Major and Minor Losses in Pipes and Fittings

John W Llorens

ABSTRACT. Energy losses due to frictional effects of pipe or duct material or due to a change in
velocity within a fitting cause energy loss in flowing fluids. Students performed an exercise to determine
the Darcy Friction Factor for a 5ft length of 1.025 inch diameter copper pipe and a 5ft length of 0.430
inch diameter copper pipe. Experimentally determined friction factors ranged from 0.038 to 0.072 to for
the large diameter pipe and 0.0302 to 0.0356 for the small diameter pipe, indicating a reduction in the
effect of friction as the surface area that the fluid comes into contact with is reduced. Minor loss
coefficients were determined for a right angle bend, a small elbow, a medium elbow, a large elbow, a
sudden contraction in pipe diameter from 40mm to 20mm, and a sudden enlargement in pipe diameter
from 20mm to 40mm. The right angle miter bend demonstrated the highest loss coefficient along with the
sudden contraction, with experimental values for KL at 1.24 and 0.787 respectively. The sudden
contraction was determined to have a minor loss coefficient of 0.184 and the long, medium, and short
elbows were determined to have loss coefficients of 0.390, 0.326, and 0.685. An increasing rate of
change of the velocity of the fluid demonstrated an increase in the the minor loss coefficient for the
various fittings.

INTRODUCTION
Energy loss is an important consideration when designing or maintaining fluid transport
systems. As fluid travels through sections of pipes or ducts or experiences a change in velocity
in a fitting, energy is dissipated as heat and is lost. Energy lost due to friction in pipes is
commonly termed “major losses” and occurs due to the frictional characteristics of the pipe or
duct material acting on the flowing fluid. Energy lost due to a change in velocity inside of a
fitting or valve is generally small in comparison to major losses, and is commonly referred to as
“minor losses.” Minor losses are often negligible in comparison to major losses in systems
transporting large flow rates or systems transporting fluid over great distances.
Losses must be considered in fluid transport as a system may become inoperable should
the losses become too great. One example involves drainage systems, where losses must be
considered to avoid overly positive or negative pressures in sections of the system which may
prevent fluid flow and thus render the system inoperable. When corrugated drainage pipe is
deflected, for example, the amount of loss incurred may increase and therefore such
circumstances should be taken into consideration when designing the system. (Walker, P., &
Armstrong, C.)

OBJECTIVES
The Major and Minor Losses exercise was performed to gather an understanding of the
effect of pipe diameter, pipe material, and flow rate on major energy losses in a flowing fluid. In
addition, the exercise was performed to understand the effect of minor energy losses due to
various pipe fittings used in fluid transport and the similarities and differences between these two
types of losses.

1
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Students utilized the Technovate pipe system (not shown) to determine the major losses
in two five-foot pipe sections of varying diameters. One pipe measures 1.025 inches in diameter
and the other measures 0.430 inches in diameter and both are made of copper with a roughness
of E = 0.0015mm (Cengel, Y., & Cimbala, 934). Valve 52 was used to control the flow through
the pipe system as the 7 trial runs were conducted for each pipe diameter. During each trial run,
the pressure drop across the five foot section of pipe and the pressure drop across an orifice
meter with known dimensions was recorded.
The dimensions of the orifice meter (d = 0.625in, beta= 0.5) and the discharge coefficient
(Cd = 0.656) were utilized along with the experimentally determined pressure drops across the
orifice meter to determine the volumetric flow rate using the following relationship, known as
Poiseuille's Law:

Figure 1: Poiseuille's Law (Cengel, Y., & Cimbala, 346).

