Investigation of Sensors and Methods Used to Determine Air Quality

MENG 3211 LABORATORY REPORT

SECTION 001L TEAM B

REPORT SUBMITTED BY: Keith Bryant

I certify that the narrative, diagrams, figures, tables,

calculations and analysis in this report are our own work.

DATE EXPERIMENT PERFORMED: February 12, 2019

DATE REPORT DUE: February 26, 2019
DATE REPORT SUBMITTED: February 26, 2019

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND COMPUTER SCIENCE
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT TYLER
 ABSTRACT

Coefficients for calculating losses in pipe fittings are very generalized. In order to

capture values that best represent the situation an engineer is working to solve; an experiment

must be performed to validate the standard coefficients or to determine precise values for a

specific setup. This laboratory experiment was conducted to determine these values for fittings

in polyvinyl chloride pipe, commonly called PVC pipe. Once the values for the loss coefficients

are determined, they are to be compared to the values presented in the text book for fluid

mechanics for validation.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………. 4

Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………… 7

Results ……………………………………………………………………………………. 9

Discussion ………………………………………………………………………………… 12

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………. 13

References ………………………………………………………………………………. 14

Appendix A ………………………………………………………………………………. 15
 INTRODUCTION

In hydraulic engineering, it is necessary to estimate the head loss incurred by a fluid as it

flows along a pipeline. It can predict the rate of flow along a proposed pipe connecting two

reservoirs at different levels and necessary to calculate what additional head would be required to

double the rate of flow along an existing pipeline. Loss of head may be incurred by fluid mixing,

which occurs at fittings such as bends or valves and by frictional resistance at the pipe wall. For

a short pipe having several fittings, the major part of the loss will be due to the local mixing near

the fittings while for a long pipeline, skin friction at the pipe wall will predominate. In this

Laboratory, we are applying the relations corresponding to minor losses in incompressible flow,

computing losses at the pipe fittings, and generating a data analysis for the data collected in the

experiment. The apparatus we used in this experiment is in the figure below:

Figure 1: Schematic of Experimental Apparatus.

Next is how we calculated our data given the equations as follows:

4
 For the calculation of losses in the hydraulic systems of pipes the energy equation for
incompressible flow
2 � 2
� + �1 + � = 2 + �2 + �2+ ℎ
2� 1 2�
1 �
where ℎ�, �

is the total head loss in the system, which consists of two types of losses, the major losses due to

friction (ℎ�) and minor loss due to fittings (ℎ�,�𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛�). The equation can be written as follows:

�1 �2 � 2
�
+ 1 +�= 2 + �2 + �2+ ℎ + ℎ
2� 1 2�
�

Calculation of Friction Losses

The major losses in piping systems are associated with straight sections and are

calculated according to Darcy-Weisbach equation:

ℎ� � (3)
=
�2
𝐷 2�
� is the Moody or Darcy friction factor
� is the length of pipe over which the pressure drop occurs
𝐷 is the internal diameter of the pipe
� is the fluid average velocity

The friction factor � is a function of Reynolds number (𝑅�) and the relative roughness (�/𝐷),

with Reynolds number defined as

𝜌�𝐷 �𝐷 (4)
𝑅� = =

𝜇 �
� is the roughness factor
𝜌 is the fluid density
𝜇 is the fluid absolute viscosity
𝜈 is the fluid kinematic viscosity

The Moody or Stanton diagram is a chart that gives � versus Re for various �/𝐷. Moody

diagram illustrates the three types of flow: laminar flow (Re<2000), turbulent flow (Re>4000),
and transition state (2000 < Re < 4000). The mathematical expression for the laminar flow is

given in Equations (5), and Colebrook equation is used for turbulent flow.

64
� = 𝑅� 2.51
(5)
�
( )
𝐷

1/√� = −2.0 log[ 3.7 + ] (6)

𝑅�√�
The kinematic viscosity (𝜈) is a function of water temperature and can be obtained from tables of

experimental data. Alternatively, it may be obtained from the empirical formula with 𝜈 in m^2/s

and 𝑇 in °C.

