guarantee that the loss coefficients it contains
are for known component geometries, tested
under defined conditions. You are likely to carry
out a literature review at the start of the project
when your understanding of the subject may
be inadequate to perform a due diligence
study. You should return to the literature
study at a later date when you have a better
understanding of the subject. Some of the
most valuable contributions have come from
observations of what one should have done
experimentally not what was actually done.
DON MILLER
BHRA literature reviews

Prior to starting the experimental studies at
BHRA four literature reviews were carried out
related to:
Bends turning flow
Diffusers diffusing flow
Junctions combining and dividing flow
Friction losses in large diameter straight pipes.
BHRAs library services identified 700 relevant
references. With the benefit of the web and
the passage of time many times this number of
references could easily be found.
The most important aspect of the reviews
was their use by the researchers at BHRA
to identifying experimental programmes
where sufficient detail was given to be able
to replicate the experimental results. An
interesting observation is that replicable
component loss coefficients were generated
by research teams who had been active for
more than five years. What this means is that
generating replicable loss coefficients is a
skill based activity by a team; several people
have to gain extensive experience, be they
test facility builders, instrument technicians,
researchers or supervisors.
page 7
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
4 Confidence in Internal Flow

Systems
If we transport back to 1950s, we would find

ourselves at the brink of a substantial shift in
the worlds energy needs. The current power
station units simply werent large enough, and
to meet the populations need for power, new
designs were delivering ever increasing unit
sizes. This continued until the mid-60s when
the sizes stabilized but at nearly ten times the
1950s designs.
Cooling water pipes and culverts to and from
the condensers of 660 MW generating sets
are over 2 m in hydraulic diameter and the
connections are built into a power stations
foundations. Space is limited and components
such as bends are closely spaced causing
flows to be highly 3D. Construction is largely
in reinforced concrete with shuttering against
which concrete is cast allowing for flow
passage designs that would be prohibitively
expensive to make in steel - provided of course
that one knows what the shape should be.
Funding to establish 3D loss

coefficients
At the time of rapid growth in generating set
size the British Hydromechanics Research
Association (BHRA) had built up a reputation
for modelling large fluid systems using air as
the working fluid. Air models construction
allowed for rapid modification of flow passage

shapes and for studying flow behaviour. Using
air models of cooling water systems BHRA
demonstrated that pump power requirements
could be reduced by a third by improved
design practices. For a 660 MW generating
unit the saving in pump power was over 1 MW.
Significant improvements were also possible
in other power station fluid systems involving
fans/blowers as well pumps.
At the time of the sustained growth in power
station size the generation and distribution
of electricity in many countries was still
effectively state monopolies. For England
and Wales the Central Electrical Generating
Board (CEGB) in the UK, was responsible for
the design, construction and operation of
power stations. With the size of the new
power station building programme the CEGB
engineering department was in a position to
fund large scale research studies that today
would unlikely to be considered. One of these
studies was awarded to BHRA to extend their
experimental modelling work on cooling water
systems to provide a guide for the design of
large fluid systems.
The study commissioned by the CEGB
was continued by funding from industrial
companies and the UK Department of Industry
culminating in a study for the Compressor
Committee of the American Gas Association
related to compressor yard piping. The
later study was particularly interesting as
gas compression in the US and Canada was
DON MILLER
consuming an estimated 1 billion US dollars

per year by the end of the 1970s. 10% of
energy added at some compressor stations
was being dissipated within the compressor
yard piping.
The CEGB had its own extensive research
laboratories that it could have used and the
Compressor Committee of the American Gas
Association had the choice of laboratories. In
todays terminology you could say they both
exercised due diligence in funding BHRA
group.
Transition from the analogue to the

digital age
In the 1960s the changeover from analogue
to digital methods began to take off in
engineering; out with the slide rule and
nomographs and in with main frame
computers and software. Computers had a
dramatic effect on aeronautical research which,
in the pre CFD age, relied almost exclusively
on wind tunnel tests involving extensive static
pressure measurements. By linking electronic
pressure scanning systems and computers the
collection of wind tunnel pressure data was
revolutionised.
BHRA was able to use the pressure scanning
technology developed for aeronautical
research to both improve and speed up the
process of measuring static pressures when
testing fluid system components. Computer
analysis of pressure measurements provided
page 8
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

rapid feedback on fluid system component
pressure losses. Any unusual results could then
be investigated using measurements of flow
velocities and turbulence levels and by flow
visualisation studies.
With computer analysis of static pressures
the pressure gradients along a components
inlet and outlet pipes or ducts could be
established, allowing a direct measurement

of a component loss coefficient. This replaced
the method used by most experimenters of
measuring the pressure difference between a
location upstream and a location downstream
of a component and subtracting a calculated
pipe friction pressure loss equivalent to the
straight pipe length between the upstream
DON MILLER
and downstream measuring points. Many

of the loss coefficients in the literature were
gathered using water flows in pipes in various
stages of corrosion and in which friction losses
were likely to have been changing with time
so that friction loss values used in determining
loss coefficients were unreliable.
BHRA council meeting circa 1979
page 9
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
5 Origins of Internal Flow

Systems
My first task when I joined the project at BHRA

to measure loss coefficients for a design guide
for large flow systems was to commission
two test rigs. I was aware that commissioning
a new wind tunnel to have acceptable flow
conditions in the test section could take
researchers months, particularly when
instabilities in diffusing sections gave rise to
flow fluctuations. I naively thought it would
be much easier to commission a test rig for
measuring component loss coefficients. The
reality proved to be very different as it turned
into a rapid learning exercise into many aspects
of fluid systems.
Most studies of loss coefficients have been
made with water as the working fluid. The
need for a fixed water source and some
means of catching the water discharge from
a test rig places serious restrictions on test rig
geometries. At BHRA the preference was to use
air as the working medium for fluid system test
rigs. Using air frees up how a test rig can be
configured and the speed of reconfiguration;
major factors when hundreds of single and
combinations of components were to be
investigated.
The decision had been made to base the test
rigs on 0.3 m (12 inch) hydraulic diameter
pipes and ducts and to use a Reynolds number
of 106 as the reference Reynolds number.
Air velocities through the pipes and ducts

to achieve Reynolds numbers of 106 were
sufficiently low (Mach numbers < 0.25) that
air compressibility corrections were small. All
tests were to be conducted with hydraulically
smooth wall surfaces.
Size and Stability

First it is useful to get an idea of the size of
the test facility. Straight pipe lengths of 90
diameters were needed, plus inlet and outlet
arrangements, resulting in a test rig length
of some 35 m; the wing span of a Boeing
737. Tests involving components in 3D
arrangements required a height of over 6 m.
These dimensions are aircraft hangar sizes,
which was not a problem as part of BHRA
labs were located in an aircraft hangar on the
College of Aeronautics (later to become the
Cranfield Institute of Technology and then
Cranfield University).
The test rigs were powered by 45kW fixed
speed fans. The original assumption was that
flow rate would be controlled by throttling
either on the inlet or the outlet side of the
fan. Here begins a lesson on why one should
not operate fluid machines away from their
best efficiency point. Running a fluid machine
away from its best efficiency point results
in high frequency pressure waves (noise)
propagating through a system accompanied
by longer term fluctuations in mass flow rate
with accompanying pressure fluctuations.
Fluctuations in flow rate are common in
DON MILLER
fluid systems but since they are usually not

important, as regards the functioning of a
system, they go unnoticed. When one is trying
to establish reliable and reproducible loss
coefficients fluctuations in flow and pressure
are unacceptable; some of the components
tested suffered violent flow instabilities and
caused significant flow fluctuations, a feature
that needed to be noted to provide advice on
component flow geometries to avoid.
The solution for the test rig instabilities was
to bleed air into or out of a test rig local to a
fan to maintain conditions across a fan so that
it operated close to its best efficiency point.
Substantial flow structures incorporating
controllable air bleeds were built to provide
appropriate conditions into and out of a fan.
Within the structures vanes, screens and
honeycombs were located in areas of diffusing
flow always an unstable process - to reduce
pressure fluctuation to a negligible level.
Today with cheaper variable speed drives for
fans one would be strongly advised not to use
a fixed speed fan for an experimental program
of the sort carried out at BHRA. Much is now
published about the benefits to industry of
using variable speed drives for fluid machinery
to reduce lifetime costs of pump and fan
ownership.
page 10
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

Test Cross-Sectional Shapes
An aim of the loss coefficient studies was to
provide loss coefficients for large flow systems
covering tunnels, pipes, ducts and culverts.
Large fluid systems, such as power station
cooling water systems, have pipes/culverts
that are either circular or rectangular with an
aspect ratio of 2:1 or less. The decision was to
use 0.3 m diameter pipes, 0.3 m x 0.3 m square
ducts and 0.23 x 0.46 rectangular ducts, all
of which had a hydraulic diameter of 0.3 m
(12 inches). Square and rectangular culverts
constructed in reinforced concrete have small
corner fillets so the square and rectangular test
ducts were constructed with 25 mm filets in
the corners; in practice the corner fillets had
no important effect on loss coefficients. The
2:1 aspect ratio rectangular ducts allowed
aspect ratio 0.5 and 2 components to be tested
including interactions between aspect ratio 0.5
and 2 components. For components involving
different inlet and outlet pipe diameters 0.2
and 0.36 m pipe diameters were used.
BHRA had a team of pattern and model makers
with experience of fabricating components
such as bends, diffusers and junctions, to tight
tolerances.
Measuring System
Flow rates were measured using nozzles
at inlet to the test rigs and when required
orifice plates for dividing and combining
flow tests. Numerous measurements of flow
distributions were made using pitot tubes and
hot wire anemometers, and some of these
measurements were integrated to determine
flow rate as a check on the calibration of the

flow metering devices.
Pressures were measured using a scanning
system with a single pressure transducer.
Calibration was against Betz manometers high accuracy manometers commonly used
as pressure calibration instruments in industry.
Reference Betz manometer readings were
made during each set of pressure scans to be
used as a check of the pressure transducer
readings. Output was to punch tape which
at the end of a day was taken to the nearest
commercial mainframe computer installation
along with the analysis program on punched
cards. Later, when Cranfield University put up a
new building to house an ICL 1900 computer,
analysis runs were made overnight on this
computer (how computers have changed as
today a portable computer have more power
than a 1970s main frame computer).
6 Importance of Static Pressure

Measurements
Holes drilled through the skin of model

aircraft and connected to monometers or
pressure gauges played a crucial role in the
development of the aerospace industry. Today
CFD is fundamental to aircraft design but the
humble static pressure tapping still plays a
major role in aerodynamic and hydrodynamic
advances. Wind tunnel model makers are
highly skilled in making static pressure tapings,
which they can view under magnification to
ensure the tapings were free from defects.
DON MILLER
What cannot be seen?