Q = Volumetric Flow Rate
A0 = Inner Cross Sectional Area of Orifice Meter
Cd = Discharge Coefficient of Orifice Meter
ΔP = Pressure Drop in Orifice Meter
β = Ratio of Orifice Meter Inner Diameter to Outer Diameter
ρ = Fluid Density

With the volumetric flow rates and the experimentally determined pressure drop across
the pipe section, the Darcy Friction Factor (f) was determined from the following relationship,
noting that the velocity represented in the following equation is calculated by dividing the
volumetric flow rate by the cross sectional area of the pipe:

Figure 2: Head Loss in Pipes (Cengel, Y., & Cimbala, 346).

hL = Head Loss
L = Length of Pipe Section
f = Darcy Friction Factor
D = Pipe Diameter
V = Fluid Velocity
g = Acceleration due to Gravity

The Reynold's number (Re) was determined for each trial run and theoretical values for
the Darcy Friction Factor (f) were also determined using the Colebrook Equation. As the
Colebrook Equation is implicit, approximate values for f were determined iteratively using
Microsoft Excel's "goal seek" function. These theoretical results for f were then compared to the
values determined experimentally.

2
 Figure 3: Reynold’s Number (Cengel, Y., & Cimbala, 340).
Re = Reynold’s Number
ρ = Fluid Density
D = Pipe Diameter
V = Fluid Velocity
µ = Fluid Viscosity

Figure 4: Colebrook Equation (Cengel, Y., & Cimbala, 357).

f = Darcy Friction Factor
ε = Pipe Roughness
D = Pipe Diameter
Re = Reynold’s Number

Students also determined the minor loss coefficients for various pipe fittings using the
Energy Loss in Bends module of the Edibon Fluid Mechanics Integrated Laboratory, seen in
Figures 9 and 10. The minor loss coefficients (KL) were determined for a long elbow, a sudden
enlargement from 20mm to 40mm pipe diameter, a sudden contraction from 40mm to 20mm
pipe diameter, a medium elbow, a short elbow, and a right angle fitting. All fittings were
assumed to be threaded (as opposed to flanged).
The flow rate through the system was controlled using the control valve, and 7 trial runs
were conducted. During each trial run, the readings from each of the 12 manometer tubes was
recorded while the change in the reservoir water level was also recorded. A stopwatch was used
to determine the time elapsed while the recordings were taken. The volumetric flow rate through
the system was determined by dividing the difference in the reservoir water volume by the time
elapsed. The average flow velocity through the system was determined by dividing the
volumetric flow rate by the smallest cross sectional area common throughout the system
(20mm).
The pressure drop across each fitting was plotted against the square of the average fluid
velocity. Using Microsoft Excel's trendline function, the slope of each data set was determined
and taken to be KL/2g in the following equation:

Figure 5: Head Loss in Fittings (Cengel, Y., & Cimbala, 365).

hf = Head Loss
K = KL = Minor Loss Coefficient
D = Pipe Diameter
V = Fluid Velocity
g = Acceleration due to Gravity

By multiplying these values by 2g, the values for the minor loss coefficients (KL) for
each fitting were determined.

3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Both the experimentally determined and theoretical friction factors for the large diameter
pipe (D = 1.025 in) are plotted against the square of velocity in Figure 6 below. It can be seen
from this plot that the experimental values were greater than the theoretically determined values.
This is likely due to factors that were not accounted for in the Colebrook equation, such as
deposits on the interior wall of the piping. The Technovate pipe system used is estimated to be
at least twenty years old which would permit both mineral and algae deposits to form on the
interior of the piping and influence the “relative roughness” of the material and its effect on
flowing water.

0.08
Large Pipe
0.07 (Experimental)
Large Pipe
(Theoretical)
0.06
Friction Factor f

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Square of Velocity (m2/s2)

Figure 6: Large Pipe Friction Factor vs Square of Velocity

Figure 7 below illustrates both the experimentally determined friction factors and the
friction factors determined using the Colebrook equation for the small diameter pipe (D = 0.430
in). Similar results can be seen in the small pipe and the experimental results for the friction
factor are greater than those determined using the Colebrook equation. Both Figure 6 and Figure
7 demonstrate a decreasing value for the experimental and theoretical friction factors as the
velocity of the fluid increases. This is a possible indication that it is more efficient to transport
water through small diameter piping at higher velocities to minimize the percentage of energy
lost due to friction.