� = [1.0049 − 0.02476(𝑇 − 20) + 0.00044(𝑇 − 20)2] ∗ 10−6 (7)

Calculation of Losses at Fittings

Since most piping systems are composed of straight pipes, the losses associated to the

friction in straight pipes are considered major losses. However, losses through fittings (valves,

elbows, T connections, etc.) can be computed and are known as minor losses. The most common

method used to determine the minor losses is by using the loss coefficient, 𝐾�,

ℎ =𝐾 �2 (8)
�,�𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛�� � 2�

The pressure drops through a component that has a loss coefficient 𝐾� = 1 is equal to the

dynamic pressure (�^2/2�) or one velocity head. The value 𝐾� is highly dependent on the

geometry of the component and fluid properties and is determined experimentally. Sometimes

minor losses are given in terms of an equivalent length, ���. In this terminology, the pressure

drops across a component is given in terms of the equivalent length of straight pipe that produces

the same pressure drop as the component. This ��� modifies Equation (8),

ℎ =𝐾 �2 ��� �2 (9)
�,�𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛�� � 2� = �
𝐷 2�
From Equation (9), a mathematical expression for the equivalent length can be derived as
��� 𝐾�𝐷 (10)
= �
 METHODOLOGY
Equipment and Material list

 Hydraulic bench
 Measuring tank
 Bicycle pump

Experimental Apparatus
Figure 1 below shows the hydraulic bench apparatus used in the laboratory. A portion of
the hydraulic bench apparatus is used to allow the flow of fluid through its rigid plastic piping
material. The fluid enters the inlet and flows through the apparatus until it leaves through the
outlet. In total there are five pipe fittings on the apparatus that are used to measure the fitting
losses during the overall cycle. These include a 90° miter bend, 90° elbow bend, 90° large radius
bend, sudden enlargement in pipe diameter, and sudden contraction in pipe diameter. A multi-
tube manometer is located at the center of the apparatus. It is connected to piezometer taps
placed before and after each pipe fitting to be analyzed. The multi-tube manometer can be
pressurized using a bicycle pump, which helps it become easier to read values from the
apparatus. Above the multi-tube manometer is an air valve which allows for pressure release
down to atmospheric pressure.

Experiment Procedure
The apparatus is setup to allow constant flow of water through the hydraulic bench into
the measuring tank below. To allow all the air in the system to be removed properly, the air valve
is slacked or removed entirely, and the vent valve which is located at the top of the piping is
opened. Following this, the exit control valve is closed partially. This allows unwanted air
bubbles to be taken out of the system at a quick rate. After the air bubbles seemed to have stop
coming out, the air vent should be closed as well as the manometer air valve replaced and
tightened up. Next the bicycle pump is used to add pressure into the multi-tube for visible
reading of the heights. The last step in the process is to use the leveling screws to set the
manometer readings equal across the system. Now that the apparatus is set up, the exit valve can
be opened slowly, and the reading taken on the multi-tube manometer. Time is recorded as the
measuring tank collects a certain amount of water. Than the water is released, a new flow rate is
set, and the processes is repeated. If a question of air being stuck in the piping arises, it can be
checked by opening the air vent for a short period of time.

Dimensions of pipes and fittings:

 Diameter of small-bore pipe D1 = 22.5 mm

 Diameter of large-bore pipe D2 = 29.6 mm
 Radius to center line of elbow Re = 12.5 mm
 Radius to center line of bend Rb = 53.4 mm
 Length of straight pipe between piezometer tapping and fitting = 4D1 or 4D2
Figure 2: Hydraulic bench and Measuring Tank.
 RESULTS
Once the data was analyzed, there were five loss coefficients to be determined. They
were determined for the 90-degree miter bend, 90-degree elbow bend, and large radius bend. The
final two values were the sudden enlargement and contraction in the pipe diameter. The data was
computed and displayed on a graph. The complete data set is located in Appendix A.

Figure 3: Graph of head loss versus velocity head in miter bend.

Figure 4: Graph of head loss versus velocity head at the standard elbow.
Figure 5: Graph of head loss versus velocity head at the large radius bend.