Measuring loss coefficients for fluid system
components similarly relies on static pressure
tapings but now the taping termination is
inside a pipe or duct. Anyone who has drilled
through metal knows that when the drill
breaks through the finish is usually not a pretty
sight. You can ream a hole but this is difficult
for small holes, and since the inner surface
of a pipe in the vicinity of a taping can be
difficult or impractical to access considerable
uncertainty can exists over whether a good
taping is achieved. During checking of
pipe wall tapings I have experienced errors
exceeding 10% of the mean dynamic head and
that is from tapings that at first sight looked
OK.
In the case of tests with water in steel pipes the
sharp edges of static pressure tappings tend
to cause concentrated corrosion. Ridges form
around a tapping entrance so there are always
uncertainties over static pressure readings in
corroding pipe.
Piezometric Rings
Concern over tapping errors have resulted
in the widely adopted practice of using a
tapping ring with four tappings at a particular
location; referred to as a piezometer ring.
If all four tappings record the same value
then connecting the tappings together can
provide an accurate and a more responsive
connection to a pressure sensing device,
albeit replacing one joint where leakage can
occur with typically thirteen joints in making
the piezometer ring. If tappings are not well
page 11
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

made flow circulation is set up in a piezometric
ring and a pressure somewhere between the
highest and lowest value is sensed. ASHRAE
Standard 120-2008 Method of Testing to
Determine Flow Resistance of HVAC Duct and
Fittings requires tappings of a piezometric ring
to agree within 2% of the dynamic head, which
for measuring 3D loss coefficients is much
too high. For hydraulically smooth pipes one
should be aiming for 0.2%.
In the BHRA tests at each measuring location
there where 4 tappings evenly spaced around
a pipe. Each of the tappings was checked
against the other 3 and remedial action taken
if difference were observed. One of the four
tapping was chosen and the other three
tappings blanked off. Loss coefficients were
determined based on a set of 8 tappings
spaced 2 diameters apart upstream of a
component and 8 tappings spaced 2 diameters
apart starting 40 downstream of a component.
Any problem with a tapping or leakage from
a connection between a tapping and pressure
transducer or manometer was detectable from
inspection of the pressure gradients along a
pipe.
The most critical static pressure tapping
readings are those for the flow measurement
devices. In the case of the BHRA studies ASME
elliptical nozzles taking flow from a large space
were used at the pipe inlets. The nozzles had a
piezometer ring with all the tapings checked.
A leakage check on the tapping connections
was carried out on each day of testing.
Choose test pipes/ducts carefully

The first tests of the BHRA studies were made
with 2:1 rectangular ducts and components.
BHRA had adopted a practice of using high
grade hardboard with support framework
for making ducts for air models of fluid
systems. The hardboard surface finish was
such that hydraulically smooth surfaces
were guaranteed. During trials to check the
test duct static pressure tapings small but
persistent inconsistencies in static pressure
readings were detected between tapings on
the long and short sides of the duct. The 0.23
x 0.46 m duct cross-section was larger than
normally used for fluid system models and the
pressure differences from atmospheric greater.
A small amount of wall deflection, which varied
with pressure differential, was the cause of the
static pressure inconsistencies. Reinforcing
the duct wall would still have left doubts so
the duct was scrapped and 25 m of new duct
constructed in high grade 12mm thick birch
plywood. A hydraulically smooth surface was
achieved by 5 coats of varnish, with the coats
rubbed down in between coats.
DON MILLER
decision was made to abandon the use of 0.3

m diameter PVC pipe and make fibreglass
pipe. Layup of fibreglass was onto a precision
former so that a hydraulically smooth bore
surface was achieved with tubes for static
pressure measurements included in the pipe
wall. The decision to use fibreglass turned out
to be a very fortuitous because when it came
to component interaction tests, with 3D pipe
layouts, substantial lengths of the light weight
and ridged pipe could be supported using a
mobile structure. This allowed changes in 3D
pipe layout to be made rapidly.
In the case of the BHRA studies all of the
components were accurately made by skilled
craftsman experienced in model building.
Flanges of pipes and ducts were drilled using
templates so that bores were free of steps.
Pipe bends and diffusers were of fibre glass
laid up on individually moulds to provide both
geometric similarity and hydraulically smooth
flow surfaces. Square and 2:1 rectangular duct
components where made of plywood with in
some cases one flat side made of Perspex.
For the tests involving 0.3 m diameter pipes

extruded PVC was originally chosen. When
checking the static pressure tapings small
inconsistencies were found. Although a first
sight the internal surface of the pipe appeared
to be very smooth and free of defects on
close inspection small ripples on the bore
surface were detected and slight variations
in bore diameter. To remove all doubt about
the validity of static pressure readings the
page 12
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
7 Validation of BHRA Loss

Coefficients
BHRA had over 15 years of experience in

measuring component loss coefficients when
work started on the project to produce loss
coefficient data for the design of large fluid
systems. In this time facilities, experience
and knowledge had accumulated related to
measuring loss coefficients. It was only later
that I came to understand how much this
contributed to setting up and carrying out the
research project to provide data and guidance
on the design of large flow systems.
My perception on joining the project was
we were carrying out once and for all
experiments on loss coefficients. That is to say
that:
First and foremost the loss coefficients
measured and the way they were presented
had to meet industry needs when simulating
and designing fluid systems,
Appropriate precautions were taken to
ensure the accuracy of the test facilities, the
measurement and recording instrumentation
and the data analysis methods, and
The work of other research teams, who were
known to have measured loss coefficients
accurately and under defined conditions, was
replicated and that sufficient information was
provided for others to replicate the BHRA loss
coefficients.
In todays parlance we validated the loss

coefficient data and made it available in a form
that engineers could readily use and other
researchers could use to validate their work.
Testing Models
Experimental fluid dynamics is all about testing
models and using non-dimensional numbers
that allow the flow physics at different model
scales and with different fluid properties to
be compared. A well known use of modelling
is measuring the drag coefficient of a model
aircraft in a wind tunnel. There are very
restricted boundaries to a wind tunnel test,
however, if the interest was to study the crash
of a light aircraft that flew into the wake some
5 kilometres after a large aircraft, then using
a normal wind tunnel would be of little use. It
would be necessary to go from studying the
flow physics local to the model to studying the
complex flow swept downstream of the model.
In piping systems disturbances caused by
components are swept downstream and,
at high Reynolds Numbers, are only slowly
damped. The presence of some components
is detectable two hundred pipe diameters
downstream. For true similarity a piping
system test rig should be sufficiently long
enough to isolate all disturbances that could
affect a loss coefficient, in practice this is
impractical and unnecessary.
From experimental observations it has been
found that if:
DON MILLER
Flow conditions within a pipe are such that

the friction gradient prior to a component is
essentially constant, and
A constant friction gradient is established in
the pipe downstream of a component,
then:
A 3D loss coefficient can be defined as the
difference between the inlet and downstream
pipe friction gradients projected to the
component location. For all intents and
purposes geometric similarity, as regards test
rig length, is satisfied by this loss coefficient
definition. This definition is easily adapted for
components without inlet or outlet pipes and
for dividing and combining flows.
For the BHRA studies an inlet pipe length
of 30 diameters after an inlet nozzle and 55
diameters of pipe after a component were
typically used to satisfy the pipe/duct length
requirement. Friction gradients were measured
over 15 diameters before a component and
over the last 15 diameters downstream.
There are components where the
establishment of an essentially constant
friction gradient upstream of a component
is not a sufficient criteria to achieve a
replicable loss coefficient and there are other
components that cause friction gradients to
be above the steady state value for surprising
distances downstream. Examples of these
effects are discussed below as they illustrate
some of the cross-checking carried out at BHRA
in validating loss coefficients.
page 13
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

Internal flow phenomena still to be
understood
Over the 15 year period of investigations using
the two BHRA test rigs, a number of research
engineers carried out studies using the rigs.
If a researcher was to use combinations of
components previously tested the first tests
were to re-test the components singularly.
On one occasion the loss coefficient for a
7 degree half angle diffuser differed from
prior measurements by about 0.05 of the
inlet velocity head, which was 5 times the
experimental tolerance set for measurements.
The area ratio of the diffuser was 1.37 and
with a half angle of 7 degrees meant it was
operating close to what is known as the
transitory stall region where areas of separation
form and are then washed out of a diffuser.
Test on other components gave results that
agreed with prior measurements.
To try and establish the reason for the
difference in the measured diffuser loss
coefficient, the two test rigs where assembled
with 30 diameters of inlet pipe and the
diffuser tested on each rig. On one rig the loss
coefficient was the same as recorded several
years before and on the other 0.05 lower.
The complete inlet pipes were exchanged
between the two test rigs without altering
the measured values. The inlet measuring
nozzles, with their calming and conditioning
sections (these were mounted on castors to
allow rapid repositioning of an inlet when the
tests involved air being drawn through the test
rigs), were exchanged between the test rigs.