4
 0.04

0.035

0.03
Friction Factor f

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01
Small Pipe (Experimental)
0.005
Small Pipe (Theoretical)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Square of Velocity (m2/s2)

Figure 7: Small Pipe Friction Factor vs Square of Velocity

Figure 8 below demonstrates the increase in head loss versus the square of the fluid
velocity in various fittings. It is evident from this plot that wherever possible, a wider turn radius
fitting should be used to change the direction of fluid flow as the right angle fitting demonstrates
a much greater degree of head loss and the rate at which head loss increases with increasing
velocity is considerably larger than for both the medium and short elbows. It is also evident
from Figure 8 that a sudden contraction in pipe diameter incurs a much greater amount of head
loss than in a sudden expansion.

5
 0.04
Long Elbow y = 0.0199x
0.035 Sudden Expansion y = 0.0094x
Sudden Contraction y = 0.0401x
0.03
Medium Elbow y = 0.0166x
0.025 Short Elbow y = 0.0349x
Head Loss (m)

Right Angle y = 0.0573x

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Square of Velocity (m2/s2)

Figure 8: Head Loss vs Square of Velocity for Various Fittings

Table 1 below shows the experimentally determined values for the minor loss coefficient
for the six types of fittings tested and compares them to theoretical values (Cengel, Y., &
Cimbala, 934). The experimental value for the right angle fitting was within a percent error of
2.2% and it can again be seen that the minor loss coefficient for this fitting is much greater than
all other fittings. The percent error was much greater between the experimental and theoretical
values for the long elbow, sudden expansion, sudden contraction, and medium elbow. This is
likely due to experimental error and the difference in height between the connection points on
these fittings for the manometers which was neglected in the readings. The short elbow and right
angle fittings had a much smaller elevation difference between the manometer connection points
as well, which likely contributed to more accurate readings.

6
 Table 1: Experimental and Theoretical Loss
Coefficients

Experimental Theoretical
Percent
Fitting Loss Loss
Error
Coefficient Coefficient

Long Elbow 0.390 0.25 56.2

Sudden
Expansion 0.184 0.59 68.8
Sudden
Contraction 0.787 0.4 96.7
Medium
Elbow 0.326 0.5 34.9
Short Elbow 0.685 0.74 7.5
Right Angle 1.124 1.1 2.2

CONCLUSIONS
When designing fluid transport systems, it is important to consider pipe diameter and
material to maximize efficiency. These results illustrate that at low volumetric flow rates,
moving fluid at higher velocity through a smaller diameter pipe to minimize contact with the
surface area and thus minimize frictional losses may prove efficient compared to transporting the
fluid through a larger diameter pipe at a lower velocity.
Fittings are also important to consider in applications where fluids may be moving only
short distances but pressure must be maintained within the system. Dramatic changes in fluid
velocity incur larger energy losses than changes in fluid velocity that occur more gradually, and
thus smooth expansions and gradual, large radius bends should be utilized when possible and
necessary. As the losses incurred by the various pipe fittings are small relative to those incurred
by a length of pipe, pipe material and diameter is of greater importance when designing systems
to transport fluids over great distances.
.

7
APPENDIX

Figure 9: Edibon Fluid Mechanics Integrated Laboratory Figure 10: Energy Losses in Bends Module

8
REFERENCES

Cengel, Y., & Cimbala, J. (2006). Fluid mechanics: Fundamentals and applications. Boston: McGraw-
HillHigher Education.

[Energy Losses in Bends Module]. Retrieved November 18, 2014

http://www.edibon.com/products/img/units/fluidmechanicsaerodynamics/fluidmechanicsbasic/FME18.jpg

[Edibon Hydrostatics System]. Retrieved September 20, 2014

http://www.equipmentsexporters.com/images/product/1578570765FluidProperties&HydrostaticsBench.jp
g

Walker, P., & Armstrong, C. (n.d.). Hydraulic Characteristics of Deflected Corrugated Plastic Drainage
Tubing. Transactions of the ASAE, 1440-1445.