0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
202 Ansichten1 Seite
Here is comparison of relations between the 3 main liquid pressure loss methods. The Moody and Fanning methods give nearly same results. The reliable 'Hazen-Williams' method compares more closely to the Fanning-Blasius method, than to the Moody method. This is demonstrated by a plot of pressure drop differences.
Here is comparison of relations between the 3 main liquid pressure loss methods. The Moody and Fanning methods give nearly same results. The reliable 'Hazen-Williams' method compares more closely to the Fanning-Blasius method, than to the Moody method. This is demonstrated by a plot of pressure drop differences.
Copyright:
Public Domain
Verfügbare Formate
Als PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
Here is comparison of relations between the 3 main liquid pressure loss methods. The Moody and Fanning methods give nearly same results. The reliable 'Hazen-Williams' method compares more closely to the Fanning-Blasius method, than to the Moody method. This is demonstrated by a plot of pressure drop differences.
Copyright:
Public Domain
Verfügbare Formate
Als PDF, TXT herunterladen oder online auf Scribd lesen
FLOW COEFICENTS C0MPARE: Manning.Fanning.Hazen-Williams by OP Armstrong P.E.
2017
PROBLEM & BACKGROUND
Three methods are commonly used to determine flow pressure losses in conduits. They are Manning, Hazen-Williams, and Fanning a.k.a. Moody Chart. Looking at these equations will show the similarities and differences. A comparison of these methods should yield about the same friction losses. A small dataset based on 1-7fps and R 10E4-3E6 was used for checking. Results are given in chart to right. The Manning formula gave closer agreement to Moody % than did HW, 8%. The HW formula was developed from over 2000 points in of actual works, 1914. HW is a method used by NFPA & other standards agencies. The Manning method is widely accepted for both closed and open channel flow. Less error, 1.1%, to HW data is had by fitting a Blasius type friction factor to HW p at C of 130, f=0.148/R0.163 & p=fL/D(V2/2g).
Findings are given below and in above Chart:
Table of Formula, Symbols, and Variables in Common American Units Comment Hazen Williams Manning dP: feet fluid/feet of Conduit 10.44(gpm/C)1.85/d4.87 12.75(n*gpm)2/d5.33 dP Modified Fanning Moody dP=f(gpm)2/d5/32.2 f(gpm)2/d5/32.2 f , =0.001 ft D= id, feet = d/12 ((-1.8*log((/D/3.7)1.11+6.9/R))-2)/0.976 ((-1.8*log((/D/3.7)1.11+6.9/R))-2)/0.976 0.0075 0.104 0.187 Less err when fit f@C=130, n C=82.7d /f or 57.5/f n= 0.049(f0.5d0.167) Reynolds Number, =1.31 centStk R=3163*gpm/d/ R=3163*gpm/d/
The following is a detailed description and analysis of the method.
f*gpm2/d5/32.2 = 10.44*(gpm/C)1.85/d4.87 by (d/d)0.13 & (gpm/gpm)0.15 to get f/32.2=10.44 C1.85 (gpm/d)-0.14 or C=23.2/((gpm/d)0.076f0.54) but (gpm/d/v) is Reynolds and f can be expressed in terms a/Rb so call this term as C, or C=23.2/f0.46 it close to Chezy Cc, Cc=(8g/f)=16.1(1/f) When this limited data set is regressed: C=57.5/f0.187 resulted from least squares. The C ranged 117-133. But an improved fit was with C=82.7d0.0075/f0.104 The better compliance with this data set was to modify Fanning Friction by a Blasius (f=0.148/R0.163 ) type friction factor. This complied to within 1% of HW pressure drop at C=130. Note: some recommend f=a/Rb & p=fL/D(V2/2g).with a: 0.184, 0.216 & b:0.2, 0.2: Smooth pipes, Commercial steel pipes.