The diffuser performance followed an inlet
nozzle, so what was causing the difference in
performance was linked to the inlet nozzles
with their calming sections. Velocity surveys
at the nozzle outlets and 30 pipe diameters
downstream showed no anomalies.
At his stage no further work was done, partly
because of experience with diffusers operating
close to the transitory stall region. BHRA had
modelled a number of large civil engineering
diffusers a jumbo jet could be parked in some
civil engineering diffusers. To minimise the
cost of such diffusers they are usually vanned
and operate with some areas of transitory stall.
Seemingly small disturbances well upstream
of these diffusers have been found to have
a marked effect on their performance. It is
now known that the turbulence structure in
pipes is quite different from that assumed at
the time of the BHRA tests. Very large scale
organised structures occur in turbulent pipe
flow. To visualise such structures requires 3D
instantaneous measurements of turbulence
structures which has only recently been
practical. Whether or not the arrival of such
large scale turbulence structures coincided
with or affected the growth and washout of
diffuser stall regions is unknown.
Propagation of disturbances
DON MILLER
pipe and since the turbulent structure will not

be developed another 30 or so diameters for
information that the structure is not mature
to propagate back. This probably goes on
through a number of cycles of decreasing
amplitude.
The effect of flow development towards a fully
developed structure is usually not of interest
in the design of fluid systems. However, in
the measurement of friction and pressure
loss coefficients some interesting effects
are observed. One of these was the high
length of square duct required to achieve a
developed friction gradient after a transition
from a smaller area pipe to a square duct.
With a 0.2 diameter pipe connected by a
diffusing expansion to 0.3m square duct the
friction factors measure over a duct section
62 hydraulic diameters, starting 17 diameters
downstream of a transition, were significantly
higher than when a 0.3m diameter pipe was
connected by a transition to the duct.
The first check was whether the flow nozzle
calibrations were correct. With a transition
down to 0.2m diameter after a 0.3 nozzle
followed by a transition from 0.2m to
the 0.3m square duct similar friction loss
measurements as with a 0.2m diameter nozzle
so flow measurement was not a problem. The
observations provided another validation of
the experimental rigs.
Information about disturbed conditions at a

location in turbulent pipe flow can take 30 or
so diameters to propagate half way across a
page 14
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
8 Cavitation
The Reynolds number is the only nondimensional parameter involved in the flow of
Newtonian fluids through geometrically similar
components until:
Dynamic events cause the pressure within
a liquid flow to decrease sufficiently below a
liquids vapor pressure for cavitation to occur
Flow velocities exceeds 20% of the speed of
sound in a fluid and compressibility begins to
become important.
Cavitation is defined as the formation of a
bubble or void in a liquid, but in engineering
we use the term to encompass all aspects
of the growth and collapse of bubbles and
cavities. In particular it is the collapse of vapor
filled bubbles and cavities that is of concern
in fluid systems as these events cause noise,
damage, deterioration in performance and
flow instabilities.
The serious problems caused by cavitation in
fluid machinery, valves, hydraulic structures,
etc. has resulted in a vast literature on
the subject but we are a long way from
understanding cavitation at the fundamental
level. The number of variables involved,
the speed at which events occur and the
difficulty of measuring these events, are all
relative unknowns. Cavitation is usually an
unavoidable consequence of what a system is
required to do or how it must operate under
some conditions, such as start up or shut down.

If cavitation could give rise to problems we
need to be able to predict this and then decide
on measures to avoid or alleviate problems.
Cavitation prediction and design procedures
in IFS are based on the velocity in the
pipe upstream of a component. This is
consistent with the pressure loss calculation
procedures in IFS as loss coefficients are
mainly based on a components inlet velocity.
It is also compatible with the results from
a major source of reliable cavitation test
data generated by studies funded by the
Metropolitan Water District of South California
(MWD) - the largest bulk water supplier for
municipal in the world. MWD needed pressure
breakdown stations located in hilly populated
country that dissipated substantial amounts of
head without nuisance noise. The MWD now
uses structures in which multi-ported slide
valves are located. These valves produce many
small jets that discharge into a large volume
of water; the best way of dissipating excess
head without generating excessive noise.
The fact that cavitation takes place around
small diameter jets in a large volume of water
means there is no cavitation damage and the
total energy converted to nuisance noise from
multiple small jets is very low compared to
that from a single or a few large jets. In piping
systems the most effective low noise valves
have trims with many parallel flow paths to
generate multiple jets.
DON MILLER
At BHRA we modeled many flow situations

involving cavitation, principally to avoid
cavitation damage and noise but also to
avoid negative pressures imposing loads on
structures. Trouble shooting cavitation in
operating flow systems was usually because
of incorrectly specified valves. Since IFS was
written, serious damage to large flow systems
has highlighted problems in carrying out
model studies to predict whether or not
damaging cavitation will exist. Water flowing
out of the base of a deep reservoir or a very
pure process liquid may have a low dissolved
gas content compared to that of water used in
model studies. In these circumstances model
studies are likely to underestimate the severity
and the distance downstream that cavitation
extends. Fortunately air can usually be bled
into cavitation zones in hydraulic structures to
prevent serious damage. This option is usually
not practical in piping systems.
page 15
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
9 Compressible Flow
Simulation of compressible flow in fluid
systems encompass:
Slowly varying pressures in long as
transmission lines when the gas temperature
is assumed to be constant so isothermal
conditions are assumed. Alternatively
calculations take account of ambient
temperature variations along a pipeline and
heat transfer to and from a pipeline.
Rapidly varying conditions as gas flow
approaches or reaches Mach 1 and chokes.
In this situation events occur so rapidly that
adiabatic flow conditions can be assumed to
apply.
Flows in which chemical reactions, or a
change of phase, or high rates of heat transfer
or a combination of these phenomena are
taking place. These flows often involve safety
issues and need the involvement of specialists.
At BHRA we were mainly involved with type
2 flows that could generally be treated as
adiabatic. Back in the 1970s it could take an
inordinate amount of time to find information
to answer question about compressible flow.
Information was sparsely distributed in the
literature, and in those pre-internet days,
difficult to find. There was also the problem
that much of the information and data was of
a contradictory nature. The difficulty of finding
the answer to compressible flow problems
lead to a chapter on compressible flow being
included in the second edition of IFS.
Compressible flow is predominately the

domain of aeronautical fluid dynamists with
a vast literature. The situation is very different
and more complex for flows at comparable
Mach numbers in fluid flow systems. The
equipment and facilities needed to carry
out compressible flow tests are substantial
and no university or other organisation has
carried out long term studies covering a range
of components. In modern fluid mechanics
text books practical information related to
industrial systems is poorly or not covered.
At BHRA we carried out a number of
compressible flow studies related to industrial
problems. These studies at least made me
aware of some of the difficulties of carrying
out compressible flow studies. We had a large
blow down vessel originally installed for fluid
system noise studies. As the source pressure
was higher than needed at inlet to a test
component the flow had to be throttled by a
valve. Often the pressure difference across the
valve was sufficient for choked flow to occur.
Choked flow at a valve generates pressure
fluctuations, which in the test situations could
be significant compared to the pressures
losses being measured. If a component under
test choked then situations arose where the
location of choked flow alternated between
the throttling valve and the test component.
Needless to say some interesting sounds,
pressure fluctuations and forces on piping
occurred. These experiences illustrated
the difficulties researchers face in studying
compressible flow in fluid systems.
DON MILLER
When it came to providing design and

calculation procedures for compressible
flow the best approach, as far as I could
see, was to use incompressible flow loss
coefficients and apply correction factors to
take account of compressibility. Experimental
data in the literature usually reported loss
coefficients that increased rapidly as Mach
1 was approached. However, in reanalysing
experimental data I concluded that in general
this was a misinterpretation of the measured
static pressure readings. The problem with
interpreting static pressure measurements is
gas density, static pressure and temperature
change rapidly as choking conditions are
approached. Boundary layer effects mean
that the effective flow area is slightly reduced
and choking occurs before it is predicted by
assuming 1D flow. Allowing for boundary layer
effects incompressible loss coefficient data can
generally be used up to Mach numbers of 0.8.
When someone phoned up with a query about
a compressible flow problem I invariably asked
questions to collect relevant information
and then said I will call you back. Answering
questions about compressible flow off the
top of ones head is never advisable as one
needs to get into a different mind-set when
thinking about compressible as against noncompressible flows. If a flow is likely to choke
then some deep thought needs to be put in,
particularly if process control or safety issues
are involved.
page 16
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
10 Transient Analysis and other