Figure 6: Graph of head loss versus velocity head at the expansion.

Figure 7: Graph of head loss versus velocity head at the contraction.
 DISCUSSION

A comparison of the experimentally obtained loss coefficients and the standard ones
presented in Munson, Young, and Okiishi’s Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics shows a large
degree of variation between values. Values in the text were modeled on an average of metal
pipes with flanged fittings. These values were selected due to the similarity between pipe fitting
interface profiles for metallic flanged fittings and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) fittings. Both feature
a small gap in continuous pipe diameter due to either a gasket for flanged fittings or incomplete
seating for PVC fittings. Values in Table 1 include the reference location from the text.

Table 1: Comparison of Experimental Coefficients to Textbook Values.

Miter Bend 0.98 1.1 (Fig 8.30)

Regular 90° 0.76 0.93 (Table 8.2)

Expansion 0.21 .19 (Fig 8.26)

Contraction 0.23 .18 (Fig 8.25)

Long Radius 90° 0.33 0.2 (Table 8.2)

In calculating the losses for an application, it is recommended to use the experimental

coefficients whenever possible. Due to the values being derived from an experiment, they take
into account all geometric and production anomalies within the fitting. This provides the
engineer with a greater accuracy for the fittings and materials in use.

As with any experiment, there is always uncertainty. For this experiment, the major
sources of uncertainty were the timing method and the evaluation of head during the experiment.
Uncertainty was minimized in the Tuesday lab by keeping the personnel conducting both timing
and head reading callout constant. This prevented any uncertainty from multiple people from
affecting the results. It also stabilized the biased uncertainty for the experiment.
 CONCLUSION
This lab had the objective of experimentally obtaining values for the computation of
losses in pipes fittings and comparing them to literature. A system consisting of a pipe line with
elbows connected to a series of manometer tubes was used. After water flow was started in this
system, those tubes presented different water columns heights, which were used to determine
losses in different sections of the pipes.
Graphs of the head loss versus velocity head were plotted on Excel for each bent section
in the pipe as well as the sudden expansion and contraction in the pipe diameter. Five loss
coefficients were then determined using the graphs, which were represented by the slopes of the
Best-Fit Straight-Line Equations determined by Excel. The experimental values were then
compared to those found in Munson, Young, and Okiishi’s Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics,
and a large variation between the values was noticed. The main source of uncertainty in this
experiment was due to the timing method and the evaluation of the head experimentally.
The objective of this experiment was achieved, since data to compute losses in pipe
fittings was collected experimentally, the loss coefficients were then obtained, and the results
were compared to the literature.
 REFERENCES
Fumo, Nelson, Dr. Losses at Pipe Fittings. Laboratory handout, 19 February 2019

Gerhart, Philip M. et al. Munson, Young, and Okiishi’s Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics.
Wiley, 2016.
Appendix A: Excel Data and calculations
Table A.1: Raw Data.
2
Constants: D 1: 22.5 mm Relbow: 12.5 mm A1: 397.6078 mm
2
D 2: 29.6 mm Rbend: 53.4 mm A2: 688.1345 mm
Run Vol (ltr) t(s) h1 h2 h3 h4 h5 h6 h7 h8 h9 h10 Temp(°C)
1 10 18.41 501 388.5 325 232 217.5 250 250 152 140 81 19.3
2 10 19.22 532 433 374 292 278 306 305 218 207 157 19.9
3 10 19.85 445 348 293 212.5 201 227.5 228.5 143 132.5 84 19.8
4 10 20.91 485 398 349 278 267 290 290 215 204 160 20
5 10 22.25 450 377 332 269 259 279 279 212 202 164 20.1
6 10 25.1 395 334 300 250 241 258 258 205 198 165 20.3
7 10 27.34 360 310 281 238 232 245 245 200 194 165 20.3
8 10 30.22 338 294 267 230 224 236 235 196 191 166 20.4
9 10 33.75 302 268 246 218 212 222 222 191 186 166 20.5
10 10 36.5 282 254 236 210 208 213 213 187 182 166 20.6

Table A.2: Calculated Values.

