Major and Minor Losses

Madison Shelley
BSEN 3310-001
Team 1

Abstract: In this lab, team one changed the volumetric flow rate to measure the effects of the pipe diameter
on major loss and the fitting type on minor loss. Finding the amount of energy lost is important for completing
pipe or duct systems. The Technovate fluid circuit system pressures were recorded at varying volumetric flow
rates in two different diameter pipes. The observed change in pressure height represents major head loss,
which is used to calculate the effects of the Darcy friction factor. The effects of fitting type, represented by
coefficient k, was determined by the minor head loss. Coefficient k was measured by changing volumetric flow
rate on an Edibon Energy Losses in Bends Module FME05. The small pipe, with a .43 inch inner diameter,
friction factor was in between .025 and .084, and the larger pipe with a .785 inch inner diameter friction factor
was in between .023 and .065. The experimental values seem to be consistently slightly below the theoretical
values. Both pipes show as velocity increases friction decreases, but the larger diameter pipe consistently has
less friction. For minor loss, KL values were highest in sudden contraction, short elbow, and mitre bend. This
result proves energy is lost when there is a large change in pressure. The team’s percent error was between
52%-95% due to the experimental equation ignoring multiple factors.

Introduction: Major and minor losses are energy While minor loss was measured with the Edibon
losses in a system due to friction or the fitting type Energy Losses in Bends Module FME05, shown in
of each pipe. Major loss, or friction factor, is figure two.
determined by three factors. One is Reynolds
number that determines if a flow is turbulent,
laminar or transient. The second is roughness, and
it is relative to the third-factor, which is internal
pipe diameter. Therefore, the size and material of
the pipe along with the fluctuation of the flow
determines how much energy is lost. Minor loss is
only caused by a negative change in pressure due
to a change in the structure of the piping. Since
friction and diameter of the pipe cause higher
energy loss than a change in the pipes direction or Figure 2) Edibon Energy Losses in Bends Module FME05
shape, major loss refers to the Darcy friction factor
and minor loss refers to pipe fitting (Bowden and Each device measures pressure at the beginning
Yang, 2016). This experiment measures major loss and end of a section of pipe. The difference in the
with the Technovate fluid circuit system, shown in height of the two pressures is called head loss. Not
figure one. only does the head loss allow us to calculate
friction factor and minor loss coefficient, but also it
is important in making sure the volumetric flow
rate is high enough where the fluid can complete
the flow through the entire system (Cengal and
Cimbala, 2014).

Objective: The objective of this lab was to measure

the effects of pipe diameter on major loss with a
Technovate fluid circuit system, and the effects of
Figure 1) Technovate fluid circuit system
fitting type on minor loss with an Edibon Energy  f =friction facrtor
Losses in Bends Module FME05. The goal was to m
understand better how friction and pressure  g=gravity 2
( )
s
change the effects on pipe and duct systems.  L= pipelength ( m )
m
Methods & Materials: The Technovate fluid circuit
system, shown in figure one, was used to measure
 ( )
v =velocity 2
s
 D= pipe diameter ( m )
major loss. The circuit consists of four-five foot long
copper pipes and an orifice connected to a water
Head loss was calculated from the difference in
source. The orifice was connected to pipe one,
pressure levels above the pipe. Velocity was
which had an ID of .43 inches. One team member
calculated by dividing the volumetric flow rate by
controlled valve 52 to increase or decrease the
the cross-sectional area. Once experimental friction
volumetric flow rate. Once a flow rate was picked,
factor (f) was calculated we found the roughness
team members would read each of the two pipes
for copper in the textbook, .0015 mm, and plugged
pressure levels at the top of the orifice and above
the values into the Colebrook equation. Equation
the pipe. This process was repeated six times
three finds theoretical friction factor.
before restarting the process by switching to pipe
three, which had an ID of .785 inches. The two
ε
pressures across the orifice were subtracted from
each other and then multiplied my density and
gravity to change its units to pascals. The change in
1
√f
=−2.0 log (
D 2.51
3.7
+
ℜ√f ) (3)

pressure was then put in equation one to find

volumetric flow rate (Q). Where:

Where:
Q= A o C d
√ 2ΔP
ρ (1−β 4 )
(1) 