Dynamic Events
Events occur in fluid systems that cause

pressures to rise above or fall below the steady
state pressure. Well-known, is water hammer.
Liquid flow is forced to stop abruptly and a
pressure rise occurs that is proportional to
the velocity of the liquid times the speed that
pressure waves travel along a pipe. As pressure
waves travel at over 1200 m/s in many pipes
carrying liquids, it is easy to understand why
damaging pressures occur. In the case of our
blood distribution system, large fluid transient
pressures do not occur because our pipes
(arteries) are so flexible that pressure waves
generated by our heart only travel at 10 m/s
or so, although the speed of sound in blood is
1570 m/s.
In my 30 years at BHRA numerous fluid systems
were simulated to minimise and/or alleviate
fluid transients. Systems were also studied that
had failed catastrophically or were suffering
operating problems caused by dynamic events.
Dynamic events included excessive noise, flow
induced vibrations, instabilities arising from
unstable flows through parallel flow paths,
and small amplitude oscillatory flows that
synchronised with the natural frequency of
part of a system to cause large pressures and
forces.
Situations leading to rapid vapour
condensation are of particular concern as
liquids flowing into a collapsing vapour cavity
can reach high velocities resulting in water
hammer pressures causing catastrophic failure

and loss of life. At BHRA we simulated one
such event by creating a vacuum in a section
of pipe in which a valve similar to one that had
failed, causing a fatality, was installed. When an
isolation valve was opened to allow pressurised
water to flow into pipe section under vacuum
one of the most disturbing events to me was
the displacement of the whole facility by
the transient event. Generating pressures of
over 100 bar, by closure of a vapour cavity,
reinforced my appreciation of the forces
involved in fluid transients.
Due diligence is particularly important in
understanding and analysing systems for fluid
transients and other dynamic events. Using
validated transient simulation software, such
as the Flowmaster transient solver, is a vital
part of the due diligence process but it must
be accompanied by the exercise of informed
engineering judgement. In the past it could
be claimed that particular events could not
have been foreseen but so many failures and
problems caused by rapid transients and flow
induced vibrations have been documented
that such a claim would now be more difficult
to make. Intelligent software guidance on
likely dynamic events in fluid systems is
something for the future.
Avoidance of pressure transients by design is
preferable but often not practical or possible.
This is followed in order of preference by
passive protection measures. The best passive
protection against catastrophic system failure
is for the containment strength of every part
of a system to be greater than that needed to
contain the worst fluid transient events that
DON MILLER
could occur but again this is not an option for

many fluid systems. This leaves active transient
alleviation devices and operating procedures.
Active transient mitigation devices have the
disadvantage that they require maintenance
throughout the life of a fluid system, with
particular attention to system modifications.
Relying on operating procedures, such as
the timing of pump or valve operations rely
on operators carrying out actions correctly
for the life of fluid systems, that can be over
twenty years. Ongoing awareness needs to be
maintained by management and operating
staff so as to avoid system changes and
operator actions that could trigger a serious
fluid transient. A significant percentage of
reports of system failures due to transients are
for systems that had been operating without
problems for more than ten years.
In addition to withstanding transient pressures,
a piping system must withstand unbalance
loads imposed on a system by fluid transients
and the resulting pipe movements. Pictures
in the literature of pipes displaced from pipe
racks bring home the need to design for the
unbalanced forces transients can generate.
In the case of plastic and fibreglass pipes,
pressure waves that travel through pipelines
with bends give rise to the risk of leaks caused
by sharp objects rubbing against pipes
repeatedly displaced by transient events.
The potential for loss of life and catastrophic
damage caused by transients is reflected
in design standards for pipelines and the
requirement to take all reasonable precautions
in the design, operation and maintenance
of piping systems. The beneficial practice of
page 17
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

designing pump installations for minimum
life time costs of ownership can usefully be
extended to include protection against fluid
transients. In installations where transients
are generated by pump start-up appropriate
control of a variable speed pump might reduce
both life time costs and the risk of transient
pressures and could justify the higher initial
capital costs of a variable speed drive.
Developments leading to
Flowmasters transient analysis
capabilities
The comprehensive transient analysis
capabilities in Flowmaster have their origins
in software originally developed, used and
validated by BHRA. Through the 1950s and
early 1960s BHRA was providing transient
analysis services to industry using graphical
and analogue computer methods. The
transition was made to digital computers in
the early 1960s and by 1975 large and complex
fluid systems in the power, oil and gas and
water industries were being analysed. BHRAs
simulation software had grown over the years
to deal with the increasingly complex systems
that were being built but the software was
becoming difficult for new users to understand
and to modify.
In 1975 the decision was made to develop
fluid transient analysis software that was
not constrained by assumptions about fluid
system layout. Requirements for the software
included its use by engineers who were

knowledgeable about fluid systems but were
not computer programmers. An aim, which
was achieved, was to develop the software and
its documentation to the standard required to
sell the software for use by fluid specialists in
industry.
The design and programming of BHRAs
transient software, called HYPSMOP, was
carried out by a team led by Mike Papworth.
The approach adopted for the structure of
the software and the solution methods is
recognisable in all modern transient and steady
state simulation software.
A fluid system is represented as modules
connected at nodes. Modules included:
Dynamic components - pumps, turbines,
control valves;
Passive components such as pipes and bends;
Physical transitory events such as the growth
and decay of vapour cavities or air pockets;
Prescribed flow, pressure and/or time history;
Passive and active devices and structures for
transient pressure and surge control; and
User defined modules coded using tools built
into the software.
Nodes represented connection points to which
any number of modules could be connected.
A system could be assembled by the user by
selecting modules from a library and inputting
appropriate data for the module. During an
DON MILLER
analysis information about time dependent

events, such as a pump tripping or a valve
closing, was accessed from information that
the user entered into the software.
Validation of the HYPSMOP

software
Validation studies were carried out to confirm
that transient pressures measured on piping
systems were realistically predicted by
HYPSMOP. Some systems used for validation
were analysed prior to field measurements. For
systems that had failed due to a transient event
the cause of failure was reproduced, remedial
measures implemented and measurements
carried out to confirm the effectiveness of the
remedial measures.
Conclusion from comparison of predicted and
measured pressures and timing of events were:
In systems where pressure wave velocities
through a system could be accurately
predicted the calculated pressure variations
and their phasing were in close agreement;
and
In systems where gas bubbles, gas pockets
or flexible tubing or hoses were involved
maximum pressures where usually over
predicted and the phasing of maximum and
minimum pressures displaced in time. By
changing the wave speed close agreement
could be achieved for pressures and event
timings.
page 18
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

The presence of gas bubbles in liquid flows,
such as in rising sewage mains, substantially
reduces the speed at which pressure waves
propagate. In such circumstances one should
always search for values of wave speed that
give rise to the maximum pressures. It must
be stressed that great care should always be
exercised in the analysis of liquid systems in
which pockets of gas exist. Venting of gas
DON MILLER
from a system can generate severe transients

and the presence of an air pocket may allow
high liquid velocities to be reached on pump
start up or on opening a valve. If a liquid is
flammable compression of air pockets can,
and has, caused temperatures to exceed
the ignition temperature with catastrophic
consequences.
Flowmaster at Amazon Computers Ltd. circa 1970s.
Since in many cases it is not known what

amount of gas is present, simulations should
cover a range of pressure wave propagation
speeds and gas pocket volumes. The same
comment applies to pipe friction where friction
values that could exist over the lifetime of a
piping system should be simulated.
Flowmaster V7 running on Windows computers 2016.
page 19
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
11 The Origins of Flowmaster

When I was writing Internal Flow Systems
(IFS) in the 1970s, I was also investigating
problems with large flow systems in the
process industries (chemical, oil and gas,
water treatment, etc.). The most common
problem was oversized pumps. One of the
worst was 50MW of installed cooling water
pumping power when 30MW would have been
adequate.
Oversized pumps mean plant owners are
buying electricity to cause flow recirculation
within pumps. Flow recirculation results in
cavitation, noise and vibration. The life of pump
seals and bearings is reduced, maintenance
costs are increased and less product is
produced because of plant downtime. Not a
very sensible scenario.
In the 1970s, papers were being published
on a wide range of problems in the process
and power plants caused by oversize
fluid machines. One of the reasons for
oversizing was that flow system head losses
were calculated using component loss
data generated in the 1930s. These 1930s
measurement of loss coefficients mainly relate
to steel pipes and components in unknown
states of corrosion. Details of the procedures
used to measure pressure losses and calculate
loss coefficients are mainly unknown.
Hand calculation of fluid system head losses is
a tedious and time consuming process. Great
ingenuity was exercised through the 1930s to

1950s in devising aids to speed up the process
of calculating fluid system head losses. This
resulted in design guides that had a few pages
of friction and component loss coefficient data
surrounded by many pages of nomographs,
charts, tables and formulae. A young engineer
given the task of calculating head losses for
the piping in a process plant soon became
proficient at using one of these design guides.
Not unnaturally when engineers reached a
position of responsibility they required junior
engineers to use the same design guide. Go
on the web today and lo and behold design
guides recommended by senior engineers
and writers on process plant design are those
that contributed to pumps being oversized in
the 1970s. You can guess the outcome, with
anecdotal evidence that today up to seventy
five percent of pumps in the process industries
are oversized.1
Only simple formula are needed to apply
the validated data in IFS but there is still the
problem of calculating fluid system head
losses for a process plant with numerous fluid
systems. It was very obvious at the time of
writing IFS that widespread use of the data it
contained was only going to occur if it could
be readily applied and that meant it had to be
computerised. Putting the data into software
is only one condition for its widespread use.
Legislative, safety, and economic pressures
combined with the desire by engineers to use
validated data being the primary drivers.
DON MILLER
Concerns over safety and fluid system

failures had already brought about (forced)
the investment to be made into software to
calculate fluid system transient behaviour.
At BHRA in the 1970s, our transient software
already represented fluid systems in the
correct form for steady state analysis; the
first calculation carried out before simulating
transients had to be the steady state. The
big change from a program to calculate fluid
transients to a general purpose software
for fluid system analysis was that the loss
coefficient data from IFS had to be contained
within the software, rather than fed in as it was
for the transient analysis software. From the
outset the aim in developing the software that
was to become Flowmaster was:
It had to be easy to use;
It would have a core that contained IFS data
and the calculation procedures that applied
the data;
That it would be validated against operating
fluid systems;
It had to have a modular structureto
allow modules customised for particular
industrial sectors process, power, aerospace,
automobile and for particular types of flow
compressible, transient, two phase, etc.; and
That the loss coefficient data in the core
would be represented, where possible, in the
form of performance charts.
page 20
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