Calculations V1(D1) Eq 11 V2(D2) Eq 11 V12/2g V22/2g

Q

Run (ltr/s) (m3/s) Visc(ν): (m/s) Re1 f1 Seek=1 (m/s) Re2 f2 Seek=1 (mm) (mm)
1 0.543 5.43E-04 1.02E-06 1.366 30063 0.023 1.000 0.789 22852 0.025 1.000 95.123 31.758
2 0.520 5.20E-04 1.01E-06 1.309 29227 0.024 1.000 0.756 22216 0.025 1.000 87.274 29.137
3 0.504 5.04E-04 1.01E-06 1.267 28229 0.024 1.000 0.732 21458 0.025 1.000 81.822 27.317
4 0.478 4.78E-04 1.00E-06 1.203 26931 0.024 1.000 0.695 20471 0.026 1.000 73.737 24.618
5 0.449 4.49E-04 1.00E-06 1.130 25371 0.024 1.000 0.653 19286 0.026 1.000 65.123 21.742
6 0.398 3.98E-04 9.98E-07 1.002 22601 0.025 1.000 0.579 17180 0.027 1.000 51.173 17.085
7 0.366 3.66E-04 9.98E-07 0.920 20750 0.026 1.000 0.532 15773 0.027 1.000 43.131 14.400
8 0.331 3.31E-04 9.95E-07 0.832 18818 0.026 1.000 0.481 14304 0.028 1.000 35.302 11.786
9 0.296 2.96E-04 9.93E-07 0.745 16891 0.027 1.000 0.431 12840 0.029 1.000 28.304 9.449
10 0.274 2.74E-04 9.90E-07 0.689 15657 0.027 1.000 0.398 11901 0.029 1.000 24.199 8.079
Table A.3: Miter Bend Calculations.
Miter L/D= 8
h1-h2 hf hmitre
(mm) (mm) (mm)
112.5 17.863 94.637
99 16.499 82.501
97 15.596 81.404
87 14.212 72.788
73 12.732 60.268
61 10.287 50.713
50 8.852 41.148
44 7.420 36.580
34 6.110 27.890
28 5.322 22.678

Table A.4: Standard Elbow Calculations.

Elbow L/D= 8.872665
h3-h4 hf helbow
(mm) (mm) (mm)
93 19.812 73.188
82 18.298 63.702
80.5 17.297 63.203
71 15.763 55.237
63 14.121 48.879
50 11.409 38.591
43 9.818 33.182
37 8.229 28.771
28 6.776 21.224
26 5.903 20.097

Table A.5: Expansion Calculations.

Enlargement L/D= 4
h5-h6 hf h5-h6-hf hexpansion
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
-32.5 12.115 -44.615 18.750
-28 11.190 -39.190 18.947
-26.5 10.578 -37.078 17.427
-23 9.641 -32.641 16.478
-20 8.638 -28.638 14.743
-17 6.980 -23.980 10.108
-13 6.008 -19.008 9.724
-12 5.037 -17.037 6.480
-10 4.148 -14.148 4.706
-5 3.614 -8.614 7.506
Table A.6: Contraction Calculations.
Contraction L/D= 4
h7-h8 hf h7-h8-hf hcontraction
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
98 12.115 85.885 22.520
87 11.190 75.810 17.673
85.5 10.578 74.922 20.417
75 9.641 65.359 16.240
67 8.638 58.362 14.981
53 6.980 46.020 11.931
45 6.008 38.992 10.261
39 5.037 33.963 10.447
31 4.148 26.852 7.998
26 3.614 22.386 6.266

Table A.7: Long Radius Bend Calculations.

Large Radius Bend L/D= 11.72802
h9-h10 hf hbend
(mm) (mm) (mm)
59 26.188 32.812
50 24.187 25.813
48.5 22.863 25.637
44 20.835 23.165
38 18.666 19.334
33 15.080 17.920
29 12.977 16.023
25 10.878 14.122
20 8.957 11.043
16 7.803 8.197