f =friction facrtor
D= pipe diameter ( m )
 ε =roughness mm
 ℜ=Reynolds number
 A=cross−sectional area of orifice ( m2 )
kg
 ρ=density of water 3
( )
m
Reynolds number was calculated by multiplying
velocity by pipe diameter and dividing it by
 C d=discharge coefficient of orifice viscosity. Theoretical friction factor and
 experimental friction factor were both plotted
∆ Porifice = pressure drop across orifice(Pa) against velocity squared.
3
m
 Q=volumetric flow rate( )
kg Minor loss was calculated on the Edibon Energy
 Losses in Bends Module FME05 shown in figure 2.
m Head loss values were taken at different points
β=orifice inner diameter ¿ outer diameter ratio( )
m along a turning pipe. The valve was opened setting
the volumetric flow rate. Measurements were
Cd, cross-sectional area of the pipe, inner orifice taken in twelve tubes corresponding to the
diameter, and outer orifice diameter were given. beginning or end of a new section of pipe. The
After calculating volumetric flow rate, the Darcy sections included long elbow, sudden expansion,
friction factor (f) was calculated with equation two. sudden contraction, medium elbow, short elbow,
and right bend. When the water exited the right
L v2 bend, it filled a tank that measured total liters.
h L=f (2)
D 2g When the valve was initially turned on a timer was
Where: started. Once the chamber filled to a reasonable
 h L=head loss across pipe section ( m ) level, the valve was turned off, and the timer was
stopped. The total volume change and time were Figure 3 shows the friction factors for pipe one,
recorded. This procedure was repeated six times. which is the smaller pipe with an ID of .43 in. The
Equation four was used to find the theoretical value results show as velocity increases friction
of minor loss coefficient (KL). decreases. This result could be because the force of
the water is greater, decreasing the effect of the
v2 force of friction. This graph also shows that the
hf =k L (4)
2g experimental friction factors are consistently in
Where: between 20-40% error. This error means something
 hf =head loss ( m ) was unaccounted for in the experiments given
m equations. These observed trends remain constant
 g=gravity 2
s ( ) for figure four.
m
 v =velocity 2
s ( ) 0.12
0.1
 k =minor loss coefficient

Friction Factor
L 0.08
0.06
Head loss was the difference in pressure between 0.04
two ends of a section of pipe. Velocity was 0.02
calculated in the same way as major loss, 0
volumetric flow rate divided by cross-sectional 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
area. Each section of pipes head loss was plotted Velocity Squared (m^2/s^2)
against velocity squared. The slope was added to
each line of the graph. Then each value was Pi pe 2 (experi menta l) Pi pe 2 (theoretical )
multiplied by 2 times gravity to obtain experimental Figure 4) Theoretical and Experimental Darcy friction factors versus velocity
coefficient (KL). Then the percent relative error was squared (m2/s2) for pipe four.

found between theoretical and experimental minor

loss coefficients. Experimental and theoretical
minor loss coefficients and percent relative error
were put in a table for comparison.
Results: The recorded change in pressure across
the orifice and the change in pressure above the
pipe were embedded in different equations to give
theoretical and experimental Darcy friction factors.
0.1
0.08
Friction Factor
Figure four is the larger diameter pipe with a .785
in ID. Not only does it validate the previous claims
made about figure three, but it also it show that
pipes with larger diameters are less affected by
friction.
This figure proves the earlier statement, flow
fluctuation, and roughness in respect to pipe
diameter are the main determining factors in major
loss. Figure five also proves the same statement
about minor loss. As pressure decreases, the
energy loss increases causing a higher minor loss
coefficient.

0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Velocity Squared (m^2/s^2)

Pi pe 1 (experi menta l) Pi pe 1 (theoretical )

Figure 3) Theoretical and Experimental Darcy friction factors versus velocity

squared (m2/s2) for pipe one.
 0.08
0.07 Conclusion: Neither the Technovate fluid circuit
0.06 f(x) = 0.05x
system or the Edibon Energy Losses in Bends
Head Loss (m)

0.05
f(x) Module FME05 proved to be an effective way to
0.04 f(x) == 0.04x
0.04x
0.03 measure major and minor loss. Consistent percent
0.02 error in each graph showed that the given equation
f(x)
f(x) == 0.02x
0.01 0.01x left out environmental factors that affect energy
0 f(x) = 0.01x
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 loss. However even though neither device can
provide us with the correct major or minor loss, it
Velocity Squared (m^2/s^2)
can give us the correct trends to understand the
effects of pipe diameter and fitting type. Both
Long El bow
Li near (Long El bow) major and minor loss increases when pipe pressure
Sudden Expa ns i on increases, whether it is due to diameter or fitting
Li near (Sudden Expans ion) type. On the other hand, only major loss is
Sudden Contra ction
positively affected by velocity. Minor loss is
Li near (Sudden Contraction)
Medi um El bow negatively affected.
Li near (Medi um El bow)
Short El bow
Li near (Short El bow)
Mitre Bend
Li near (Mi tre Bend)

Figure 5) Head loss(m) in each section of pipe versus velocity squared (m2/s2)

Figure 5 shows that when a pipe contracts or bends References:

the pressure increases, so there is a greater head 1. Bowden, R.; Yang, S. (2016). Experimental
loss. The softer the bend, the less energy is lost. Investigation of Two-Phase Bubbly Flow
The graph velocity relationship is opposite from Pressure Drop Across a Horizon Pipe
major losses. As velocity increases energy loss Containing 90° Bends. CNL Nuclear Rev., 6
increases, proving minor loss to be negatively (1), 55-69.
affected by velocity. The slopes were multiplied by 2. Cengel, Y.A., and J.M. Cimbala, Fluid
2 gravity to get experimental k. Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014. Print.
Experimental Theoretical K Percent
K relative
error
Long Elbow 0.33 0.016 95
Sudden 0.13 0.053 60
Expansion
Sudden 0.77 0.36 53
Contraction
Medium 0.28 0.12 55
Elbow
Short Elbow 0.72 0.3 57
Mitre Bend 1.1 0.51 52
Figure 6) Percent error of experimental minor loss coefficient

Figure 6 further shows that the more pressure

drops, the more energy that is lost. Energy loss is
represented by minor loss coefficient (k). The high
relative error proves that once again the equations
that were given with the experiment did not have a
crucial environmental factor that affect energy loss.