This latter requirement of representing data
in the form of digitised performance charts is
very important but a requirement that is not
really understood by developers of other fluid
system software and by researchers measuring
loss coefficients. The ideal is for a chart to
represent loss coefficients for a particular type
of component, such as circular cross-section
diffusers, on which lines of constant loss
coefficient are mapped. In the case of diffusers
the chart axes are the area ratio and the nondimensional length. Such charts, first plotted
by Klines group at Stanford University, contain
a lot of information other than loss coefficients.
If you have some knowledge of fluid flow
behaviour, then looking at a chart you can
deduce whether the flow through your diffuser
will be stable or whether it will operate with
mildly transient or violent stall. You can make a
reasoned guess as to how distorted the outlet
flow will be into the downstream component
or process the consequential costs of
designers specify diffusers with unstable flow
conditions and with poor outlet conditions
runs into many billions of dollars with in some
cases plant commissioning being delayed by
many months.
A researcher only needs to test a limited
number of components in a particular family
to produce a performance chart for the
whole family. If a researchers measured loss
coefficient does not sit comfortably relative
to lines on a performance chart, either
the measurement is wrong or some flow
phenomena is occurring that needs further
investigation.
I have been asked a number of times by writers

of fluid system software could I give them
the formula on which a chart in IFS is based.
They knew the Moody friction factor chart was
mainly plotted using an equation so why not
component loss coefficient charts. Ideally the
Moody chart should be replace by a chart that
more accurately represents experimental data
as it is only accurate in some areas to about
15%. The Moody chart, which is a replotting of
a chart by Hunter Rouse, which was itself partly
generated using equations by Colebrook which
were an approximation to and so it goes on.
Clearly I have a bias towards performance
charts since loss coefficients are determined
experimentally why not use computers to work
with experimental values not some formula
that approximates to the values. A designer
can call up the chart from IFS to study it on the
screen not have to re-compute the chart. In
the next Part I touch on some of the recent
work to extend friction coefficient studies to
Reynolds numbers above ten million and to try
to better understand the effects of roughness
on friction coefficients.
Putting IFS into easy-to-use software was
no easy task. It was clear it would only be
achieved by securing substantial risk capital
and this took five years to secure. Fortunately
the funders soon realised that what they
were funding did not have an effective route
to market. At the time, early 1980s, major
engineering software companies tended to
address specific industrial sectors whereas fluid
flow software addresses the needs of many
industries. The answer was the setting up of a
company to market the software which later
became Flowmaster Ltd.
DON MILLER
My main objective for fluid system analysis

software was the power and process industries.
What I did not appreciate at the time, is that
stakeholders involved in the design, building
and operating power and process plants had
conflicting requirements as regards the design
of fluid flow systems. Fluid flow software
on its own did not address these conflicting
requirements because it addresses a small
part of the overall plant design and did not
integrated with the CAD and process software.
The first users of Flowmaster were companies
who had in effect written a specification for the
fluid system simulation software they needed
and then went looking for such software.
Invariably the fluid systems being simulated
where in self-powered moving artefacts
aircraft, submarines, ships, automobiles,
commercial vehicles, etc. A far cry from the
market I had originally set out to address
with IFS. The good news is Flowmaster now
integrates with other process and power
plant design software which brings many
technical and economic benefits. One of the
most important is, it removes the incentive for
different disciplines to add margins on margins
when specifying fluid machines.
1 Going with the flow: Life costing for industrial
pumping systems. This paper is based on A guide
to life cycle cost analysis for pumping systems
by the Hydraulic Institute (US) and Europump
(Europe) with US Department of Energy
involvement.
page 21
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
12 Developments since the
BHRA studies and the need

for Standards
Since the publication of the 2nd edition of IFS

(1990) there have been substantial advances in
fluid system simulation and the understanding
of internal flows. The most important is the
maturing of computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) software for 1D simulation of thermal/
fluid systems and 3D simulation of thermal/
fluid flows within system components.
Areas where advances in fluid system
knowledge have been made through
experimental studies include:
Insights into the development of organised
structures within turbulent flows and there
effects on fluid systems
Measurement of pipe friction factors at high
Reynolds numbers (>106).
These experimental advances are discussed
below but first I will try to explain why the
store of validatable loss coefficients has not
increased even though there have been
numerous experimental studies of component
loss coefficients over the past 25 years. This is
worrying because the knowledge and skills for
generating validatable loss coefficients are also
those required to generate experimental data
to validate 3D simulations of fluid system flows
and also to set up and to interpret the output
of CFD simulations. The CFD community
should be concerned about the quality of the
experimental data that is being quoted in
support of the output from 3D simulation for

parts of fluid systems. The discussion in the
Postscript is relevant to this problem.
In Part 3 it was stressed that a due diligence
study is required before starting experiments
to measure component loss coefficients. No
recent experimental studies I have found have
brought to bear the necessary resources, in
terms of fluid system knowledge, to carry
out due diligence to generate validatable
loss coefficients. In most cases the literature
was superficially look at, misinterpreted and
conclusions drawn that have resulted in
flawed justifications for experiments. That loss
coefficients in the literature disagree should
set warning bells ringing triggering the need
to investigate why they disagree, particularly
when this has been going on for over 80 years.
One of the fundamental canons of engineering
ethics is Engineers shall perform services only
in the areas of their competence. Clearly this
is not happening in regards to measuring loss
coefficients. I think the main reason individuals
think they have the knowledge and skills
needed is that they have not been exposed to
situations that would indicate otherwise.
Tacit Knowledge about Fluid

Systems
Over 90% of our knowledge is tacit that is to
say it has to be mined to be brought to the
conscious level. An experience engineer has
tens of thousands of chunks of tacit knowledge
to mine when faced with design, operational
and other decisions. This knowledge is gained
over time by practicing ones art with much of
DON MILLER
it learnt from mentors and by trial and error.

In mining my knowledge store I bear in mind
that when I joined BHRA a very experience
fluid dynamists told me You will find that
many of you preconceived ideas about how
fluid flows behave will turn out to be wrong.
This advice proved to be well founded as
on numerous occasions I needed to revise
my ideas about particular flow situations.
Industrial fluid system problems caused by
others preconceived ideas about fluid flows
being wrong accounted for a significant part of
my colleagues and my work at BHRA. Studies
were also made for others who knew that their
preconceived ideas could be wrong.
By the end of the 1960s academic experimental
studies related to fluid systems virtually ceased
as it was no longer supported by research
funding bodies. Research groups dispersed
before much of the knowledge gained by these
groups diffused into engineering curricula. At
the same time universities started charging
individual departments for floor space. This
resulted in large scale fluid flow rigs, with pipe
diameters comparable to industrial fluid flow
systems, being replaced by small scale test rigs.
Some of latest rigs being promoted are battery
powered so they can be carried into the lecture
room not the best introduction to industrial
piping systems that typically account for 30%
of the cost of process plants and consume
over 25% of the electrical energy generated
worldwide.
page 22
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

For the past 40 years university lectures in fluid
mechanics have not had a strong grounding
in industrial fluid systems. Todays teaching
material and fluid mechanics text books
are mainly based on pre 1960s information
and data and do not reflect the importance
of fluid system to industrial society. It is not
surprising, therefore, that given a project to
experimentally determine loss coefficients
investigators do not have the knowledge
to appreciate what is involved to generate
validatable loss coefficients. Why dont similar
problems occur in other areas of engineering?
The answers is Standards.
The effects of not having Standards

and Codes of Practice for Fluid
Systems
In engineering there are few absolutes in
the data and procedures used for design.
Confusion is avoided by the development
of Standards and Codes of Practice, some of
which become mandatory when enshrined
in law. Once a Standard is in place feedback
occurs that focuses research efforts on
improving the accuracy of data and methods
of its application ending the needless and
wasteful practice of yet more confusing
measurements being made, formulas
proposed and papers published.
Fluid systems are vital to all industries, to
national and local infrastructures, to vehicles,
ships, aircraft and satellites and in commercial,
public and private buildings. Standards come
from co-operation and agreement by the
stakeholders involved but great diversity in

the use of fluid systems means no government
department, professional institution or
trade organisation has ownership of fluid
systems. Without ownership the environment
to generate Standards for fluid system
performance has not existed.
Paradoxically, the simplest fluid system
component of all a plate with a hole in it has
extensive Standards associated with it, some
of which are mandatory. The reason is every
day hundreds of millions of dollars of fluids are
metered, for custody transfer purposes, using
orifice plates. Extensive collaboration between
national flow meter test facilities around
the world helped in establishing Standards
for metering with orifice plates. Periodically
stainless steel orifice plates with their attached
inlet and outlet stainless steel pipes, which
are not allowed to be disassembled because
alignment may be disturbed, are shipped to
national flow metering facilities in Europe, the
US and Japan to check agreement between
national laboratories.
When measuring loss coefficients we do
not need the extreme accuracy required
for custody transfer but it is necessary to
understand why orifice plate Standards
require up to 145 diameters of straight pipe
between some components and an orifice
plate evidence is accumulating that at high
Reynolds numbers (>106) pipe lengths of
over 200 diameters may be necessary to avoid
metering errors. Investigators too often think
they are providing defined flow conditions
into components and measuring all the effects
DON MILLER
on pressure losses after components when

in reality their experimental equipment and
methods do not do so.
The ASHRAE has funded substantial testing
of commercial pipe components/fittings in
recent years. Tests involved a wide range of
components ells, reducers, expansions,
Tees, contracting and expanding bends with typically four fittings from different
manufactures. Welded, screwed and PVC
fittings were tested. Standards to which
commercial components are manufactured
allow for significant variation in flow passage
geometries and flow surface roughness. An
aim of tests was to arrive at a recommended
loss coefficient for a particular type and
size of component. Unfortunately test rig
configurations were such that in many cases
developed flow conditions did not exist at
inlet to components and all the pressure
losses caused by components in outlet pipes
were not measured in the case of the largest
components tested upwards of 40% of the
pressure loss was not recorded. Standards for
testing fluid system components are desirable
The reports on the ASHRAE tests are factual
with little interpretation as regards how
the variation in internal geometry between
nominally similar components effected loss
coefficients. Manufacturing techniques today
are such that manufactures could essentially
produce identical components if this was a
requirement in an industry Standard.
page 23
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

At some stage it needs to be accepted that
there should be a core data base of validated
loss coefficients for defined component
geometries and procedures to estimated
loss coefficients for components that differ
in geometry from the defined geometries.
Instead of investigators just generating more
and more loss coefficients they need the
knowledge to explain why a component
has a loss coefficients that differs from that
for a defined geometry component. Design
guidance could then be provided to predict
the effects on loss coefficients of departures
from defined geometries
location to location thereby revealing flow

structure.
Advances in Turbulence Research
Very large scale motions can have lengths of

10 or so pipe diameters which is longer than
the flow path through many components. In
passing through a component a very large
scale motion can change the flow behaviour
within and downstream of a component.
An example of the effect of very large scale
motions is on the two secondary circulation
cells after a bend. The cells lose their symmetry
as very large scale motions pass through a
bend resulting in one secondary flow cell being
more dominate in the outlet pipe. This is clearly
shown by flow visualisation of flow through a
bend and the velocity profiles into and after a
bend .
Fluid dynamics greatest challenge remains

gaining better insights into the physics of
turbulence and its role in the transfer of
momentum, heat, and mass in engineering
applications. During the experimental work at
BHRA we recorded flow events which we could
not explain but which now could probably be
shown to be due to organised flow structures
in turbulent flows. Our instruments allowed
local measurements of turbulence whereas
one needs to understand what is happening
in a large flow volume and have the results
presented in pictorial or video form that
is easy to comprehend. This is now being
achieved using techniques such as Particle
Image Velocimetry and flow visualisation using
anisotropic particles that are orientated by the
flow and reflect incident light differently from
The picture that is emerging is of coherent

structures within boundary layer flows with
families of vortices generated and arranged to
form a hierarchy of coherent flow structures.
The starting structures are vortices with their
ends momentarily anchored close to a wall
and their middle carried downstream and
away from the wall to form hairpin shapes.
These vortices appear in packets and are swept
downstream to create a so called large scale
motion which may then join with other large
scale motions to form very large scale motions.
If a component has areas of unstable flow

separation and attachment, that effects a
components loss coefficient, the frequency
of very large structure generation could
be expected to have an effect on the loss
DON MILLER
coefficient and possibly on the structural

behaviour of a fluid system. Usually the most
important structural requirement for fluid
systems is that fluid must be contained within
a system under all foreseeable circumstance
some of the worst manmade disasters were
caused by failure to achieve this. Designing
to piping Standards will usually result in fluid
systems in which fluid forces, due to unstable
flow within components, are small compared
to pressure and other forces. However, there
are circumstances where the existence of very
large scale motions in turbulent flow may give
rise to structural problems. This in most likely
for systems operating at near atmospheric
pressure where flow induced forces could be
substantial relative to a systems structural and/
or fatigue strength. A possible example of this
is discussed in the Postscript.
Friction Factors
The most widely used formulae for calculating
friction factors are known to be inaccurate.
However the formulae, and the figures based
on them, are so entrenched in the engineering
community that only an internationally
developed Standard is going to lead to the
adoption of more accurate methods of arriving
at friction factors.
The development of methods for calculating
pipe friction head losses were driven by civil
engineers who built the infrastructure that
brought clean water to and removed sewage
from towns and cities in the 18th century
page 24
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

saving countless millions of lives. They had
a job to do and they knew that corrosion,
deposits and growths were going to reduce
capacity substantially so factors within
formulae for calculating head losses had to
be based on engineering judgement. In 1931
Nikuradse in Germany began the process
of providing a firmer scientific foundation
for friction factor prediction by carrying out
detailed experimental work. However, in 1937
using data that today would not meet criteria
for validatable data, Colebrook in the UK
developed a formula that appeared to have
strong scientific basis for estimating friction
factors. The formula was plotted by Moody in
the US on a friction coefficient versus Reynold
number plot and became and remains the
most widely used source of friction coefficients.
Colebrooks equation erased all the fine detail
of the transition from smooth to rough pipe
flow shown by Nikuradse. Since the majority
of major industrial fluid flow systems operate
in the smooth to rough transition region
this has proved to be unfortunate, as was
generating an implicit rather than an explicit
formula. The literature now contains tens of
explicit formula that claim to reproduce the
Colebrooks implicit formula to within a percent
or so without acknowledging that the implicit
formula in only accurate to 15% or so.
DON MILLER
of transmission pipelines want to be able to

sell capacity to within a fraction of a percent
of the maximum capacity minus a small
safety factor. This means knowing friction
coefficients to great accuracy. They also need
to judge whether when building a pipeline it
is cost effective to coat the internal surface to
minimise friction and increase capacity.
The need for accurate friction factors for gas
transmission systems has resulted in large
scale experimental studies and extensive
measurements on operating pipelines. These
have resulted in substantial reductions in
roughness values used in calculating friction
factors. Other studies with facilities such as
with the super-pipe a Princetown University
have shown that corrections need to be
made to the smooth pipe friction factors
at Reynolds Numbers above 106 and that
better representation of friction factors in
the transition from smooth to rough surfaces
is required. However, without a recognised
authoritative international body driving the
development of a Standard present methods
will remain in general use.
The largest pipeline infrastructures today are

natural gas transmission systems that provide
25% of our energy. When put into service the
internal surface of natural gas pipelines does
not deteriorate significantly. The operators
page 25
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
DON MILLER
Postscript Validation of fluid

system 3D CFD studies
this postscript contains;
A valuable addition to IFS would have been

a review of fluid system design guides. Fluid
system design guides fulfil part of the function
that in other areas of engineering is covered
by Standards. Committees select data for
inclusion in engineering Standards which is
then subjected to critical comment by the
stakeholders concerned with the application
of the data. This critical comment process is
totally absent in the case of fluid system design
guides.
2. A review of an experimental study that

referenced the two design guides in item
1 and IFS before carrying out a project that
produced erroneous loss coefficients. The
study aimed to provide data to validate CFD
models at Reynolds numbers up to 40x106.
For over 70 years the Crane Handbook

has been the most widely used guide for
calculating pressure losses in power and
process piping systems. The handbook
contains a limited range of loss coefficients
surrounded by nomographs, formula and
information to aid in calculating head losses.
3. Comments on a major application of CFD

that quoted the flawed data from item 2
and other inappropriate data in a challenging
application involving many fluid
phenomena.
There are numerous comments on the

web about the deficiencies of the data and
calculation procedures in the handbook.
These are matched by forceful defence of the
handbook by many seasoned engineers.
Brief review of two fluid system

design guides
In the early 1930s Crane Laboratories carried

out extensive measurements of component
losses on which the guide is based:
An unfortunate outcome of a lack of critical

comments on fluid system data is 3D CFD
simulations of fluid system components are
being validated using inappropriate data.
Design guides are often the sources for
loss coefficients used for validating 3D CFD
simulations, presumably on the assumption
that the data has already been carefully
selected and is reliable. Unfortunately this is
not generally the case and as far as I am aware
only IFS meets requirements for assessment of
the validity of loss coefficient data.
When safety issues are involved, using
validated data is essential. One should always
bear in mind that if unfortunately there is an
accident, even if the use of erroneous data for
validation had no impact on the cause of the
accident, the use of erroneous data could be
interpreted as an individual not possessing or
accessing knowledge that could have avoid the
accident.
As a contribution towards 3D simulations
being set up and validated against reliable data
1. A brief review of two of the most widely used

fluid system design guides.
Two of the most widely used guides for fluid

system simulation are:
1. Crane Flow of Fluids [1]
2. Idelchik Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance
[2]
For reasons I will describe both these design
guides started out with what today would be
called a flawed product specification. After
a number of years they tried to recover the
situation when it was understood the serious
problems users were encountering with the
data and procedures in the guides. As with
so many projects that start out with flawed
specifications the task of correcting the guides
was not practical and serious deficiencies
remain. Unfortunately most users of the guides
have no reason to know they are not a source
of validated loss coefficient data.
1. Crane - Flow of Fluids through

Valves, Fittings and Pipe
Geometric similarity did not exist between

similar components of different sizes
Pressure measuring locations are unknown
Steel pipework was used so flow surfaces
would have been in a corroded state
Water velocities were sufficiently high for loss
coefficients to be independent of Reynolds
number because of the corroded flow
surfaces.
With loss coefficients being independent of
Reynolds number the variable left was the lack
of geometric similarity between nominally
similar components. This led to loss coefficients
being plotted relative to component size.
The loss coefficients were then converted to
be expressed as the equivalent lengths the
pipe, which would experience friction losses
page 26
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

equivalent to that of a component, assuming a
pipe surface was sufficiently rough that friction
in the pipe was independent of Reynolds
number.
The fundamental errors of the Crane approach
to presenting loss coefficients became very
apparent when the guide was used to calculate
pressure losses at Reynolds numbers below
those under which loss coefficients were
measured. Predicted Pressure losses were
clearly much too high as they related to fully
rough pipe flow conditions, whereas low
Reynolds numbers fluid systems could be
operating with smooth pipe flow conditions,
even if pipes and component surfaces were
corroded.
Since the 1930s the manufacture of pipes
and components has improved and in many
systems components like bends are as per
drawing and not some rough approximation
to a defined geometry.
The guide has long included a figure from
US National Bureau of Standards publication
by Beij [3] from 1938 that shows bend loss
coefficients measured by a number of
investigators. The loss coefficients by different
investigators vary widely but in the Crane
Handbook there is no explanation of why
they differ. If they had investigated further by
going back to the original sources of data they
would have found that Reynolds number and
roughness where the variables involved in the
loss coefficient of geometrically similar bends.
Beij himself carried out a meticulous study
of bend loss coefficients. Importantly he
realised that he had a serious problem
because his experimental facility used steel
pipe and components, as did the Crane

studies. Corrosion of the steel pipes was such
a problem that for each bend tested he had
to wait until the pipe resistance coefficients
showed practically no change over a period
of about 2 weeks. before he could make
sensible measurements. Beij also noted that:
The worst effect of rusting, however, appears
at piezometer holes. Here ridges of rust are
frequently built up around the holes in such
a way as to falsify the pressure indications.
Effectively what Beij showed was that tests,
such as those carried out by Crane, could
not be replicated. Beij correctly surmised
that tests had to start with smooth pipes and
components and then progress to tests with
known roughness.
In 1976 the presentation in the handbook
was changed from equivalent lengths to loss
coefficients to try to overcome the problem of
gross over prediction of pressure losses at low
Reynolds numbers. Since then considerable
academic ingenuity has be expended on
devising ways to correct the loss coefficients in
the handbook to account for Reynolds number
but without acknowledging they are not
validatable loss coefficients in the first place.
2. Idelchik Handbook of Hydraulic

Resistance
The 3rd Edition of Idelchiks Handbook of
Hydraulic Resistance is a monumental work on
internal flows and loss coefficients in particular.
However, for reasons given below it is seriously
flawed with many errors in the figures and text.
It is extremely difficult to use, which has led
to loss coefficient data being taken from the
DON MILLER
handbook, misinterpreted and then published

in erroneous form in other fluid system design
guides.
The most serious problem with the handbook
goes back to its origins. [4] In the Foreword to
the 1st Edition is an explanation of its origins
with one of the comments being Taking into
account the great need of even tentative data
for assessing the resistance of conduits made
of stretches of quite varied configurations,
we decided to include in this handbook not
only data checked satisfactorily by laboratory
studies, but also data obtained by crude
experiments, and those obtained theoretically
or by approximate calculations, etc. What this
meant in effect was that any data that could
be found in the Russian literature (It is believed
by searches mainly made by candidates for
engineering sciences degrees) was included in
the 1st edition. In later additions Idelchik tried
to eliminate some of the grossly erroneous
data but the reality was there was no possibility
that starting from such a woefully deficient
collection of loss coefficients that data could
emerge that was known to be accurate.
A paper by Koch [5] highlights a few of the
glaring contradictions and possible errors
in hitherto accepted data. Most of these
errors and contradictions relate to Idelchiks
handbook. Quality control becomes virtually
impossible when a handbook gets to the
size of the Idelchiks 3rd Edition IFS has had
the benefit of 30 years feedback on typing
and labelling errors, updates from improved
experimental data and searching questioning
by the engineers who translated it into
Japanese.
page 27
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

Idelchiks own experimental work was of a
high quality and loss coefficient data from his
published papers related to annular bends
is included in IFS. Some of his other work on
bends has been validated against that in IFS.
His extensive background in experimental
fluid dynamics is reflected in the quality of the
extensive explanations and recommendations
about internal flows included in the 3rd edition
of the Handbook.
An example of a problem with

published loss coefficients Bettis
bend study
The Bettis [6] project was a substantial
engineering project involving pressurised
heated water (up to 290 C) that allowed
Reynolds numbers up to 40x106 to be
achieved when measuring the loss coefficient
of a bend with a radius ratio of 1.2 in steel pipes
of 5.2 inches (13.2 mm) in diameter. The steel
pipes were passivated to avoid corrosion. The
mechanical aspects of the project where of a
high standard.
An important requirement for such a project
would be a senior engineer with ten or so
years experience with particular knowledge in
industrial fluid mechanics. The engineer would
be familiar with the literature on fluid systems
and flow measurement including installation
conditions and have a good understanding of
turbulent internal flows. The reporting related
to the project showed that such experience
was absent as will be discussed below.
What is often not realised is the different
capabilities required in going from calculating
the performance of a fluid system when it can

be treated as a black box with inputs and
outputs, to needing to know what goes on in
detail inside the black box. As with all aspects
of engineering the capabilities to understand
what is going on in an engineering black box
can only be learned through experience and
past evidence points to a 10 or so year learning
process for measuring loss coefficients. Without
the appropriate experience every report
written shows up deficiencies which the writers
are unaware of but an experienced engineer
in the particular subject is acutely aware of.
The Bettis project is an example of engineers
involved in a field of engineering which was
not their speciality.
The problem started with the literature review
with a number of incorrect comments such as
the worlds database for piping elbows was
limited and these were at relative low Reynolds
numbers (<0.5x106). IFSs reference Reynolds
number is 106 and there is a complete
performance chart for bends at this Reynolds
number which is based on validated data.
Except for a paper by Ito [7] no original
experimental work is quoted, only design
guides Crane, Idelchik, IFS and Pigott. Pigotts
paper relates to commercial fittings and Pigott
recorded that the data presented was not
reliable so it should not have been used in
the Bettis project. The Crane loss coefficient
data for reasons already given is not valid. Itos
loss coefficient data is reliable and covers a
Reynolds number range of 30x103 to 0.3x106.
Ito developed an equation which is valid for
the Reynolds number range he investigated.
The Bettis investigators unjustifiably used
Itos equation to extrapolate loss coefficients
DON MILLER
up to Reynolds numbers of 40x106 loss

coefficients decrease markedly over the
Reynolds numbers range covered by Ito but
there was no justification to assume that they
would continue to decrease at higher Reynolds
numbers.
Loss coefficients for a radius ratio 1.2 bend
given by Idelchik and IFS were plotted up to
40x106 which, although much higher than
the Reynold number of the Idelchik and IFS
experimental work, was justified, as both
sources showed the loss coefficient for a
radius ratio bend of 1.2 became independent
of Reynolds number above 0.3x106. Idelchik
and IFS loss coefficient curves were essentially
coincidental. This should have prompted the
investigators to query whether this was due
to accurate measurement of loss coefficients
being made by experienced investigators of
bend loss coefficients which it was.
If the investigators had gone back to the
original experimental data for IFS in BHRA
publications they would have found an
explanation of why the loss coefficient for a
r/d =1.2 bend could have been expected to
be independent of Reynolds number As
Reynolds number increases above 0.3x106
velocity profiles flatten, secondary flows
weaken and are less effective in suppressing
separation at a bend outlet so separation
losses go up. Weaker secondary flows result
in lower losses in the outlet pipe from a bend.
Higher separation losses and lower outlet pipe
losses more or less balance out, hence loss
coefficients being essentially independent of
Reynolds numbers.
page 28
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

Having concluded there was no reliable
loss coefficients the investigators set up a
pressurised water, high temperature, test rig
and carried out measurements. They recorded
loss coefficients 60% of those measured by
Idelchik and IFS at a Reynolds number of
106 and less than 40% of those predicted
by Idelchik and IFS at a Reynolds number of
40x106.
There is no way of establishing why the Bettis
loss coefficients differ so radically from those
of Idelchik and IFS. However, one can use the
limited details contained in 7 published papers
linked to the Bettis project to establish why
the test facility was unsuitable for measuring
validatable loss coefficients.
The pipework into the test facility was such
that swirl was expected ahead of a venturi
flow meter. A multi hole flow straightener was
positioned upstream of the flow meter. Multihole flow straighteners are not very effective
in removing swirl. Downstream of the venture
flow meter was a short spool piece before a
reducer from 10 inches to the 5.2 inch test
section pipe. It was not realised that the flow
out of the diverging section of the venturi
meter would have been highly distorted and
extremely turbulent and would have extended
through the reducer and into the test section
pipe.
About 15 pipe diameters from the pipe
inlet the mean velocity across the pipe was
measured. The probe size velocities were only
measured at 40% of the centreline area of the
pipe. The mean velocity in the centre of the
pipe was compared to that of a fully developed
flow profile which had recently measured in
the super pipe facility at Princetown University.

The super pipe fully developed flow profile was
measured 200 pipe diameters downstream of a
smooth inlet to ensure a developed turbulent
structure existed at the measuring location.
The reason for the long inlet length is a high
Reynolds number the boundary layer that
starts growing immediately after a smooth
inlet takes 30 to 40 pipe diameters to reach a
pipe centreline. At that point the centreline
flow will still have essentially the same total
energy as at the inlet as it has been unaffected
by wall generated turbulence. The velocity
on the centreline is, therefore, above that for
developed flow. The turbulence structure
of the flow changes over the next 30 to 40
pipe diameters as the turbulence structure
readjusts and causes the centreline velocity
to undershoot, to be followed by other cycles
of adjustment. By 200 pipe diameters, a fully
developed turbulent profile should exist.
Clearly the investigators should not have
referenced their profile to that of the super
pipe.
In the Bettis case, because of the disturbed
inlet conditions to the test pipe the turbulent
structure of the flow would be such that
the profile would be changing significantly
downstream of the velocity measuring section
before the bend located 21 pipe diameters
from the inlet to the test pipe. Because of the
short inlet pipe and disturbed flow conditions,
friction coefficients would have been well
above those of developed pipe flow.
The investigators commented that flow profiles
were symmetric over a factor of three in
Reynolds numbers. This led them to conclude
that the flow straightener upstream of the
DON MILLER
flowmeter had adequately eliminated swirl

and flow maldistribution effects. Given the
high level of turbulence following the venturi
meter, that would have destroyed evidence
of upstream conditions, this was not a valid
conclusion.
The real downside of the Bettis project
is erroneous loss coefficients now in the
public domain, and as they relate to high
Reynolds Numbers at which major power and
process plants operate, they are likely to gain
prominence.
A major CFD application and

selection of loss coefficient data
An application that stands out when searching
the web for CFD studies that have used the
Bettis data relates to the proposed Japan
sodium cooled fast reactor (JSFR). JSFR is an
innovative pool type reactor 10m in diameter
that operates with a 2.5 bar argon blanket over
liquid sodium. Low operating pressure and
the use of high grade stainless steel will allow
thin wall pipes to be used. In order to minimise
plant size flow velocities (9.2m/s) are relatively
high. The combination of thin pipe walls and
high flow velocities requires that the potential
for damaging flow induced forces is considered
very carefully. Numerous papers have been
published on hydraulic and 3D CFD studies
related to developing the JSFR concept.
Hot sodium is withdrawn from the reactor
sodium pool through two 1.2m diameter dip
pipes about 5 diameters long. The dip pipes
extend up through the reactor roof where
the flow is turned horizontal by a 90 degree
bend of r/d = 1, followed by three diameters of
page 29
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS

straight pipe before entry into an intermediate
heat exchanger/pump. Flow separation on the
inside of the r/d =1 bend and unstable flow
re-attachment is a major concern as regards to
flow-induced vibrations. The dip pipes, bend
and outlet pipes are referred to as the hot leg.
[8]
A number of physical models and 3D CFD
studies have been carried out to determine
pressure losses and flow forces acting on the
hot leg . Bettis project loss coefficient data
along with calculated loss coefficients from
Piggot and Idelchik were used for comparison.
In Idelchiks handbook in a section Explanation
and practical recommendations related to
bends, the investigators found experimentally
measured loss coefficients and details of
bend flow separation behaviour for a fluid
system with a layout similar to that of the hot
leg. Idelchiks data showed loss coefficients
and areas of flow separation at a bend outlet
varied in a complex manner with Reynolds
numbers. The JSFR investigators set up 3D CFD
simulations to reproduce Idelchiks data as a
means of checking their 3D CFD simulations.
When loss coefficients vary in a complex way
with Reynolds numbers it usually means some
easy to explain flow phenomena is occurring.
The length of the pipe after the bend in
Idelchiks case was only 0.8 diameters and it
discharged to atmosphere. This meant that the
static pressure across the pipe cross-section
was essentially constant 0.8 diameters after the
bend, whereas in the hot leg piping it would
vary across the cross-section at that location
so that although the flow system layouts
appeared to be similar they involved very
different flow behaviour within and after their
bend. Discharging to atmosphere increased

the pressure gradient downstream of the bend
and hence the extent of flow separation, and
made separation particularly sensitive to the
bend inlet boundary layer condition. In the
hot leg, not only would the area of separation
be much smaller, there would also be pressure
recovery after the bend from turbulent mixing.
In effect the investigators CFD models did not
have the correct outlet boundary conditions as
regards to simulating Idelchiks results. Other
comments, are pipe wall roughness values
assumed in calculating friction losses that were
too high at 50 microns, with a value under 5
micron being more appropriate and an inlet
loss of 0.1 would be more realistic than the 0.02
assumed.
Simulations of flows and pressure forces
on the JSFR hot leg piping have so far been
made with assumed inlet velocity profiles
to the hot leg bend. The reality will be very
different because of complex flows into the
hot leg piping. The dip pipe arrangement is
an extreme version of a pump sump. It has a
very high inlet velocity, a small amount of inlet
shaping (bell mouth), there are components
local to the dip pipe inlets and complex flows
occurring in the reactor vessel. Also the dip
pipes are located very close to the reactor wall
compared to pump sump practice. Dominate
adverse features in pump sumps are vortices,
both surface and internal. Surface vortices are
avoided in the JSFR by a plate between the
dip pipe inlet and the sodium/argon surface.
Model studies were used to locate a feature on
the reactor vessel wall to reduce the strength
of a vortex from the wall to the dip pipe inlet
that would have led to cavitation conditions in
DON MILLER
the vortex core. Two other vortices anchored

to local structures were not strong enough to
reach cavitation conditions. In 2015[9] a 1/3
model simulation of the upper plenum of the
reactor was scheduled and this should provide
more realistic pressure losses and flow force
information for the hot leg.
A CFD study made earlier on in the JSFR
concept development showed that the
closeness of the dip pipes to the reactor wall
would cause peak velocities in the vertical hot
leg pipe would be biased towards the inside
of the bend with an area of slow moving flow
entering the outside of the bend. If this is the
case then very strong secondary flows through
and downstream of a bend will occur. These
secondary flows would tend to reduce or
eliminate the area of flow separation. Instead,
a large area of turbulent mixing with strong
secondary flows into the intermediate heat
exchanger/pump could be expected.
The fact that the Bettis loss coefficient data
and Piggots equation were plotted on a graph
of loss coefficient/ Reynolds numbers would
have no consequences for the JSFR project but
referencing them raises unnecessary questions.
No matter how technically skilful the 3D CFD
simulation, a question has been raised related
to the understanding references quoted.
Investigators should always ask themselves, If
I quote this reference could a knowledgeable
person query my understanding of its
content. The best approach is to assume any
reference you find does not contain validatable
information until you have satisfied yourself
otherwise.
page 30
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS
DON MILLER
References:
[1] Flow of fluids Through valves, fittings and pipe, Technical Paper No. 410, Crane engineering
Dept., Reprinted 2013.
[2] Idelchik Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance, Jaico Publishing House, Mumbai, 2008
[3] Beij K H Pressure losses for fluid flow in 90 pipe bends, U S Bureau of Standards Research Paper
RP 1110, July 1938.
[4] Idelchik, I. E., Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance, AEC-tr-6630, Translation by Barouch, A., U. S.
Dept. of Commerce, 1966.
[5] Koch, P., Comparisons and choice of pressure loss coefficients for ductwork components,
Building Serv. Eng. Res. Technol., 22,3 (2001).
[6] Coffield R.D., et al, Irrecoverable pressure loss coefficients for a short radius of curvature piping
elbow at high Reynolds numbers WAPD-T-3190, Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, 1998.
[7] Ito, H., Pressure losses in smooth pipe bends Trans. ASME, J. Basic Eng., Vol. 82, 1960.
[8] Tanaka, M., et al., Numerical Investigation on Large Scale Eddy Structure in Unsteady Pipe Elbow
Flow at High Reynolds Number Conditions with Large Eddy Simulation Approach, Journal of
Power and Energy Systems, Vol. 6, No. 2, JSME, 2012
[9] Ito, K., et al., Two-Phase Flow Simulation of Gas Entrainment Phenomena in Large-Scale
Experimental Model of Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor, Progress in NUCLEAR SCIENCE and
TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 2, pp.114-119 (2011)
Don Miller
After 10 years service in the RAF as an
apprentice and engine technician, Don
Miller joined the celebrated British aeroengine company Bristol-Siddelely to work
on defect investigation. Following his
Masters degree in Aeronautical
Engineering at Cranfield University, Don
went on to join the British Hydrodynamic
Research Association (BHRA, now BHR
Group) in 1965.
While at BHRA, he was involved in a
number of research programmes focussing
on fluid system performance, cavitation
and pressure surge. Don rose within the
organisation to become Head of the
Industrial Fluid Mechanics group before
taking up the post as Research Director.
Don Miller is the author of Internal Flow
Systems, the de facto standard source for
fluid system pressure loss data.
page 31

Confidence in Fluid System Design - Mentor Graphics

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Confidence in Fluid System Design - Mentor Graphics

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate