Sie sind auf Seite 1von 143

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the


copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by


sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced


xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9’ black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning


300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEVELOP DESIGN DATA ON PRESSURE LOSS

OF LARGE PIPE FITTINGS

by

Patrick Dent

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment o f


the requirements for the degree

of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

in

Civil and Environmental Engineering

Approved:

William PLahmeyer
Major Professor Committee Member

Joseph Caljendo Noelle Cockett


Committee Member Interim Dean of Graduate
Studies

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY


Logan, Utah

2000

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number 1399356

Copyright 2000 by
Dent, Patrick

All rights reserved.

UMI*
UMI Microform 1399356
Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company


300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ii

ABSTRACT

Develop Design Data on Pressure Loss

of Large Pipe Fittings

by

Patrick Dent, Master o f Science

Utah State University, 2000

Major Professor: Dr. William Rahmeyer


Department: Civil and Environmental Engineering

Pressure loss coefficients were determined for large radius ells, large concentric

pipe reducers, and expansions, as well as large pipe tees. The fittings tested were 12, 16,

20, and 24 inch forged steel weld. Forty individual fittings from four different

manufacturers were tested to determine loss coefficient values. Each test fitting was

examined at a specified range of pipe velocities to determine mean and variation o f loss

coefficients. Tees were also examined for mean and variation of loss coefficients over a

range of flow distributions.

Currently no data exists for pipe fittings of these larger diameters. This study will

provide new design data to aid engineers in determining pressure loss for these large

diameter pipe fittings.

(140 pages)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. William Rahmeyer for allowing me the opportunity to

participate in this project, and for supporting me financially while doing my graduate

work. I would also like to thank Alan Taylor, Robert Odell, Blake Tullis, and all the

people at the Utah W ater Research Laboratory for guidance and assistance whenever

needed. I give my appreciation to the faculty who served on my committee, Dr. Gilberto

Urroz and Dr. Joseph Caliendo, for their support and assistance. Lastly, I want to thank

my wife, Denise, for her help and patience in completing this project.

Patrick Dent

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv

CONTENTS

Page

A B S T R A C T ............................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS.................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIG U R ES....................................................................................................................x

LIST OF V A R IA B LES........................................................................................................... xv

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

LITERATURE R E V IE W ........................................................................................................ 4

Vendor d a t a ....................................................................................................................5
Reference books ...........................................................................................................6
Journal a rticles............................................................................................................... 8

LOSS COEFFICIENTS ......................................................................................................... 10

Flow in ells and pipe reducers..................................................................................... 10


Branching flow in pipe tees ....................................................................................... 12
Mixing flow in pipe t e e s ..............................................................................................13

TEST SETUP AND PROCEDURES ...................................................................................16

Test se tu p s.................................................................................................................... 17
Fitting connections...................................................................................................... 20
Pressure measurement ................................................................................................21
Flow m easurem ent...................................................................................................... 21
Test procedure............................................................................................................. 26
Measurement accuracy................................................................................................29

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 32

Velocity tren d s............................................................................................................. 32


Loss coefficient resu lts................................................................................................37
Elbow fittings............................................................................................................... 40

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V

Expansion/reduction fittings...................................................................................... 42
Tee fittings................................................................................................................... 44

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMM ENDATIONS..............................................................46

Review of objectives ................................................................................................. 46


Discussion of objectives.............................................................................................46
Conclusions.................................................................................................................47
Recommendations ......................................................................................................49

LITERATURE C IT E D .......................................................................................................... 51

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................53

Appendix A. Velocity comparisons for loss coefficients........................................ 54


Appendix B. Individual data s h e e ts ......................................................................... 75
Appendix C. Photographs.......................................................................................118

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Pipe fittings t e s t e d ..........................................................................................................3

2 Pipe diameters and locations of pressure t a p s ........................................................... 19

3 Data points and velocity ranges for ells and expansion/reduction fittings 27

4 Data points, velocity ranges, and flow ratios for tee fittings ...................................28

5 Repeatability tests ........................................................................................................ 30

6 Loss coefficients of ells at specific velocities..............................................................38

7 Loss coefficients of expansions at specific velocities................................................ 38

8 Loss coefficients of reductions at specific v e lo c itie s................................................ 39

9 Loss coefficients of tee fittings at specific v e lo c ities................................................ 39

10 Path length of fluid and corresponding fitting d iam eter........................................... 41

11 Percent change of contracted flow area .................................................................... 42

A-l Loss coefficients for 12 inch elbows at specific velocities...................................... 55

A-2 Loss coefficients for 16 inch elbows at specific velocities...................................... 55

A-3 Loss coefficients for 20 inch elbows at specific velocities...................................... 56

A-4 Loss coefficients for 24 inch elbows at specific velocities...................................... 56

A-5 Loss coefficients for 10 x 12 inch expansions at specificv elo cities.......................57

A-6 Loss coefficients for 12 x 16 inch expansions at specificv elo cities.......................57

A-7 Loss coefficients for 16 x 20 inch expansions at specificv elo cities.......................58

A-8 Loss coefficients for 20 x 24 inch expansions at specificv elo cities.......................58

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vu

A-9 Loss coefficients for 12 x 10 inch reductions at specific velocities........................59

A -10 Loss coefficients for 16 x 12 inch reductions at specific velocities........................59

A -11 Loss coefficients for 20 x 16 inch reductions at specific velocities........................60

A -12 Loss coefficients for 24 x 20 inch reductions at specific velocities........................60

A -13 Select inlet velocity tests for 12 inch branching t e e ............................................... 61

A -14 Select inlet velocity tests for 12 inch mixing t e e ................................................... 62

A -15 Select inlet velocity tests for 16 inch branching t e e ...............................................63

A -16 Select inlet velocity tests for 16 inch mixing t e e ................................................... 64

B -l Test results for 12 inch elbow ( W 2 ) ......................................................................... 78

B-2 Test results for 12 inch elbow (X2) ......................................................................... 79

B-3 Test results for 12 inch elbow (Y2) ......................................................................... 80

B-4 Test results for 12 inch elbow ( Z 2 ) .......................................................................... 81

B-5 Test results for 16 inch elbow ( W 4 ) ......................................................................... 82

B-6 Test results for 16 inch elbow (X4) ......................................................................... 83

B-7 Test results for 16 inch elbow (Y4) .........................................................................84

B-8 Test results for 16 inch elbow (Z 4 ).......................................................................... 85

B-9 Test results for 20 inch elbow (W 8) .........................................................................86

B -10 Test results for 20 inch elbow (X8) .........................................................................87

B -l 1 Test results for 20 inch elbow (Y8) .........................................................................88

B -l2 Test results for 20 inch elbow (218)..........................................................................89

B -13 Test results for 24 inch elbow ( W 1 0 ) ....................................................................... 90

B -14 Test results for 24 inch elbow (X10) ....................................................................... 91

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vm

B-15 Test results for 24 inch elbow (Y10) .....................................................................92

B -l6 Test results for 24 inch elbow (Z 10).......................................................................93

B -l7 Test results for 12 x 10 inch expansion/reduction (W l) ..................................... 94

B -l8Test results for 12 x 10 inch expansion/reduction ( X I ) ...............................................95

B -l9 Test results for 12 x 10 inch expansion/reduction ( Y l ) .......................................... 96

B-20 Test results for 12 x 10 inch expansion/reduction ( Z l ) .......................................... 97

B-21 Test results for 1 6 x 1 2 inch expansion/reduction (W6) ........................................98

B-22 Test results for 16 x 12 inch expansion/reduction (X6) ..........................................99

B-23 Test results for 16 x 12 inch expansion/reduction (Y6) ........................................ 100

B-24 Test results for 16 x 12 inch expansion/reduction (Z6) ........................................ 101

B-25 Test results for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction (W7) ......................................102

B-26 Test results for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction ( X 7 ) ........................................ 103

B-27 Test results for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction ( Y 7 ) ........................................104

B-28 Test results for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction ( Z 7 ) ........................................105

B-29 Test results for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction (W9) ..................................... 106

B-30 Test results for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction ( X 9 ) ........................................107

B-31 Test results for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction ( Y 9 ) ........................................108

B-32 Test results for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction ( Z 9 ) ........................................109

B-33 Test results for 12 inch tee (W3) ............................................................................ 110

B-34 Test results for 12 inch tee (X 3 ).............................................................................. I l l

B-35 Test results for 12 inch tee (Y 3 )............................................................................112

B-36 Test results for 12 inch tee ( Z 3 ) ...............................................................................113

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ix

B-37 Test results for 16 inch tee (W5) ........................................................................114

B-38 Test results for 16 inch tee (X 5 ) .............................................................................115

B-39 Test results for 16 inch tee ( Y 5 ) .............................................................................116

B-40 Test results for 16 inch tee ( Z 5 ) ............................................................................ 117

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
X

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Schematic describing flow paths for branching tees ..............................................12

2 Schematic describing flow paths for mixing t e e s ....................................................... 14

3 Pipe configuration for elbow fittings............................................................................17

4 Pipe configuration for expansion/reduction fittin g s...................................................18

5 Pipe configuration for branching and mixing tee fittin g s ..........................................18

6 Fitting alignment and dresser connection ................................................................20

7 Large volumetric tank at Utah Water Research Laboratory .................................. 24

8 Weigh tanks at Utah Water Research L ab o rato ry .................................................... 24

9 Venturi meters used for flow measurement................................................................25

10 Distribution of loss coefficients with velocity for ells ............................................. 33

11 Distribution of loss coefficients with velocity for expansion fittings .................... 33

12 Distribution of loss coefficients with velocity for reduction fittin g s.......................34

13 Loss coefficients for branching tees in leg 2 .............................................................. 35

14 Loss coefficients for branching tees in leg 3 .............................................................. 35

15 Loss coefficients for mixing tees in leg 2 .............................................................. 36

16 Loss coefficients for mixing tees in leg 3 .............................................................. 36

17 Schematic describing tee leg designations......................................... 37

18 Loss coefficients as a function of pipe diameter ......................................................40

A-l 12 inch ell loss coefficients for individual vendors.................................................... 65

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
xi

A-2 16 inch ell loss coefficients for individual vendors..................................................... 65

A-3 20 inch ell loss coefficients for individual vendors.....................................................66

A-4 24 inch ell loss coefficients for individual v en d o rs.................................................... 66

A-5 10x12 inch loss coefficients for individual v e n d o rs .................................................67

A-6 12 x 16 inch loss coefficients for individual v e n d o rs ................................................ 67

A-7 16 x 20 inch loss coefficients for individual v e n d o rs................................................ 68

A-8 20 x 24 inch loss coefficients for individual v e n d o rs .................................................68

A-9 12 x 10 inch loss coefficients for individual v e n d o rs .................................................69

A -10 16x12 inch loss coefficients for individual v e n d o rs ................................................ 69

A -11 20 x 16 inch loss coefficients for individual v e n d o rs ................................................ 70

A -12 24 x 20 inch loss coefficients for individual v e n d o rs ................................................ 70

A -13 12 inch branching tee K,.2 values for individual v e n d o rs .........................................71

A -14 12 inch branching tee K,.3 values for individual v e n d o rs .........................................71

A -15 12 inch mixing tee K|.2 values for individual vendors .............................................. 72

A -16 12 inch mixing tee values for individual vendors .............................................. 72

A -17 16 inch branching tee K,.2 values for individual v e n d o rs .........................................73

A -18 16 inch branching tee K,.3 values for individual v e n d o rs .........................................73

A -19 16 inch mixing tee K,.2 values for individual vendors .............................................. 74

A-20 16 inch mixing tee K3_2 values for individual vendors ..............................................74

B -l Diameter designations for 12 inch elbows ( W 2 ) ...................................................... 78

B-2 Diameter designations for 12 inch elbows (X2) ...................................................... 79

B-3 Diameter designations for 12 inch elbows (Y2) ...................................................... 80

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
xii

B-4 Diameter designations for 12 inch elbows ( Z 2 ) ....................................................... 81

B-5 Diameter designations for 16 inch elbows ( W 4 ) ..................................................... 82

B-6 Diameter designations for 16 inch elbows (X4) ..................................................... 83

B-7 Diameter designations for 16 inch elbows (Y4) ..................................................... 84

B-8 Diameter designations for 16 inch elbows ( Z 4 ) ....................................................... 85

B-9 Diameter designations for 20 inch elbows (W 8) .....................................................86

B -10 Diameter designations for 20 inch elbows (X8) .....................................................87

B -11 Diameter designations for 20 inch elbows (Y8) .....................................................88

B -12 Diameter designations for 20 inch elbows (Z8) .......................................................89

B -13 Diameter designations for 24 inch elbows (W2) .................................................... 90

B -14 Diameter designations for 24 inch elbows (X2) .................................................... 91

B -15 Diameter designations for 24 inch elbows (Y2) .................................................... 92

B -l6 Diameter designations for 24 inch elbows ( Z 2 ) ...................................................... 93

B -17 Diameter designations for 12 x 10 inch expansion/reduction (W l) .................... 94

B -18 Diameter designations for 12 x 10 inch expansion/reduction ( X I ) .......................95

B-19 Diameter designations for 12 x 10 inch expansion/reduction ( Y l ) ...................... 96

B-20 Diameter designations for 12 x 10 inch expansion/reduction ( Z l ) ...................... 97

B-21 Diameter designations for 16 x 12 inch expansion/reduction (W6) .................... 98

B-22 Diameter designations for 16 x 12 inch expansion/reduction (X6) ...................... 99

B-23 Diameter designations for 1 6 x 1 2 inch expansion/reduction (Y6) ....................... 100

B-24 Diameter designations for 16 x 12 inch expansion/reduction (Z6) ........................... 101

B-25Diameter designations for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction (W7) ......................... 102

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
xiii

B-26 Diameter designations for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction (X 7 )....................... 103

B-27 Diameter designations for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction (Y 7 )....................... 104

B-28 Diameter designations for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction ( Z 7 ) ....................... 105

B-29 Diameter designations for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction (W9) .....................106

B-30 Diameter designations for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction (X 9 ).......................107

B -31 Diameter designations for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction (Y 9 ).......................108

B-32 Diameter designations for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction ( Z 9 ) .......................109

B-33 Diameter designations for 12 inch tee ( W 3 ) ..........................................................110

B-34 Diameter designations for 12 inch tee (X3 ) ..............................................................I l l

B-35 Diameter designations for 12 inch tee (Y 3 )............................................................. 112

B-36 Diameter designations for 12 inch tee ( Z 3 ) ........................................................... 113

B-37 Diameter designations for 16 inch tee ( W 5 ) ............................................................ 114

B-38 Diameter designations for 16 inch tee (X 5 )............................................................. 115

B-39 Diameter designations for 16 inch tee (Y 5 )............................................................. 116

B-40 Diameter designations for 16 inch tee ( Z 5 ) .......................................................... 117

C -l Miscellaneous test fittings ......................................................................................... 119

C-2 Miscellaneous test fittings ......................................................................................... 119

C-3 12 inch tee configuration.......................................................................................... 120

C-4 12 inch tee configuration............................................................................................ 120

C-5 16 inch tee configuration............................................................................................ 121

C -6 16 inch tee configuration............................................................................................ 121

C-7 12 inch elbow test configuration................................................................................122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
xiv

C -8 16 inch elbow test configuration............................................................................... 122

C-9 20 inch elbow test fitting ........................................................................................123

C-10 24 inch elbow test configuration............................................................................... 123

C -11 20 x 24 inch expansion test configuration............................................................... 124

C - l 2 20 x 16 inch reduction test co n fig u ratio n ............................................................... 124

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
xv

LIST OF VARIABLES

The following variables were used in this thesis:

a,= Pipe length from test fitting to upstream pressure taps, inches.

b,= Pipe length from test fitting to downstream stream pressure taps, inches.

c,= Pipe length from test fitting (mixing) to upstream pressure taps, inches.

c,= Pipe length from test fitting(branching) to downstream pressure taps, inches.

a2= Pipe length upstream of upstream pressure taps, inches.

b2= Pipe length downstream of downstream stream pressure taps, inches.

c2= Pipe length (mixing upstream of upstream pressure taps, inches.

c2= Pipe length (branching) downstream of downstream stream pressure taps, inches.

D= Interior diameter inside a pipe tee, inches.

D, = Diameter o f pipe at inlet of fitting, feet.

D, = Diameter of pipe at outlet of fitting, feet.

D3 = Diameter o f pipe at branch outlet or mixing inlet of fitting, feet.

f, = Friction factor of pipe at inlet of fitting, dimension less.

f2 = Friction factor of pipe at outlet of fitting, dimension less.

f3 = Friction factor of pipe at branch outlet or mixing inlet of fitting, dimension less.

g= Gravitational constant = 32.2 ft/s2 (9.806 m/s2).

h, = Net pressure loss, feet

hL Net pressure loss for flow from fitting inlet to fitting outlet, feet,

hi. 1-3= Net pressure loss for flow from fitting inlet to branch outlet, feet

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3-2 Net pressure loss for flow from fitting mixing inlet to outlet, feet

K= Net pressure loss coefficient, dimension less.

k ,.2= Net pressure loss coefficient for flow from inlet to fitting outlet, dimension less.

K,.3= Net pressure loss coefficient for flow from inlet to branch outlet, dimension less

K3-2= Net pressure loss coefficient for flow from mixing inlet to outlet, dimension less

L,= Pipe length from test fitting to upstream pressure taps, feet.

L,= Interior length inside a pipe tee, inches.

^ 2= Pipe length from test fitting to downstream stream pressure taps, feet.

u= Interior length inside a pipe tee, inches.

u= Pipe length from test fitting (mixing) to upstream pressure taps, feet.

u= Pipe length from test fitting (branching) to downstream pressure taps, feet.

p.= Pressure upstream of fitting inlet, psig.

p 2= Pressure upstream of fitting outlet, psig.

p3= Pressure upstream of branch or mixing inlet, psig.

Qi= Pipe flow at inlet of fitting, gpm.

q 2= Pipe flow at outlet of fitting, gpm.

q 3= Pipe flow at branch outlet or mixing inlet of fitting, gpm.

v ,= Pipe velocity at inlet of fitting, fps.

V2= Pipe velocity at outlet of fitting, fps.

v 3= Pipe velocity at branch outlet or mixing inlet of fitting, fps.

y= Fluid specific weight, lb/ft3.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
INTRODUCTION

The use of loss coefficients (K) to determine the energy loss that occurs in closed

conduit fittings spans a century. Original studies to determine loss coefficients were

conducted a century ago, and none o f these experiments included fittings o f diameters

larger than 8 inches. The results from this study provide loss coefficients that accurately

represent elbow expansion/reduction, and tee fittings for diameters between 12 and 24

inches.

Design manuals and technical papers that contain loss coefficients for fittings o f

diameters greater than 8 inches have derived these values from experiments performed on

fittings of smaller size. These values were then extrapolated to approximate loss

coefficients for fittings of larger diameter. The Crane Company (1979) examined the

geometric dissimilarity that occurs when one size is scaled to another. This geometric

dissimilarity makes size scaling of loss coefficients inaccurate. To obtain accurate loss

coefficient values new research needs to be conducted on fittings o f larger diameters.

This thesis examines experiments conducted on large concentric pipe reductions

(nozzles), pipe expansions (diffusers), regular ells, and regular tees. The objectives of

this study were the following:

1. Determine loss coefficients for the larger diameter fittings

2. Evaluate the scatter of loss coefficients among fitting manufacturers

3. Evaluate the scatter of loss coefficients as a function of pipe velocity

4. Evaluate the loss coefficients in tees as a function of flow ratio

5. Compare results to loss coefficients determined in previous studies.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Two essential quantities are needed to determine loss coefficients: the volumetric

flow rate that passes through the fitting, and the net pressure loss that occurs due to the

form of the fitting. Accurate measurement o f these quantities is a crucial factor for

determining loss coefficients for any pipe fitting. The difficulty in making these

measurements is increased significantly as the size of the test specie is increased.

Historically, piping and flow requirements have made empirical experiments for

fittings of large diameters either spatially or cost prohibitive. These constraints indicate

why previous studies have been limited to diameters of less than 8 inches. The Utah

Water Research Laboratory located at Logan, Utah, is one o f few facilities that has the

flow capacity and facilities to conduct studies o f this magnitude.

The pipe fittings tested are standard schedule fittings classified as nominal

wrought steel butt-welded connections. Forty individual fittings were examined from

four different vendors. Over 640 test runs were conducted in the hydraulics laboratory of

the Utah Water Research Laboratory at Utah State University.

Each elbow, expansion/reduction fitting, and tee fitting was tested over an

approximate velocity range of 2 to 20 feet per second. Each tee was evaluated to

determine the loss coefficient for a flow distribution range from 0% to 100% branching or

mixing flow. For each elbow and expansion/reduction fitting a single loss coefficient

was determined. For tee fittings four loss coefficients were determined, one for each flow

path that occurred in both mixing and branching flows. Flow paths for branching and

mixing tees are described in the loss coefficient section of this report. Table 1 below

describes the size and number o f pipe fittings that were evaluated in the study.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3

Table 1. Pipe fittings tested

No. of Fittings per


Test fitting type vendors vendor Total fittings
12" wrought steel butt-welded 4 1 4
90° regular ell
16" wrought steel butt-welded 4 1 4
90° regular ell
20" wrought steel butt-welded 4 1 4
90° regular ell
24" wrought steel butt-welded 4 1 4
90° regular ell
12" x 10" wrought steel butt-welded 4 1 4
concentric reducer
16" x 12" wrought steel butt-welded 4 1 4
concentric reducer
20" x 16" wrought steel butt-welded 4 1 4
concentric reducer
24" x 20" wrought steel butt-welded 4 1 4
concentric reducer
12" wrought steel butt-welded tee 4 1 4
16" wrought steel butt-welded tee 4 1 4

Total number of test components 40

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4

LITERATURE REVIEW

The majority of literature and texts on pressure loss in closed conduits refer to

friction loss in pipes as the major source of energy loss, and the energy loss to fittings as

minor losses. The most common loss coefficient used for pipe fittings and components is

K, used in the Darcy Wiesbach equation (Equation 1) for minor losses.

rV 2\
AH = K
<2 8 )
( 1)

where AH is the net loss in feet of fluid, V is the mean velocity, and g is the gravitational

constant.

Many publications refer to fitting losses as “minor losses,” and imply that the

variation of values for pipe fittings is not significant, since the friction loss of a pipeline is

often many times greater than the minor losses of the fittings. This is inaccurate for the

use of pipe fittings in distribution and network types of flow systems common in heating,

ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems, where the relationship of pipe

pressure and flow distribution is critical. The results of this study show significant

variation of loss coefficients with flow distribution in tee fittings.

HVAC engineers require information on pressure loss coefficients of pipe fittings

to size pumps and piping, and to optimize system cost versus system energy use. The

data on pressure loss coefficients of welded fittings in Chapter 33 of the Fundamental

Handbook of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Engineers (ASHRAE 1993) extends only through 12 inch diameter pipe.

Another phenomenon not reported in past publications is the condition o f mixing

flow in pipe tees. When the mixing flow is aspirated or pulled into the tee by a

significantly larger line o r through flow, the resulting pressure loss and loss coefficient of

the aspirated mixing flow will be negative, because the momentum and the additional

flow adds energy to the mixing flow.

The publications outlined below are a comprehensive review on loss coefficients

and the data that was used to generate loss coefficients. The review discusses various

sizes of pipe fittings including tees. However, to date no data have been taken or

reviewed on large elbow, expansion/reduction, or tee fittings.

Vendor data

The Weldbend (1996) manual includes detail dimensions, tolerances, and loss

coefficients for pipe fittings. Manual also includes the practices and standards for butt

welded and threaded connections. The loss coefficient or resistance data are limited to

weld-in elbows and tees with 100% branch flow. The coefficients are presented as

equivalent lengths L where: 2" long radius elbow L= 2.1 ft; 2" short radius elbow L= 2.8

ft; 2" tee with 100% 2" branch flow L= 7.8 ft; 4" long radius elbow L= 4 ft; 4" short

radius elbow L= 5.4 ft; 4" tee with 100% 4" branch flow L= 15 ft.

Crane Valves and Fittings (Crane Co. 1952) discusses flow resistance in pipe

fittings and the conversion between K and equivalent pipe lengths. “Crane Technical

Paper No. 410” (Crane Co. 1979) appears to be an update o f the 1952 Crane publication.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
It does not include information on reducing elbows or pipe tees. All of the Crane values

do not account for variation in pipe velocity or for the ratio of flow distribution in pipe

tees. The information on pipe reducers and expansion appears to be from the original

work in Iowa.

“Crane Technical Paper No. 410” (1979) discusses the geometric dissimilarity that

occurs when scaling of a given nominal diameter to that several factors larger. Crane also

provides a relationship between pipe diameter and its corresponding mean loss

coefficient. This relationship is terminated at a maximum diameter of 10 inches.

It is not clear where the published coefficients were derived from. It appears that

some of the original test data were from Giesecke and Badgett (1932) and perhaps from

Freeman (1892).

Reference books

The ASHRAE handbook (1993) is a major source of information on local losses

in ducts and segmented fittings (Chapter 33). However, the only information pertaining

to pipe fittings is in Chapter 2, where a long radius elbow has K=0.6; a short radius

elbow has K=0.9; a tee with 100% flow through has K=0.5; and a tee with 100% branch

flow has K= 1.8.

Albertson, Barton, and Simons (1960) present basic information about several

pipe fittings, expansions, contractions, and pipe bends. The loss coefficient K for a long

radius elbow is K=0.6; a medium radius elbow has K=0.8; a short radius elbow has

K=0.9; a tee with 100% branch flow has K=1.8. Almost all of the generalized data on

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7

pipe fittings, including this text, have the same source of original information, the

Hydraulic Institute, University of Iowa (1979).

Miller’s Internal Flow Systems: Design and Performance Prediction (1990) is a

reference book reprint of the first and second editions originally published by the BHRA

(British Hydraulics Research Association). It contains loss coefficients in the form of K

for elbows with different radii, contraction and expansions, and for tees with different

percentages of branch and return flows. It also includes information on tees with mixing

flow and reducing and expanding branches. However, specific sizes and types of pipe

fittings are not addressed. The manual does emphasize the effect of the internal geometry

on the losses.

Idelchik’s Handbook o f Hydraulic Resistance f 19861 includes original and

significant test data on standard welded and threaded pipe tees. However, the published

values for pipe elbows appear to be from other sources. The handbook is very difficult to

read, and there is a significant problem with definitions such as the difference between

mixing and merging flows. The publication does show that for pipe tees, it is possible to

have negative loss coefficients. For example, a pipe tee with a mixing flow can produce

an increase in energy for the mixing flow due to the fluid interaction with the inlet flow.

The increase in energy causes the energy equation to calculate a negative loss coefficient.

This can be proven by the application o f the momentum principle.

The Hydraulic Institute Engineering Data Book (Hydraulic Institute 1979),

presents tables of resistance coefficients for pipe fittings. It is not clear where the values

or test data originated from. It appears that the tables were from an earlier publication by

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8

Larry Simpson in 1968. The publication makes a significant conclusion of the range in

variation of resistance coefficients for pipe fittings. The variation for 2 inch screwed

elbows can be as large as plus or minus 40 %.

Journal articles

Hegberg (1995) gives very comprehensive literature review and comparison of

loss coefficients for pipe fittings. The paper makes a strong conclusion that there is a

large difference or variation in published values, and there is a definite need for new test

data. The review cites the work and references of ASHRAE (1993), Crane Co. (1979),

Giesecke and Badgett (1932), the Hydraulic Institute (1979), and Simpson and Weirick

(1978).

Freeman’s work (1892) was all original test data, conducted over a century ago,

with tests of threaded and flanged elbows, threaded tees, flanged tees, reducing tees, and

pipe reducers. He tested fittings for the size range from o f 2 inches to 8 inches.

However, his original test notes and data were not published until 1941 by his relatives.

Freeman’s work was very detailed and way ahead of his time. He recognized

concepts such as the Darcy equation, and he explained how to make net pressure loss

measurements. His notes include information of test setups and even details such as

pressure taps. His work shows that loss coefficients vary with pipe size, pipe velocity,

and the ratio of flow distribution in pipe tees. His work even include tests of a 4 x 3 inch

reducing pipe tee that was tested at different flow ratios. However, all o f the other

information on pipe tees was limited to pipe tees tested with blank ends for either the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9

flow through or the branch flow. The main limitation of Freeman’s work was the use of

test setups that included multiple fittings installed in series. It is not clear how he

accounted for the flow disturbances and effects of upstream fittings. A number of later

publications such as Pigott (1949) used Freeman’s test data.

Giesecke and Badgett’s work (1932) includes a number of publications from 1917

to 1932. Their work was similar in many respects to Freeman, but there is no definite

connection between Giesecke and Freeman. Giesecke did most of his testing with

multiple pipe fittings installed in series. However, Giesecke was not as detailed in his

explanation of test procedures. Giesecke’s work was definitely original with tests o f

different types and sizes of fittings. Giesecke shows that the loss coefficients for pipe

lees vary with the ratio of flow distribution, and indirectly showed that the loss coefficient

for elbows varied with pipe velocity.

Hooper (1981) emphasizes the effect of velocity on loss coefficients. The

publication is based on the original test data from Freeman (1892) and Giesecke and

Badgett (1932). The method proposed by the publication for correcting loss coefficients

was originally presented by the Crane Co. (1979) manual.

In all of the cases reviewed above it should be noted that none of the pipe sizes

included in this study have been evaluated. The testing of larger fittings (those with

diameters greater that 12 inches) is unique to this study. While similar loss coefficient

trends are consistent with work completed on smaller fittings, data collected in this study

demonstrate that coefficients determined for smaller fittings are not accurate when

applied to larger fittings of the same type.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10

LOSS COEFFICIENTS

The pressure loss coefficient K is calculated from the Darcy equation, shown as

Equation 1 below, where hL is the net loss in feet of fluid, V is the mean velocity in feet

per second (fps), and g is the gravitational constant of 32.2 ft/s2.

AH = K
V2 * /
(i)

The pressure loss coefficient represents the net pressure or energy loss due to the

addition of the test component to the test setup. The net pressure loss must also be

corrected for any difference between the upstream velocity head and the downstream

velocity head. The following section presents the equations used to calculate the net

pressure loss and loss coefficients.

Net pressure loss is measured by subtracting the manifold loss from the gross

measured loss obtained from a differential manometer. The manifold loss is obtained by

measuring the pressure loss that occurs without the pipe fitting in the setup.

Flow in ells and pipe reducers

The loss coefficients were calculated from the net pressure loss and were always

based on the upstream velocity V, at the inlet of the fittings. The loss coefficient K,.2 was

then used for the flow path from inlet (1) to outlet (2). Equations 2 through 5 show how

the loss coefficient is determined from the differential manometer reading and the flow

rate. All variables used in equations are defined in the list o f variables.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11

Equation 2 is an expanded form of the energy equation. It includes terms for

velocity and pressure head for both the upstream and downstream sections of the test

piping. Also included are terms for the amount of frictional head loss that occurs in the

upstream and downstream sections o f the test section. These quantities were determined

by evaluating the manifold loss that occurs in each the test section.

V 2 p y 2 p f L V 2 fl V 2
' .+ l u l 2 _ + i + l i h . l L + ! 2 h _ l 2 _ +hi
2g g 2g g D j 2g D 0 2g ' L,
(2 2* 1-2

(2 )

where:

' Pr l - 2
feet of w a te r d iffere ntial m e as u re d on m an om ete r
v g

fL V _2 ^
friction lo ss o f m anifold piping
D 2g

The net head loss term is then determined by using Equation 3.


\
v.'-V ff L V
V, 2 1 ( fl l L
L’l
V2 2 'l
hL . =
L i-*
T

■g J I g J k D j 2g j < ^ 2 2g y
(3)

The loss coefficient (KU2) is then determined by using Equation 4.

2i \ 2
K 1-2 = ------
y 2
1
(4)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12

Branching flow in pipe tees

A branch type flow in a tee fitting indicates that the fluid enters the fitting at one

leg, and exits the fitting through the remaining two legs, as shown in Figure 1 below.

Pipe tees were more complicated to test than flow through fittings (elbow and

expansion/reduction fittings) because there are two flow paths through branching tees.

The first path is the thru-flow Qt to the outlet flow Q2. The path is straight along

the centerline of the tee. The second flow path is the outlet branch flow Q3, which is

perpendicular to the inlet flow Q,. The loss coefficient K,_2 corresponds with the thru-

flow, and the loss coefficient K,.3 describes the loss in the perpendicular flow path.

For branching flows, the loss coefficients were tested as a function of the variation

in the ratio of flow in leg 3 and leg 2 as compared to the flow in leg I. A differential

manometer was used to measure the head loss in each branching flow path. Flow

measurements were also taken for each individual leg. The setup and procedure section

includes the instruments and methods used to obtain pressure loss and flow data for

determining loss coefficients for branching tees.

Figure 1. Schematic describing flow paths for branching tees.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13

Equation 5 below demonstrates the method of determining the net head loss that is

used to determine the loss coefficient for the thru-flow leg (Q, to Q2).

_<
f f , L2 V2M

1
<
+ f p- " M fr.L, v, 2l
fcL.. =
V 2g J I g J I d . 2gJ ^ ^2 2g J

(5)

Equation 6 below demonstrates the method o f determining the net head loss that is used

to determine the loss coefficient for the perpendicular leg (Q, to Q3).

r v, 2 - V ^ ( ?r l - P3 ^ 2 i\
f.L, V,
2g J g , D, 2g J

(6)

Equations 7 and 8 demonstrate how loss coefficients K,., and K,.3 are calculated.

2 gh , 2gh.
'1 -3
1-2 V,2 1-3 V,-

(7) (8)

Mixing flow in pipe tees

A mixing type flow indicates that fluid flow enters the tee fitting through two legs

is combined in the junction and exits through the remaining leg. As with branching tees

there are two flow paths for this flow type. Consequently, there are two loss coefficients

determined for each pipe tee. The first path is the thru-flow, which, like the branching

flow, is the flow straight through from leg 1 to leg 2 as shown in Figure 2 below. The

second flow path is the flow inlet from leg 3, to the outlet leg 2, also shown in Figure 2

below.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14

Figure 2. Schematic describing flow paths for mixing tees.

The difference in these two flow conditions is the direction o f flow in leg 3 o r the

perpendicular leg. The loss coefficient K,_2 corresponds to the thru-flow, and the loss

coefficient K,_2 describes the loss in perpendicular flow. For mixing flows, the loss

coefficients are tested as a variation of the ratio of flow in leg 1 and leg 3 as compared to

the flow in leg 2. A differential manometer was used to measure the head loss in each

branching flow path. Flow measurements were also taken for each individual leg.

Equation 9 below demonstrates the method of determining the net head loss that is

used to determine the loss coefficient for the thru-flow leg (Q, to Q t).

p, - p2 ] ff .L , V,M f V 2:>|
1
<

r
I 2g J I § J I d . 2g J
T
I D: 2g J

(9)

Equation 10 below demonstrates the method of determining the net head loss that is used

to determine the loss coefficient for the perpendicular leg (Q, to Q ^.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15

f P3 - P : l f f }L3 ( f*2L2
L V21 ^
hL
LI-2
=( v - y ; Y
{ 2g ) I 2 J I d , 2g J I d, 2g J

( 10)

Equations 11 and 12 demonstrate how loss coefficients K,.2 and K,.3 are calculated.

2gb,
1-2 H i!
1-2 V.2 3-2 V*/

( 11) ( 12)

To summarize, the tee fittings have four loss coefficients for each individual

fitting. All o f the tees examined in this study were evaluated for both a branching and a

mixing condition, at several specific inlet velocities. For all other fittings (elbow and

expansion/reduction fittings) only a single loss coefficient value was determined.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16

TEST SETUP AND PROCEDURES

All of the test fittings were installed in the same test setups such that the same

upstream and downstream piping was used to test each fitting of a specific diameter. The

weld fittings were installed using dresser type connections. Dresser connections were

used to eliminate welding and cutting the fitting from the test piping. Dresser

connections were also used to eliminate the need for purchasing and welding steel flanges

on each test fitting. Each connection was visually verified and measured to ensure correct

alignment.

When possible, flows were measured using weigh tanks and electronic timers:

however, several of the required flow rates exceeded the capacity of these devices.

Consequently, several venturi flow meters were used to accommodate the large flow rates

required. Pressure differentials were measured from pipe taps installed upstream and well

downstream of the test fittings. The locations of the taps ensured that the measurements

were made in regions of uniform, fully developed pipe flow.

The test piping and pressure taps were pretested to determine the friction loss

between the pipe taps and the test fittings. Pretesting the test setups allowed us determine

the manifold loss. The manifold loss is necessary to accurately predict the net pressure

loss due to the pipe fittings. All o f the test piping was standard schedule steel pipe. The

inside diameters were measured and pipe walls were inspected. Long lengths of straight

horizontal pipe were placed upstream and downstream of the test components. R ow

straighteners were not used in the test setups.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Test setups

Ail fittings of an identical type were tested in the same setup. Several setups were

used for the testing; however, the setups consisted of three different configurations. The

first setup configuration was for the elbow fittings, the second setup configuration was for

the expansion/reduction fittings, and the third setup configuration was for the tees.

Figures 3 and 4 below illustrate the test setups for elbow and expansion/reduction

fittings. Figure 5 illustrates the tee setup. The same setup was used for both branching

and mixing tee fitting configurations. The only change in the setup was the direction o f

flow in the perpendicular leg of the tee. To accommodate this change in flow direction, a

supply line was connected to the test setup. Figure C-4 in Appendix C contains a

photograph of the setup that was used for tee testing.

Upstream
control valve
Test
rW \
m Kpe A
II
HJ
• I'x
--- >
-
* Tl *A
Flow from Pressure j
constant head taps j Pipe B
reservoir bl1
1
*c o >Pressure
A taps
1
b2 j
I
1
* - m y Downstream
3 am H control valve

1
Return flow to
weight tanks
Figure 3. Pipe configuration for elbow fittings.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18

PipeA op*

----- ,— U -
from ** 'W b

Figure 4. Pipe configuration for expansion/reduction fittings.

Orifice
Upctream
flowmeter
control vehre Control fcraettiag
Pipe A vebe flow
* HpeB
!! — ■*»-
Test

Figure 5. Pipe configuration for branching and mixing tee fittings.

The upstream taps were located at distances of 1 to 2 pipe diameters upstream

and the downstream pressure taps were located at distances of 12 to 24 pipe diameters

downstream of the test components. The distances were necessary so that pressure

measurements were in regions of fully developed or recovered flow.

Each set of pressure taps had four individual taps located at 90 degree increments

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19

around the circumference of the pipe. The taps were connected together in a double tee

arrangement to produce a mean or average pressure measurement from the taps. Each tap

had a 1/16" diameter hole drilled perpendicular to the wall. The taps were de-burred and

honed flush with the inside pipe walL

Table 2 below contains all o f the pipe diameters and locations o f pressure taps as

demonstrated in Figures 3 through 5 above. The diameters given in the table are the

diameters used for loss coefficient calculations.

Tabk^^PijxMiiamete^antnocatiofMJfgressun^ags
Diam. A Diam. B a, b,
10" x 12" Expanding Flow 10.00" 12.00" 24” 120"
12" x 16" Expanding Flow 12.00" 15.25" 24" 106"
16" x 20" Expanding Flow 15.25" 19.25" 24" 132"
20" x 24" Expanding Flow 19.25" 23.25" 40" 218.5"

00
©
12" x 10" Reducing Flow 12.00" 10.00" 24"
16" x 12" Reducing Flow 15.25" 12.00" 16" 128"
20" x 16" Reducing Flow 19.25" 15.25" 40" 104"
24" x 12" Reducing Flow 23.25" 19.25“ 48" 168"

12" Elbows 12.00" 12.00" 24" 72"


16" Elbows 15.25" 15.25" 16" 96"
20" Elbows 19.25" 19.25" 40" 132"
00

24" Elbows 23.25" 23.25" 286"

Diam a, b, Ci
12" Tees Branching 12.00" 24" 72" 120"
12" Mixing 12.00" 22" 106" 16"

16" Tees Branching 15.25" 22" 106" 126"


16" Tees Mixing 15.25" 16" 96" 16"

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fitting connections

Experience has shown that it is difficult to produce a consistent and uniform

connection for welded fittings. Because of the need to locate the pressure taps well

downstream of the test component, it would be almost impossible to inspect or verify the

alignment of a welded connection. The dresser connections were necessary so that the

test piping upstream and downstream could be calibrated for manifold friction loss.

Figure 6 below demonstrates the correct alignment achieved for all test fittings.

Once the test fittings were installed in the setup and aligned properly, a hydraulic

actuator was used to secure fitting in place while tests were conducted. This setup

apparatus prevented misalignment of the fitting for the remainder of the setup test phase.

The use of a hydraulic actuator to secure fittings was only applicable to thru-flow

applications, which included all expansion/reduction tests and tee tests. The elbow tests

were secured using high tensile steel chains used in conjunction with a steel chain winch,

to secure aligned fittings for testing.

Figure 6. Fitting alignment and dresser connection.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21

Pressure measurement

U-tube manometers were used in conjunction with pressure transducers to

measure pressure differentials. The manometers were used to ensure repeatability and

accuracy for the tests, which spanned several months. The manometers were also used to

prevent any errors in measuring positive or negative differentials. Fittings such as

expansions and tees have different velocities in the upstream and downstream pipes,

which often causes negative pressure differentials with downstream pressures greater than

the upstream pressures. Transducers were used in conjunction with differential

manometers to increase the precision of pressure measurements at small manometer

differentials.

Each test run was evaluated to determine the net pressure loss (h ^, and the loss

coefficient for the component tested. Test measurements included both the loss of the

component and the additional pipe friction loss due to the length of manifold piping

between the test component and the pressure taps. The net pressure loss was then

calculated by subtracting the manifold friction loss from the measured (gross) pressure

differentials.

R ow measurement

How measurement is an essential tool for determining loss coefficients. The

quantified volumetric flow rate is necessary to determine the exact conduit velocity for

the tests. Four different types of flow measurement were used for the project. They

include volumetric type tanks, weigh tanks, orifice plates, and venturi flow meters.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22

Volumetric and weigh tanks with electronic timers were used to take primary flow

measurements. These instruments were used whenever possible. Venturi and orifice

meters were also used when the flow rates of the individual tests exceeded the capacity of

primary flow devices, or the nature of the test restricted primary flow use. For example, a

mixing flow tee test requires the determination of pipe velocity in each leg of the pipe

setup. However, primary m ethods only permit the outlet flow to be measured.

Consequently, some in line type of flow measurement is necessary to determine what the

flow rates are in the individual legs of the test. For these situations, a conjunctive use of

primary and secondary flow devices was used.

Volumetric tanks determine the volumetric flow rate by measuring a specific

volume of water per time. At the UWRL there are two such tanks available. The first

tank has a capacity of approximately 850 cubic feet. It can accurately measure flows

between 700 and 2,500 gallons per minute (gpm). The second and larger tank has a

composite volume of approximately 3,600 cubic feet. It can accurately measure flows

between 3,000 and 13,000 gpm.

The weigh tanks at the UWRL are placed upon electronic load cells that are

regularly calibrated to National Instrument Standards Technology (NIST) standards. The

UWRL has two weigh tanks that can operate in tandem. The advantage of tandem

operation is to allow one tank to fill while the other is draining. This can extend the

range of flow rates that can be accurately measured. Each tank has a 30,000 pound

capacity and a flow range of 2 0 gpm to 4,500 gpm.

The weigh tanks measure the precise weight of water within a specific time. This

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23

net amount of mass can be related to the exact amount o f water volume. This water

volume divided by the time increment produces the volumetric flow rate. To translate the

mass amount of water into the volumetric amount, the specific weight of water must be

used. Consequently, water temperatures were monitored during each individual fitting

test. Figure 7 below is a photo depicting the large volumetric tank at the UWRL. Figure

8 demonstrates the weigh tanks used for the project.

Venturi meters are used for a variety of projects at the UWRL, and several of

those remain in test lines permanently. These meters were calibrated in place, and not

disturbed, to facilitate the most accurate flow measurement possible. These “master

meters” were used to determine flow rates for various tee tests as well as higher range ell

and expansion/reduction tests. The calibration data show that these meters are accurate

within 1%. Figure 9 below identifies the venturi meters that were used for testing.

Miller (1990) identifies the low permanent pressure loss advantages of the venturi

meter, and states that the discharge coefficients for these meters should be approximately

0.98.

An orifice plate was used for the 16 inch tee tests. The beta ratio was specifically

designed for this project. Miller (1990) states that orifice plates should have an

uncertainty of 0.55% when measurements are taken with Reynolds numbers above

50,000. He also recommends that the beta ratio for the orifice plate be between 0.10 and

0.75. The beta ratio for the orifice plate designed for this study was 0.625. The minimum

Reynolds number when using the orifice was 58,000.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 7. Large volumetric tank at the Utah Water Research Laboratory.

Figure 8. Weigh tanks at Utah Water Research Laboratory.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48 inch venturi meter 20 inch venturi meter

s } ^^
A-» Vs
t J*'
f a ^,
v/'Sv ^
•<. ■
* s {%'

24 inch venturi meter 12 inch venturi meter

Figure 9. Venturi meters used for flow measurement.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
Test procedure

Test procedures define how we achieve the objectives of the project. The test

procedure is to record the differential manometer reading at each target flow rate. Target

flow rates are determined by the desired velocity ranges for each fitting. The initial steps

were common to all types of fittings tested and consisted o f the following steps:

1. Fill the line with water

2. Use thermometer to identify water temperature

3. Shut off flow so that the line is a maximum pressure

4. Remove all air from pipeline and manometer tubing

5. Inspect manometer reading to verify hydraulic zero

6. Inspect for leaks and misalignments.

Once the setup is prepared for testing, a specific flow rate is set using the control

valves, and pressure differentials are recorded using manometers for gross pressure loss

measurements. Elbow and expansion/reduction fittings are flow-through devices,

whereas tees have different defined amounts of flow distribution at the junction. Table 3

identifies the velocity ranges that were tested for the ells and expansion/reduction fittings,

as well as how many points were taken within each specified range. Table 4 contains the

velocity ranges and flow distribution for the tee fittings.

As noted in Table 3 and in Table 4, the velocity range was based on the upstream

velocity for the each fitting. The upstream velocity is the factor by which the loss

coefficient is related to, and differs from the downstream velocity in both tees and

expansion/reduction fittings.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27

T a b l^ ^ ^ D a ta jg o in t^ n ^ e lo c ir^ 2 2 S £ 5 ^ 2 ^ 1 i* 2 i™ E 2 £ 2 2 £ i£ £ ii£ ii2 J^ S i2 fi£


No. of test ♦Velocity Data points Total
Component type species range per fitting tests
i 12" wrought steel butt-welded 4 1.5-16.0 fps 10 40
90° regular ell
ii 16" wrought steel butt-welded 4 1.5-24.0 fps 10 40
90° regular ell

iii 20" wrought steel butt-welded 4 1.9-17.2 fps 10 40


90° regular ell
iv 24" wrought steel butt-welded 4 2.0-19.8 fps 10 40
90° regular ell
V 12" x 10" wrought steel butt-welded 4 2.2-16.6 fps 10 40
concentric reducer
vi 16" x 12" wrought steel butt-welded 4 1.1-20.0 fps 10 40
concentric reducer
vii 20" x 16" wrought steel butt-welded 4 2.0-19.0 fps 10 40
concentric reducer
viii 24" x 20” wrought steel butt-welded 4 1.0-17.4 fps 10 40
concentric reducer
ix 10” x 12" wrought steel butt-welded 4 2.8-28.6 fps 10 40
concentric diffuser
X 12" x 16” wrought steel butt-welded 4 5.0-33.5 fps 10 40
concentric diffuser
xi 16” x 20" wrought steel butt-welded 4 2.8-28.6 fps 10 40
concentric diffuser
xii 20" x 24" wrought steel butt-welded 4 4.1-24.2 fps 10 40
concentric diffuser

Total tests for ells and reduction/expansion fittings 480

♦Velocity range based on upstream velocity (V,)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28

No. data
No. of ♦Velocity No. of per flow Total
Component type fittings range flows ratio tests
i 12" wrought steel butt- 4 2.0-16.0 4 5 80
welded fps
regular tee (Branching
flow)
12" wrought steel butt- 4 2.0-16.0 4 5 80
welded fps
regular tee (mixing
flow)

ii 16" wrought steel butt- 4 2.0-16.0 4 5 80


welded fps
regular tee
16" wrought steel butt- 4 2.0-16.0 4 5 80
welded fps
regular tee

Total tests for tees 320


♦Velocity range based on upstream velocity (V,)

The introduction discussed that the lack of tests on fittings if this magnitude was

due to the size and space requirements of the test setups. Appendix C contains several

photos of the test setups in an effort to convey the scale and spatial magnitude of the test

configurations. The photos also display the unique capacities of the facility and staff of

the Utah Water Research Laboratory.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
Measurement accuracy

Flow is measured by weight and time as well as using orifice plates and venturi

flow meters. Row weights and times were large enough that the resulting accuracy of

flow measurement was within Yi%. How measurements using orifice plates and venturi

meters were within 1%. Pressure differentials were measured with a U-tube manometer.

The measurement accuracy of the manometer readings was 1 mm. When manometer

differentials of 10 cm or greater were measured, the accuracy o f the pressure differential

measurement was within 1%. Most of the measured differentials for the tests were with

differentials greater than 10 cm.

For critical tests, where two to three points were below the 10 cm range, pressure

transducers were used in conjunction with manometers for increased precision. The

transducers permitted a time average pressure reading to be taken to numerically dampen

pressure fluctuations. The overall accuracy of the test measurements for loss coefficients

was then within 2%.

Repeated tests were performed on selected fittings to ensure the repeatability of

the pressure and flow measurement techniques and instrumentation. Two fittings were

also retested several months after the test setup and piping had been disassembled and

reinstalled to check the repeatability o f the measurements and the installation techniques.

This was very important to validate methods and use of flow measurement devices used

for the study. Table 5 shows the repeatability tests conducted on a 12 inch ell and a 12

inch tee. Each ell and each tee were reinstalled for each test run in Table 5.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30

Table 5. Repeatability tests

12" wrought steel butt-welded 90 regular ell


ID Qi gPm Vi fps V2lps h, feet K
Z2 3408.82 9.673 9.637 0.2854 0.1754
Z2 3401.94 9.651 9.651 0.2519 0.1725
Z2 3416.94 9.692 9.692 0.2517 0.1725

avg. K Standard Deviation % Scatter


0.1740 0.0014 1.64%

12" wrought steel butt-welded regular tee (branching flow)


ID Qi gpm Q, gpm Qz gpm h, feet h,. feet K,., Kl-3
Z3 3862.87 2106.75 1756.12 0.065 1.032 0.0350 0.5538
Z3 3527.47 1813.67 1713.80 0.055 0.861 0.355 0.5540
Z3 3678.81 1969.78 1709.03 0.063 0.941 0.0356 0.5566

avg. K,.2 Standard Deviation % avg. K13 Standard Deviation %


0.035 0.0003 1.72% 0.555 0.0016 0.51 %

12" wrought steel butt-welded regular tee (mixing flow)


ID Q. gpm Q, gpm Q2gpm h, feet lv feet K,., k 3.2
Z3 2626.40 5305.88 2679.48 0.697 0.640 0.808 0.378
Z3 2729.87 5519.73 2789.86 0.752 0.681 0.808 0.392
Z3 2529.07 5240.22 2661.15 0.660 0.641 0.794 0.386

avg. K,.2 Standard Deviation % avg. K,.3 Standard Deviation %


0.803 0.0085 1.84% 0.385 0.006 3.41 %

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31

Determination of loss coefficients for tees is more complex than ells or

expansion/reduction fittings. The task of matching the flow ratio for discrete points

coupled with achieving the target flow rate, compounds the difficulty of tee testing.

Consequently, the scatter o f the loss coefficients for tees is greater because of differences

in the flow ratio where data points were taken.

Plots and tables that demonstrate loss coefficients for tees as a function of flow

ratio do so at discreet points. However, all of these points were taken within a range o f a

particular flow ratio. For example, a target flow ratio may be 25% in leg 1 and 75% in

leg 3. The real ratio achieved may be 1 to 2% above or below the target value. This

difference can produce a different loss coefficient value as compared to another taken at

the same flow ration. This variance in flow ratios produced more scatter for loss

coefficients in tee fittings, especially loss coefficients determined at lower pipe velocities.

Tees also required mixing and splitting flows, which resulted in many pressure

differentials that were very near zero. A zero differential is a result of the pressure losses

coupled with the change in velocity heads in individual legs o f the tee. Velocity head

differences are due to different individual flow rates in each leg of the tee. These small

differential readings also affected the accuracy of the tee tests.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Velocity trends

The results of the each type of test fitting are demonstrated in the figures below.

Figure 10 represents the average loss coefficients for all o f the elbows examined by the

study. There are two apparent trends in the data. The first indicates that the loss

coefficient values are slightly higher at lower velocities. At higher velocities the loss

coefficients approach a constant value. The second trend is a decrease in coefficient

value as the diameter o f the fitting increases.

Figure 11 demonstrates the relationship between loss coefficient and velocity for

the expansion fittings. These fittings did not demonstrate any such change with velocity,

and, as expected, the coefficient value decreased with an increase in diameter.

Figure 12 contains the information for the loss coefficients determined for

reducing fittings in the study. As with the expansion fittings, no significant trends are

displayed as a function o f pipe velocity. The same decreasing loss coefficient trends with

pipe diameter is apparent with one exception. The 12 x 10 inch reducers (17%

reduction) had a lower loss than the 16 x 20 inch reducers (25% reduction). This is a

likely result, in that the reduction of the 12 x 10 inch reducer (17% reduction) is only a 2

inch change in diameter, whereas the 16 x 20 inch reducer (25% reduction), 20 x 16 inch

reducer (20% reduction), and the 24 x 20 inch reducers (17% reduction) are 4 inch

diameter changes. The reduction designations above represent the amount of diameter

change relative to the upstream condition.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Loss Coefficient (K) (or ells

0.3000
12 inch e l s

0.2500 16 ric h e l s
20 ric h e l s
0.2000 24 inch e l s

0.1500

0.1000

0.0500

0.0000
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Pipe Velocity (<P*)

Figure 10. Distribution of loss coefficients with velocity for ells.

Loss Coefficient (IQ for expansions

0.3000
'10 x 12 n c h (17% )

0.2500 ■12 x 16 inch (25% )


1 6 x 2 0 n c h (20% )
0.2000 ■20 x 24 inch (17% )

0.1500

0.1000

0.0500

0.0000
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Pipe Velocity (fps)

Figure 11. Distribution o f loss coefficients with velocity for expansion fittings.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34

Loss Coefficient (K) for reducers

0.3000
-12 x 10 n c h (17%)

0.2500 •16 x 12 n c h (25%)


>20 x 16 inch (20%)
2 4 x 2 0 n c h (17%)
3
g 0.1500
*
0.1000

0.0500

0.0000
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
Pipe Velocity (fps)

Figure 12. Distribution of loss coefficients with velocity for reduction fittings.

Figures 13 and 14 demonstrate the loss coefficients for the branching tests

completed for the tee fittings. The loss coefficients are plotted against the ratio of flow of

the inlet leg of the tee to the outlet leg. Figures 15 and 16 demonstrate the loss

coefficients for the mixing tests completed for the same tee fittings. The loss coefficients

are plotted against the ratio o f the inlet leg to the outlet leg.

Figure 17 shows the designations used in this report for the tees. Leg 1 is an inlet

flow for both branching and mixing flows. Leg 2 is an outlet flow for both branching and

mixing flows. Leg 3 alternates between an outlet for branching flows and as an inlet for

mixing flows. Figures 1 and 2 in the loss coefficient section of this report include the

distinction between mixing and branching flows. However, the leg designation numbers

are identical for all tees tested.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
K 1-2 Branching

1.000
12* te e
0 .9 0 0
16* te e s
0.800
0.700
0 .6 0 0
CM
^ 0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000 4 -
0 20 40 60 80 100
%02/01

Figure 13. Loss coefficients for branching tees in leg 2.

K1-3 Branching

1.000
12* te e
0.900
16* te e
0.800
0.700
0.600
n
£ 0.500
£
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0 20 40 60 80 100
%Q3/Q1

Figure 14. Loss coefficients for branching tees in leg 3.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
K1-2 Mixing

2.250
12* te e
2.000
16* te e s
1.750

1.500

<n 1.250

* 1.000

0.750
0.500
0.250

0.000
0 20 40 60 80 1 00
%Q1/Q2

Figure 15. Loss coefficients for mixing tees in leg 2.

zooo

0500
-0250
20 30 40, 50 60 80 90 ICO
-1.000

« -1.750
K.
-2500

-3250

-4.000

-4.750

-5500

Figure 16. Loss coefficients for mixing tees in leg 3.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
Loss coefficient results

Tables 6, 7, and 8 demonstrate the loss coefficients determined for ells and

expansion/reduction fittings at each test velocity. These values are represented

graphically in Figures 10 through 16. The loss coefficients in Tables 6, 7, and 8 are an

average of all vendors for a fitting of the same type. Appendix B gives detail on vendor

performed individually for fittings of an identical type.

Table 9 shows the loss coefficient for each leg of a tee. The values are determined

at a specific flow ratio of the inlet to outlet legs. For tee fittings, the loss coefficient was

found to be most significantly impacted by the amount o f flow that was divided between

the inlet and outlet legs. Consequently, the loss coefficients are compared to the percent

of flow in each particular leg.

Table 9 gives the average value for all tees tested at a specific flow ratio.

Appendix A contains tabular data demonstrating the difference in loss coefficients for

each set of inlet velocities. Appendix B identifies the loss coefficients for each tee

vendor and makes comparisons among vendors.

Figure 17. Schematic describing tee leg designations.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38

Table 6. Loss coefficients o f ells at specific velocities

Elbows *2" *4" 12" 16" 20" 24"


f t ffps) K K K K K K

1.5 0.502 0.476 0.171 0.153 0.131 0.107


4.0 0.674 0.603 0.169 0.135 0.121 0.100
6.0 0.751 0.646 0.170 0.122 0.107 0.096
9.0 0.961 0.704 0.168 0.113 0.103 0.091
12.5 — 0.731 0.167 0.114 0.100 0.093
15.0 — — 0.167 0.112 0.098 0.093
17.5 — — 0.169 0.112 0.097 0.096
20.0 -- — 0.167 0.106 0.097 0.096

max scatter one vendor= 9.44% 10.34% 48.15% 7.33%


max scatter all vendors= 9.44% 56.00% 48.15 % 32.35%

* Represents data taken in a previous study at Utah State University (Rahmeyer 1999a)

Table 7. Loss coefficients o f expansions at specific velocities

Expansions *1.5" x 2" *3" x 4" 10"x 12” 12"x 16" 1 6 "x 20” 2 0 " x 24"
% change 25% 25% 17% 25% 20% 17%
V, (fps) K K K K K K

1.5 1.031 0.249 0.107 0.073 0.025 0.020


4.0 0.609 0.162 0.109 0.076 0.022 0.019
6.0 0.427 0.148 0.107 0.075 0.021 0.023
9.0 0.879 0.127 0.110 0.073 0.022 0.021
12.5 — 0.116 0.111 0.073 0.021 0.017
15.0 — — 0.113 0.077 0.022 0.019
17.5 — — 0.114 0.075 0.021 0.019
20.0 — — 0.114 0.075 0.021 0.019

max scatter one vendor= 11.07% 10.21 % 49.80 % 86.29 %


max scatter all vendors= 11.42% 11.71 % 49.80 % 86.29 %

* Represents data taken in a previous study at Utah State University (Rahm eyer 1999a)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39

Table 8. Loss coefficien ts o f reductions at specific velocities


Reducers *2" x 1.5" *4" x 3" 12"x 10" 16"x 12" 20"x 16” 24” x 20"
% change 25% 25% 17% 25% 20% 17%
V, (fps) K K K K K K
1.5 0.502 0.704 0.151 0.161 0.129 0.053
4.0 0.674 0.234 0.143 0.164 0.130 0.053
6.0 0.819 0.189 0.142 0.165 0.131 0.055
9.0 0.961 0.121 0.139 0.163 0.129 0.054
12.5 — 0.098 0.137 0.165 0.129 0.053
15.0 — — 0.135 0.168 0.129 0.059
17.5 — — 0.136 0.165 0.130 0.061
20.0 -- - 0.138 0.166 0.129 0.058

max scatter one vendor= _ 16.43 % 11.82% 8.48% 22.54 %


max scatter all vendors= — 16.43 % 15.23 % 9.82% 25.09%

Represents data taken in a previous study at Utah State University (Rahmeyer 1999a)

Table 9. Loss coefficients o f tees fittings at a specific flow ratios


*2" thread *2" thread *2” thread *2" thread *4" weld *4" weld *4” weld *4” weld
branching branching mixing mixing branching branching mixing mixing

QR= QVQi Q3/Q. Q2/Q1 Q3/Q2 QVQ, Qj/Qi Q/Qi Q3/Q2

OR K ,, K„ K„ K,., Kl-3 K„ K ,,
0%
25% 0.129 0.648 8.610 -1.310 0.289 0.766 -1.481 -6.561
50% 0.041 0.651 1.920 1.046 0.109 0.674 0.378 -0.131
15% 0.035 0.756 0.641 1.774 0.023 0.641 0.261 0.214
100% 0.189 0.934 0.199 1.189 0.057 0.568 0.068 0.485

12" weld 12" weld 12” weld 12" weld 16” weld 16" weld 16" weld 16" weld
branching branching mixing mixing branching branching mixing mixing

QR= q 2/ q . Q3/Q, Q JQ i Q3/Q2 Q2/Q1 Q j/Q i Q2/Q1 Q3/Q2

OR K,., K„ K ., K., K,., K,., K ,,


0%
25% 0.167 0.654 0.896 -4.853 0.078 0.540 2.023 -4.047
50% 0.044 0.583 0.651 0.290 0.064 0.518 0.885 0.546
75% 0.025 0.579 0.361 0.630 0.047 0.507 0.305 0.812
100% 0.086 0.679 0.072 0.706 0.030 0.631 0.030 0.753

* Represents data taken in a previous study at Utah State University (Rahmeyer 1999b)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
Elbow fittings

The most significant trend in the data o f all of the elbow fittings is a decrease in

the loss coefficient as the diameter o f the pipe increases. Data taken for these large

diameter pipes have previously not been determined. However, values taken from the

Crane Co. (1979), Freeman (1892), and the Hydraulic Institute (1979) demonstrate this

trend for diameters 1 through 10 inches.

Results of this study confirm and extend this trend to diameters of 24 inches.

Figure 18 below contains two sets o f data. The first is the historic data given in the

literature from authors discussed in literature. The second is data taken in studies

conducted at Utah State University.

Loss Coefficent K an d Pipe Diameter comparison

24
22
Ffest K values
20 Utah State K values

16
14

O
JL
Q.

0 0.2 0 .4 0 .6 0.8 1
Loss Coefficient K

Figure 18. Loss coefficients as a function of pipe diameter.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41

Consider an elemental section o f fluid at any position in the flow path. As the

pipe diameter increases, so does the path length that the fluid must travel to change its

direction 90 degrees. Table 10 below gives the path length of an elbow as compared to

its diameter.

An increased path length gives the fluid more time to make directional alterations

at any fitting velocity. If the radius divided by the diameter re m ains constant, the loss

coefficient will equal only the frictional loss in the fitting as the diameter approaches

infinity. This indicates that the pressure loss expressed as the equivalent pipe length will

equal the actual length o f the fitting.

The Crane Co. (1979) described a secondary flow phenomenon, which is two

concentric flow paths tangent to the main flow. These secondary flows affect the value of

the loss coefficient. For fittings o f larger diameter these effects are reduced due to the

increased path length and diameter.

Table 10. Path length of fluid and corresponding fitting diameter______________________

Diameter (in.) Path length (in.)


2 4.71
4 9.42

10 23.56
12 28.27
16 37.70
20 47.12
24 56.55

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
Expansion/reduction fittings

The only fittings that had significant variance among vendors were the

expansion/reduction fittings. These fittings did have different shapes when compared

with fittings of the same type, but from a different vendor.

The reduction/expansion fittings were of two different design types. The first was

a bell-mouth shape. This type has an s-shaped path that creates the transition from one

diameter to another. The second type was a linear transition. Each type has its own

advantages. The liner type seemed to be the best type of expansion fitting in almost every

diameter. The bell-mouth type was the best reduction fitting for most of the tests.

It was noted above that the elbow loss coefficients decreased with an increasing

pipe diameter. A similar phenomenon occurs with the expansion/reduction fittings.

When the diameter increases and the amount of expansion or reduction remains constant,

the amount of flow contraction compared to the total area of flow is reduced. Table 11

shows how the ratio of flow area change to total flow area generally decreases.

Table 11. Percent change of contracted flow area


Diameter (in.) Diameter change % Change of flow area
2 0.5 43.75
4 1 43.75
12 2 30.56

16 4 38.08
20 4 37.24
24 4 24.14

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43

The reduction in flow area as the diameter increases, allows acceleration vectors

to be smaller and distributed over a greater area in the flow path. Consequently, the loss

coefficient should decrease with an increase in fitting diameter. Figure 12 demonstrates

the loss coefficient as a function of pipe velocity. The trends shown in Figure 12 support

these observations. Figure 12 also demonstrates that the loss coefficients are higher for

the 1 6 x 1 2 inch reductions (25% reduction), as compared to the 12 x 10 inch reductions

(17% reduction).

Other factors exist when predicting expansion/reduction fitting trends. The

amount of pipe length that is available for transition, and the relative roughness o f the

fitting affect test results. Transition lengths vary from vendor to vendor. They also vary

by fitting diameter. It is this combination of factors that makes it difficult to predict

exactly what loss coefficient to expect for a particular size.

Relative roughness is the roughness o f the fitting surface, as compared to the

fitting diameter. Frictional losses due to fitting surfaces do occur. The amount o f loss

that is due to this “skin friction” is relative to the amount of flow that is contacted by the

fitting. Consequently, as the diameters increase for the same roughness, this fitting loss is

diminished and its effect on the overall loss coefficient is reduced.

Results from this study contained in Appendix B clarify what loss coefficients are

appropriate for a given expansion/reduction fitting. Appendix B includes transition

lengths and roughness and transition classifications to clarify why a specific loss

coefficient is appropriate.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
Tee fittings

Tee fittings have four individual flow paths, and thus four individual loss

coefficients are required. Two are required for a branching type flow and two for a

mixing type flow. Designations for leg numbers and flow directions are given in the loss

coefficient section of this report. To summarize, below is a short list o f what loss

coefficient each K symbol represents:

1. K,.2 = coefficient for branching/mixing straight through flow (Q, to

2. K,_3 = coefficient for branching flow in the perpendicular leg (Q, to Q3)

3. K3_2 = coefficient for mixing flow in the perpendicular leg (Qj to Q ^.

For branching, the conditions of the loss coefficients behaved as expected. The

loss coefficients for the flow through leg (Q, to Qj) were very low as shown in Table 9.

The flow in this condition does not need to make any path adjustments. The flow is also

not required to change direction when going through the tee.

The loss coefficient for the perpendicular leg (Q, to Q3) also behaved as expected.

Loss coefficients for this were much higher than the straight through leg, as shown in

Table 9. The flow in this leg is required to change direction 90 degrees, which extracts

energy from the fluid. Directional changes in the tee are accomplished by forces within

the fluid. This differs from an ell fitting where the path of the pipe facilitates directional

change. Consequently, there is turbulence within the fitting to produce a change in fluid

direction. This produces a loss coefficient that is much higher than that o f an ell type

fitting for the same flow rate and pipe diameter.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45

For mixing conditions, the loss coefficients demonstrated much more variance as

a function of the flow ratio. The loss coefficient for the straight through leg decreased,

and the flow in that leg was increased as shown in Figure 15. In a mixing condition, flow

is added at the junction. This causes more turbulence at the junction than in the

branching condition. As the flow increases in the straight through leg, the amount of flow

disturbing turbulence is reduced by the increase in inertia from additional flow in that leg.

This requires less energy for the flow to proceed through the junction and the loss

coefficient is decreased.

The flow in the perpendicular leg displayed surprising results. Negative loss

coefficients result for smaller flow ratios. Smaller flow ratios indicate that Q,>Q3 by at

least 10%. The inertia in the straight through leg pulls the fluid through the junction,

which adds energy to the fluid and creates a negative pressure differential. The loss

coefficient increases as the flow in leg 3 increases and inertia from leg 2 is diminished.

The loss coefficient then approaches a more constant value once a ratio of greater than

50% is achieved. The result is shown in Figure 16. Leg designations for tees are shown

in Figure 17.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Review of objectives

The preceding sections in the thesis examined the experiments conducted on large

concentric pipe reductions (nozzles), pipe expansions (diffusers), regular ells, and regular

tees. The study had the following objectives:

1. Determine loss coefficients for the larger diameter fittings

2. Evaluate the scatter of loss coefficients among fitting vendors

3. Evaluate the scatter of loss coefficients as a function o f pipe velocity

4. Evaluate the loss coefficients in tees as a function of flow ratio

5. Compare results to loss coefficients determined in previous studies.

Discussion of objectives

Loss coefficients were determined for all test fittings outlined in Table 1. The

results of these tests are summarized in the results section of this thesis. Results of

specific velocity tests and a summary of all data points taken are contained in Appendix

A of this thesis.

Appendix B provides information in reference to performance among vendors.

Appendix B ranks the order of both fitting roughness and loss coefficient value among

vendors for fittings of identical type. Appendix B also contains schematics of all fittings

with precise length measurements to aid the reader in making assessments about a

particular vendor.

Appendix B compares loss coefficient values over a velocity range. Appendix B

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47

analyzes the variation of loss coefficients within the velocity range. Each fitting is

evaluated by providing an individual coefficient for that fitting. Each fitting also has a

standard deviation corresponding to the velocity range over which it was tested.

For tee fittings, Appendix A contains all o f the loss coefficients as a function of

flow ratio. Appendix B also contains an average coefficient value for tees at each flow

ratio. Appendix B gives a standard deviation; this deviation corresponds to the different

flow rates the tee tests were subject to.

When comparing the results to historical data, there is difficulty in making such

comparisons. The reasons for this are that no empirical data on fittings of this size have

been evaluated to date. Figure 18 identifies predicted trends for elbows of this size and

when compared to this study, similarities are obvious. In respect to tees and

expansion/reduction fittings, historical data for diameters of this size are very limited.

Conclusive relationships similar to the one made for elbows are impossible.

Conclusions

The values that were determined for a specific set of fittings varied across

vendors but not by significant amounts. Tables 6 through 8 give a percent distribution for

loss coefficients among vendors. This distribution is relative to the average loss

coefficient value for each fitting type and size. Appendix A contains figures for each type

of fitting. These figures illustrate how each vendor performed relative to another.

Distribution of loss coefficients as a function of pipe velocity was minimal. For

ells and expansion/reduction fittings, there were velocity effects at lower velocities, but

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48

loss coefficients quickly reached constant values. For the tee fittings, the effect o f flow

velocity entering or exiting the tee was not significant compared to the amount o f flow

that was distributed through the fitting.

Increases in fitting diameter generally decreased the loss coefficients for ells and

expansion/reduction fittings. For tee fittings, the effect of diameter changes was not

significant compared to the amount o f flow that was distributed through the fitting.

Appendix A contains the coefficients with their corresponding velocity for ells

and expansion/reduction fittings. Appendix A also contains the coefficients for tee

fittings with their corresponding flow distribution in the tee. Appendix B contains a data

sheet for each test fitting. The data sheet includes the following:

1 Average loss coefficient value and its corresponding standard deviation

2. Roughness and transition classifications

3. Rank o f test species to that of other vendors o f the same type

4. Diagram o f each fitting containing precise diameter measurements.

The data sheets in Appendix B are intended to allow the reader to make judgments about

fitting vendors. It is not the purpose o f this thesis to recommend one particular vendor

over another.

Overall the loss coefficient values for all fittings were lower than expected. This

translates into smaller amounts of energy loss due to form, for fittings of these large

diameters. For the tee fittings, the greatest influence on the loss coefficient is the flow

ratio. The effects of the inlet flow rate and the diameter paled in comparison to how

water was being distributed in the fitting. Mixing tees had a negative loss coefficient for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49

the perpendicular leg. This aspiration effect is consistent with other tests conducted at the

Utah Water Research Laboratory (Rahmeyer 1999b).

Recommendations

Evaluation o f loss coefficients will aid engineers and designers in optimizing and

improving design. Optimizing design will reduce costs for construction and operation of

many types of hydraulic systems. The data from this study need to be included in design

manuals to provide engineers with access to this information.

Fittings for diameters 6 through 10 inches are being evaluated currently at the

University of Minnesota. It would be appropriate to compare results from that study to

more effectively describe size effects for loss coefficients. These comparisons can give

more information on how the relative roughness changes the value o f the loss coefficient.

By using the data in this study, it is recommended that a scaling relationship be

determined. This can be accomplished by determining a relationship between the size

scale effects and a Reynolds relationship for fittings of various diameters. The Reynolds

number requires a characteristic length term to be used for scaling applications. The fluid

path length discussed in this thesis could be used to serve this purpose. These efforts will

aid researchers in overcoming the effects of geometric dissimilarity that occurs in pipe

fittings.

All tests were conducted with water at ambient temperature. Confident results

can be scaled to other fluids and temperatures. However, there is uncertainty in applying

noncircular cross sections and flows of compressible gasses This study evaluated four

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50

flow paths for tees, and how the value of the loss coefficient changes with flow

distribution in the fitting. More data need to be taken over distribution ranges to provide

enough information for functional relationships to be created. These relationships can

then be used in computer programs and design manuals.

Two additional flow paths exist in tees that were not evaluated in this study. The

first is a mixing flow that results from legs 1 and 2 both being inlet legs. The flows mix

at the junction and leg 3 becomes the outlet leg. For this flow path the collision of fluid

at the junction will prevent an aspirating condition. Therefore, it is not likely that a

negative loss coefficient will be the result as was the case with mixing flows examined in

this study. The second flow path that was not examined is a branching flow where the

inlet flow comes through leg 3 and is discharged through legs 1 and 2.

It is likely that both of these flow conditions will create significant pressure loss.

However, testing must be done to quantify amounts, and to determine loss coefficients for

cases. Future testing for additional flow paths in tees may be limited to small sample

sizes. This is justified by this study, where we found that the most significant impacts on

loss coefficients for tees were due to flow distribution and not size or velocity effects.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51

LITERATURE CITED

Albertson, M.L., J.R. Barton, and D.B. Simons. 1960. Fluid mechanics for engineers.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 567 p.

ASHRAE. 1993. ASHRAE handbook fundamentals. I-P edition. American Society of


Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia.
521 p.

Crane Co. 1952. Crane valves and fittings. Crane Co., Chicago, Illinois. 443 p.

Crane Co. 1979. Flow of fluids through valves, fittings, and pipe. Technical paper no.
410. 68 p.

Freeman, John R. 1892. Experiments upon the flow of water in pipes and pipe fittings.
Plimton Press, Nashua, New Hampshire. 349 p.

Giesecke, F.E., and W.H. Badgett. 1932. Supplementary friction heads in one inch cast
iron tees. ASHVE Transactions 38:111.

Hegberg, R. A. 1995. Where did the k-factors for pressure loss in pipe fittings come from.
ASHRAE Transactions 101:1264-1280.

Hooper, W. B. 1981. The two-k method for predicting head losses in pipe fittings.
Chemical Engineering 1:96-100.

Hydraulic Institute. 1979. Hydraulic institute engineering data book. Hydraulic Institute,
Cleveland, Ohio. 411 p.

Idelchik, I.E. 1986. Handbook o f hydraulic resistance. Second edition. Hemisphere


Publishing Co, New York. 371 p.

Miller, D.S. 1990. Internal flow systems: design and performance prediction. Second
edition. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas. 311 p.

Pigott, R.J.S. 1949. Pressure losses in tubing, pipe, and fittings. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Petroleum Division 7:679-689.

Rahmeyer, W.J. 1999a. Pressure loss coefficients of threaded and forged weld pipe
fittings for ells, reducing ells, and pipe reducers. ASHRAE Transactions
Research 105(2):334-354.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52

Rahmeyer, W.J. 1999b. Pressure loss coefficients of threaded and forged weld pipe tees.
ASHRAE Transactions Research 105(2):355-385.

Simpson, L. L., and M.L. Weirick. 1978. Designing plant piping. Chemical Engineering,
4:35-48.

Weldbend. 1996. Weldbend. Tenth edition. Weldbend, Argo, Illinois. 95 p.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53

APPENDICES

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A. Velocity comparisons
for loss coefficients

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55

Table A -l. Loss coefficients for 12 inch elbows at specific velocities


Vendor W Vendor X Vendor Y Vendor Z
Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K
2.2 0.162 2.2 0.172 1.5 0.171 2.0 0.179
3.1 0.155 3.6 0.173 3.3 0.170 3.8 0.178
4.4 0.167 4.1 0.169 4.2 0.169 5.5 0.176
6.1 0.161 5.9 0.172 6.2 0.163 7.0 0.173
8.5 0.156 8.2 0.174 8.3 0.165 9.8 0.169
10.4 0.152 10.2 0.175 10.0 0.169 11.2 0.168
12.0 0.155 12.1 0.175 11.7 0.173 13.0 0.171
14.5 0.156 14.3 0.176 14.6 0.165 14.9 0.167
16.0 0.160 16.8 0.173 16.0 0.167 16.0 0.166

Table A-2. Loss coefficients for 16 inch elbows at specific velocities


Vendor W Vendor X Vendor Y Vendor Z
Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K
1.7 0.150 1.5 0.152 2.3 0.159 1.8 0.150
3.5 0.112 2.7 0.140 3.4 0.149 2.9 0.139
5.6 0.111 4.3 0.130 4.8 0.117 4.4 0.125
7.0 0.108 6.8 0.120 7.6 0.114 6.3 0.123
10.3 0.108 8.0 0.117 10.5 0.112 10.2 0.117
12.7 0.100 10.6 0.117 13.5 0.119 13.2 0.119
15.8 0.102 13.6 0.119 14.9 0.113 16.5 0.116
18.4 0.099 16.3 0.122 18.9 0.111 19.2 0.115
22.9 0.103 19.3 0.122 20.9 0.104 22.4 0.099
23.8 0.103 24.0 0.111 24.2 0.104 24.0 0.108

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T ab l^A ^^L os^oefficienl^o^JiH nctrelbow ^itsgecifi^jelocities
Vendor W Vendor X Vendor Y Vendor Z
Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K
1.9 0.148 1.9 0.125 2.1 0.123 1.5 0.127
3.4 0.123 3.3 0.120 3.2 0.128 2.7 0.113
5.6 0.107 4.6 0.111 4.9 0.113 5.1 0.098
7.4 0.101 6.3 0.107 7.3 0.103 7.1 0.100
10.9 0.104 8.8 0.100 9.9 0.099 9.4 0.095
12.7 0.096 11.1 0.097 11.9 0.098 11.8 0.094
14.0 0.097 13.0 0.094 14.3 0.097 14.0 0.091
14.9 0.096 14.8 0.098 15.4 0.097 15.7 0.095
17.2 0.104 17.4 0.099 17.2 0.102 17.4 0.092

Table A-4. Loss coefficients for 24 inch elbows at specific velocities


Vendor W Vendor X Vendor Y Vendor Z
Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K
2.3 0.106 2.2 0.116 2.0 0.100 1.9 0.107
3.2 0.100 3.0 0.106 3.0 0.090 2.9 0.105
5.3 0.103 4.8 0.102 5.0 0.080 4.8 0.101
7.0 0.094 5.9 0.100 6.4 0.078 6.5 0.093
9.2 0.081 7.7 0.092 9.6 0.078 9.4 0.095
10.8 0.092 9.1 0.091 11.8 0.078 11.0 0.101
12.4 0.088 11.2 0.086 13.4 0.085 12.8 0.100
14.1 0.088 13.0 0.100 15.1 0.084 14.2 0.100
15.9 0.099 15.9 0.113 17.4 0.085 15.9 0.104
17.6 0.096 17.9 0.113 19.7 0.087 18.3 0.103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57

T able^ ^ ^ L os^ Q efficient^ oM ^ d^ ^ nch^ xgansion^ L t^ gecificj/elocities^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^


Vendor W Vendor X Vendor Y Vendor Z
Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K
2.4 0.099 3.1 0.120 3.4 0.102 3.6 0.108
3.2 0.106 4.9 0.112 4.7 0.105 4.5 0.112
5.6 0.102 6.8 0.111 6.7 0.105 6.3 0.108
6.7 0.101 9.5 0.115 8.3 0.109 9.8 0.116
9.7 0.105 11.0 0.118 11.3 0.104 12.6 0.109
12.4 0.110 12.9 0.116 13.0 0.104 15.4 0.114
15.5 0.106 16.5 0.118 15.7 0.112 17.1 0.116
19.2 0.104 18.3 0.119 18.2 0.113 18.8 0.118
24.3 0.108 21.3 0.119 20.7 0.111 21.4 0.118
24.3 0.108 24.0 0.120 23.7 0.112 24.0 0.121

Table A-6. Loss coefficients for 12 x 16 inch expansions at specific velocities


Vendor W Vendor X Vendor Y Vendor Z
Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K
5.3 0.054 5.8 0.085 6.0 0.084 5.4 0.070
8.2 0.059 8.5 0.085 8.5 0.090 8.2 0.069
11.2 0.055 10.6 0.085 10.8 0.089 10.8 0.070
12.6 0.054 13.2 0.082 13.8 0.090 12.6 0.065
14.6 0.054 15.3 0.083 15.9 0.089 15.9 0.065
17.1 0.055 18.3 0.083 20.0 0.089 17.4 0.066
19.5 0.055 22.5 0.089 22.8 0.088 20.0 0.068
21.7 0.059 25.2 0.090 28.9 0.090 24.7 0.070
25.4 0.057 28.5 0.085 29.9 0.090 28.4 0.070

27.9 0.058 31.1 0.090 32.4 0.096 33.5 0.071

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58

Table A-7. Loss coefficients for 16 x 20 inch expansions at specific velocities_______


Vendor W Vendor X Vendor Y Vendor Z
Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K
3.8 0.018 4.9 0.021 4.7 0.034 2.8 0.024
6.2 0.016 5.9 0.021 6.0 0.031 4.2 0.021
8.3 0.018 7.5 0.020 7.9 0.023 6.5 0.022
9.7 0.017 9.8 0.022 10.1 0.025 7.1 0.023
13.3 0.015 12.1 0.021 14.3 0.028 10.3 0.024
17.3 0.016 14.7 0.021 17.3 0.025 11.8 0.020
19.4 0.016 17.1 0.021 19.9 0.028 13.3 0.022
23.0 0.018 19.1 0.021 23.0 0.021 16.9 0.024
25.8 0.014 22.9 0.025 25.8 0.026 18.7 0.021
28.6 0.015 27.5 0.024 28.6 0.029 21.5 0.024

Table A-8. Loss coefficients for 20 x 24 inch expansions at specific velocities


Vendor W V endor X Vendor Y Vendor Z
Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K
4.0 0.011 4.1 0.019 4.3 0.027 4.4 0.022
6.0 0.013 5.8 0.018 6.5 0.026 6.2 0.019
7.8 0.012 7.7 0.021 8.3 0.035 7.5 0.023
10.5 0.013 9.7 0.022 10.2 0.026 9.0 0.024
13.0 0.013 11.8 0.016 12.7 0.026 10.7 0.023
14.8 0.014 15.2 0.018 15.3 0.014 13.1 0.023
16.8 0.012 18.8 0.019 18.1 0.019 15.4 0.019
19.7 0.010 20.4- 0.018 19.5 0.026 19.2 0.020
22.0 0.012 21.8 0.018 22.5 0.023 21.7 0.024
24.5 0.014 24.0 0.016 24.2 0.024 23.8 0.018

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59

Table A-9. Loss coefficients for 12 x 10 inch reducers at specific velocities_____________


Vendor W Vendor X Vendor Y Vendor Z
Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K
2.3 0.152 2.6 0.138 2.1 0.158 2.1 0.154
4.1 0.145 4.2 0.127 3.1 0.157 4.1 0.146
5.1 0.144 5.3 0.128 4.2 0.148 5.6 0.140
6.2 0.140 6.6 0.120 5.4 0.151 6.8 0.140
7.4 0.143 7.0 0.123 6.7 0.145 8.1 0.140
8.1 0.144 8.2 0.117 7.9 0.140 9.3 0.139
9.1 0.149 10.5 0.124 9.8 0.142 12.9 0.133
10.3 0.148 13.5 0.126 11.2 0.138 15.1 0.137
12.1 0.146 16.8 0.128 13.4 0.140 16.6 0.134

Table A -10. Loss coefficients for 16 x 12 inch reducers at specific velocities


Vendor W Vendor X Vendor Y Vendor Z
Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K
2.6 0.108 1.7 0.155 1.6 0.170 1.1 0.211
3.3 0.100 2.6 0.161 2.5 0.176 2.3 0.217
4.3 0.100 4.0 0.165 3.8 0.185 3.8 0.212
5.5 0.103 5.3 0.164 5.4 0.187 5.6 0.199
7.0 0.107 6.7 0.164 6.7 0.186 7.0 0.202
8.7 0.104 8.5 0.168 8.6 0.190 8.8 0.197
11.3 0.111 10.5 0.173 11.0 0.187 11.7 0.198
13.3 0.103 12.6 0.173 13.2 0.182 13.3 0.201
15.8 0.105 15.0 0.169 16.2 0.189 15.2 0.195
20.0 0.101 19.4 0.169 19.5 0.192 17.7 0.200

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60

Table A -l 1. Loss coefficients for 20 x 16 inch reducers at specific velocities


Vendor W Vendor X Vendor Y Vendor Z
Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K
1.8 0.135 1.7 0.135 2.3 0.122 2.4 0.125
2.7 0.138 4.0 0.136 3.3 0.122 3.8 0.127
3.8 0.136 5.6 0.134 4.2 0.124 4.8 0.127
5.3 0.135 6.9 0.133 5.8 0.119 6.4 0.123
5.9 0.136 8.1 0.132 7.9 0.126 7.8 0.120
7.2 0.144 9.6 0.134 9.4 0.117 9.5 0.124
8.5 0.136 11.2 0.132 12.2 0.128 11.2 0.118
10.0 0.139 12.8 0.134 13.7 0.124 13.7 0.124
11.3 0.134 14.6 0.133 15.2 0.125 15.6 0.125
12.8 0.135 16.8 0.132 17.5 0.124 18.9 0.125

Table A -12. Loss coefficients for 24 x 20 inch reducers at specific velocities


Vendor W Vendor X Vendor Y Vendor Z
Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K. Vel (fps) K Vel (fps) K
2.4 0.072 1.9 0.047 1.9 0.045 1.9 0.049
3.3 0.067 3.1 0.048 3.1 0.043 2.8 0.055
5.7 0.063 4.3 0.056 4.2 0.042 4.4 0.050
6.7 0.066 5.8 0.051 6.0 0.049 6.0 0.052
8.5 0.069 7.1 0.047 7.1 0.041 7.4 0.061
9.9 0.064 8.3 0.051 8.0 0.051 9.4 0.052
11.4 0.063 9.5 0.047 10.2 0.049 11.1 0.052
13.2 0.070 11.7 0.054 11.9 0.051 12.7 0.060
15.9 0.077 13.8 0.057 13.9 0.048 14.9 0.061
17.4 0.072 16.1 0.058 16.2 0.046 16.9 0.058

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61

BRANCHING vt v2 V3 loss coeff loss coeff


Q^Oi fps fps fps K ,, K,_,

100% 16.6 16.6 0.0 0.109


100% 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.092 —

100% 7.3 7.3 0.0 0.087 —

100% 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.057 —

75% 16.6 12.6 4.0 0.028 0.662


75% 11.4 8.4 3.0 0.008 0.663
75% 6.9 5.3 1.6 0.019 0.668
75% 2.3 1.8 0.5 0.047 0.720

50% 16.4 8.3 8.1 0.063 0.534


50% 11.1 6.0 5.1 0.016 0.554
50% 6.9 3.7 3.2 0.032 0.593
50% 2.2 1.2 1.0 0.063 0.636

25% 16.6 5.1 11.5 0.164 0.568


25% 11.1 3.4 7.7 0.158 0.595
25% 6.6 1.7 4.9 0.168 0.550
25% 2.1 0.6 1.5 0.179 0.618

0% 16.2 0.0 16.2 —


0.612
0% 11.0 0.0 11.0 — 0.624
0% 6.6 0.0 6.6 — 0.654
0% 2.2 0.0 2.2 0.728

*K values for individual vendors are contained on individual data sheets in Appendix B

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62

Table A -14. Select inlet velocity tests for 12 mixing inch tee*
MIXING v, V2 v3 loss coeff loss coeff
q ,/ q 2 fps fps fps K„ k ,.3

100% 16.6 16.6 0.0 0.090


100% 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.073 —

100% 7.3 7.3 0.0 0.067 —

100% 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.056 —

75% 11.8 15.9 4.1 0.460 -4.239


75% 8.6 11.4 2.8 0.345 -4.424
75% 5.0 6.7 1.7 0.298 -4.364
75% 1.7 2.1 0.4 0.341 -6.385

50% 8.1 16.3 8.2 0.707 0.333


50% 5.7 11.4 5.7 0.781 0.311
50% 3.7 7.1 3.4 0.557 0.175
50% 1.2 2.3 1.1 0.561 0.341

25% 4.2 15.9 11.7 0.704 0.772


25% 3.0 10.6 7.6 1.049 0.591
25% 1.6 6.4 4.8 0.867 0.557
25% 0.3 1.9 1.6 0.962 0.601

0% 0.0 14.6 14.6 ___ 0.693


0% 0.0 10.3 10.3 — 0.756
0% 0.0 7.4 7.4 — 0.692
0% 0.0 2.2 2.2 0.981

*K values for individual vendors are contained on individual data sheets in Appendix B

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63

Table A -15. Select inlet velocity tests for 16 inch branching tee*
BRANCHING v, v2 v3 loss coeff loss coeff
QVQ, fps fps fps K ,.,

100% 16.6 16.6 0.0 0.030


100% 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.026 —

100% 7.3 7.3 0.0 0.029 —

100% 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.035 —

75% 16.6 12.6 4.0 0.040 0.621


75% 11.4 8.4 3.0 0.041 0.623
75% 6.9 5.3 1.6 0.061 0.636
75% 2.3 1.8 0.5 0.046 0.645

50% 16.4 8.3 8.1 0.073 0.496


50% 11.1 6.0 5.1 0.066 0.510
50% 6.9 3.7 3.2 0.068 0.495
50% 2.2 1.2 1.0 0.050 0.526

25% 16.6 5.1 11.5 0.074 0.500


25% 11.1 3.4 7.7 0.099 0.523
25% 6.6 1.7 4.9 0.081 0.547
25% 2.1 0.6 1.5 0.056 0.501

0% 16.2 0.0 16.2 —


0.522
0% 11.0 0.0 11.0 — 0.548
0% 6.6 0.0 6.6 — 0.552
0% 2.2 0.0 2.2 0.537

*K values for individual vendors are contained on individual data sheets in Appendix B

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64

Table A -16. Select inlet velocity tests for 16 inch mixing tee*
MIXING v, V, v, loss coeff loss coeff
Q./Q j fps fps fps k ,2 K,_,

100% 16.6 16.6 0.0 0.029


100% 11.1 11.1 0.0 0.026 —

100% 7.3 7.3 0.0 0.029 —

100% 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.037 —

75% 11.8 15.9 4.1 0.325 -3.919


75% 8.6 11.4 2.8 0.274 -3.951
75% 5.0 6.7 1.7 0.324 -4.226
75% 1.7 2.1 0.4 0.298 -4.092

50% 8.1 16.3 8.2 1.154 0.734


50% 5.7 11.4 5.7 0.808 0.579
50% 3.7 7.1 3.4 0.680 0.435
50% 1.2 2.3 1.1 0.899 0.435

25% 4.2 15.9 11.7 1.602 0.834


25% 3.0 10.6 7.6 3.280 0.886
25% 1.6 6.4 4.8 2.144 0.746
25% 0.3 1.9 1.6 1.067 0.782

0% 0.0 14.6 14.6 — 0.773


0% 0.0 10.3 10.3 — 0.752
0% 0.0 7.4 7.4 — 0.736
0% 0.0 2.2 2.2 0.750

*K values for individual vendors are contained on individual data sheets in Appendix B

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12 in c h e b o w s

0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
o
O 0.20
to
<0
o 0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
U pstream Velocity V1 (fps)

Figure A-1. 12 inch ell loss coefficients for individual vendors.

16 inch e b o w s

0.50
0.45
0.40
— W4
* 0.35 — X4
.1 0.30 —A— Y4
0.25
« 0.20
3 0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0 5 .0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0
U pstream Velocity V1 (fps)

Figure A-2. 16 inch ell loss coefficients for individual vendors.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2 0 r ic h S b o w s

0.50
0.45
0.40
* 0.35
I 0.30
O
1 0.25
S<n 0 20
® 0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 .00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
U pstream Velocity

Figure A-3. 20 inch ell loss coefficients for individual vendors.

24 inch Sbow s

0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
-W 10
0.30
o -X10
£ 0.25
O
O
<D
-Y 10
0.20
-Z 10
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00
U pstream Velocity V1 (fp s)

Figure A-4. 24 inch ell loss coefficients for individual vendors.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10x12BfBn6GT6

0S3
0.45
0.40
0.35
£ 030 -Wl
o -XI
^ 0^5
o -Yl
o_ 020
09 -a
° 0.15
0.10
0.06
0.00 — I—

0.00 &00 IOjOO 15LOO 20.00 25,00 30.00


ItstaemVfefobtyVl (fcs)

Figure A-5. 10 x 12 inch expansion loss coefficients for individual vendors.

12x16 B fx ra o n s

0.50
045
040
^ 035
-W6
J 030
O -X
o 0 25 -Y 6
U 0.2D
<n
to
O 015
010
006
000-
000 5.00 1000 15.00 200 0 25.00 3000 35.00 4000
Lpstreem Velocity VI ( | b )

Figure A-6. 12 x 16 inch expansion loss coefficients for individual vendors.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
030
0.45

035
030 W

020

O10

005
000
000 1000 1500 2000 2500
l i s t e n VHariVVI ft*)

Figure A-7. 16 x 20 inch expansion loss coefficients for individual vendors.

2Dx24Bpenscns

050
045
040
035
-v »

-V9
tn Q20 -s
V)
3 015
O10

006
QOO —i
QOO 500 1Q00 1500 2000 2500 3000
ItBtamVUaiVVl fts)

Figure A-8. 20 x 24 inch expansion loss coefficients for individual vendors.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12x10 Reductions

aso
0 .4 5

0 .4 0

0 .3 5
c aao
9
-Wi
O
:t= -XI
© 0 .2 5
O -Y1
«n a .20
to -21
a is
0.1 0

0.0 6

0 .0 0 —f
10 15 20
l^streemVelocityVI (fps)

Figure A-9. 1 2 x 1 0 inch reduction loss coefficients for individual vendors.

16x12 Reductions

0 .5 0

0.45
0.40
* 0.36
c -W 6
"o 0.30 06
®
o
O -Y6
<n -25
coo
_j 0.15
0.10
0 .0 5

0.00
0 5 10 15 20
llstreem VelocityVI fcs)

Figure A -10. 16 x 12 inch expansion loss coefficients for individual vendors.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2Dx16RBdc#crB

030
0.45

0.40

^035
Iu 030
1 025

«02D
m
-3 0.15
0.10
0.06

0.00
0 5 10 15 20
l£s*aemVUodtyVI(fps)

Figure A-l 1. 20 x 16 inch reduction loss coefficients for individual vendors.

2 4 x 2 0 Ffedctions

050-

0.45-

0.40-

035-

,® 0 3 0 -
-W9
o

g 025
o -\9
««j 02D 4-
o S
- 1 0.15

0. 1 0 -
0.05-

0.00
10 15 20
Lp&taemVfefcxrtyVl ft* )

Figure A -12. 24 x 20 inch reduction loss coefficients for individual vendors.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71

OstrblionGf K1-2vaiUB6as afmfoicf Qratio

0.45
0.40

0.10

006

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 SO 00 70 60 90 100
%c* R avin Log 2

Figure A -13. 12 inch tee branching K,.2 values for individual vendors.

QsttUim of K 1-3 VahBs as a Lrridn of Q ratio

1.00

Q90
a so
Q70
I aeo — W3
[o -*-X3
7E0.50
oo Y3
0.40 -»-23

020

O10

QOO
0 10 20 30 40 so 00 70 60 90 100
%cflawinlsg3

Figure A -14. 12 inch tee branching K,.3 values for individual vendors.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72

DistrixtiGncf K1-2vafcjasas afurticncfQ ratio


1.00

Q90

aao
070
I aao -W 3
u
<DQ50 -X3
oO -Y3
tn Q40
v>
o -23
a 30
023
Q10

QOO
O 10 2D 30 40 SO 60 70 60 90 100
%cf RowviLeg2

Figure A-15. 12 inch tee mixing K,.2 values for individual vendors.

DstrtxlianofK23 votes as a fcrritonc#Qrctib


200

1.00

20 60 90
- 1.00

e
£
-Wt3
o
-X3
-Y 3
-23

-600

-7.00

Figure A -16. 12 inch tee mixing K}.2 values for individual vendors.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73

□istrtxJicnof K1-2valuBSas afucticncf Qratio


030
Q45

Q3B

Q3D WE

0.25
•Y5
Q2D
Q15

Q10

QOO
30 40 60 90 100

Figure A -17. 16 inch tee branching K,_2 values for individual vendors.

Distrixiicnof K1-3voltes as a functionofQratio


1.00

090

080

060 W5
‘o
050
Y5

0.30

020

O10

QOO
100

Figure A -18. 16 inch tee branching K,.3 values for individual vendors.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74

Distribution erf K 1-2 v a lu e s a s a function fo Q ratio

3.00

2.50

c 2.00
e
'D
So= 1.50
o
O
C
(0O 1.00
O

0.50

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
% of flow in Leg 2

Figure A -19. 16 inch tee mixing K,.2 values for individual vendors.

□istribtiicn cf K vtaluas as a fincticn of Q ratio

1.00

QOO
20

* - 1.00

W5
)6
® -200
-* -V 5

-too

-5.00
% e fla v in U g 3

Figure A-20. 16 inch tee mixing K3.2 values for individual vendors.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75

Appendix B. Individual data sheets

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76

Key to Data Sheets

The data sheets for individual fittings are contained in this appendix have

classifications for roughness and transition characteristics. Each fitting has a table with a

description of rank and classification for its own loss coefficient and surface properties.

There are two ranking categories, first fittings of an identical type are ranked ascending

order of loss coefficient value. Second the fittings are ranked by their roughness

classifications, also in ascending order.

The surface classifications and transition classifications are to aid the reader in

understanding why a particular fitting may have achieved a different loss coefficient when

compared to one of an identical type but different vendor. Other factors of would include

differences in diameter and overall shape. Appendix B contains schematics of each

fitting with precise diameter measurements included.

Each Data sheet contains a standard deviation (s). For elbow and

expansion/reduction fittings describes the amount o f variance the loss coefficient has over

the entire velocity range of the test. The tee fittings also have a standard deviation

associated with each loss coefficient value determined. This deviation also represents the

variance over the different test velocities that were achieved in the test. The purpose of

this information is to allow a calculation for a range of head losses that will occur over

range of flow rates.

Below are the descriptions of codes used in Appendix B to describe fitting

characteristics.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
Surface Classifications

1 - smooth, no casting flaws or imperfections

2 - smooth, 1 to 3 casting divots, 0.15" high, circular

3 - small amount o f casting protrusions / roughness, 0.03 to 0.05" high

4 - moderate amount o f casting protrusions / roughness, 0.03 to 0.05" high

5 - large amount o f casting protrusions / roughness, 0.03 to 0.05" high

Transition Classifications

a - smooth transitions

b - sharp transitions

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78

W2
S e c tio n AA

\D
ru

11.93 in.
S e c tio n AA

12.00 in

Figure B-l. Diameter designations for 12 inch elbow (W2).

Table B-l. Test results for 12 inch elbow (W2)

Test Specie: W2 Test Type A 2 inch elbow Radius/Diameter: 1.5


K m o Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.158 0.005 1/4 2 1/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79

X2
S e c tio n AA

11.94 in.
S e c tio n AA

11.99 in.

Figure B-2. Diameter designations for 12 inch elbow (X2).

Table B-2. Test results for 12 inch elbow (X2)

Test Specie: X2 Test Type A 2 inch elbow Radius/Diameter: 1.5


K ,, (J Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.173 0.002 3/4 4 3/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80

Y2
S e c tio n AA

11.94 in.
S e c tio n AA

11.93 in.

Figure B-3. Diameter designations for 12 inch elbow (Y2).

Table B-3. Test results for 12 inch elbow (Y2)

Test Specie: Y2 Test Type.:12 in c h elbOW Radius/Diameter: 1.5


K ,.2 a Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.168 0.003 2/4 3 2/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure B-4. Diameter designations for 12 inch elbow (Z2)

Table B-4. Test results for 12 inch elbow (Z2)

Test Specie: Z2 Test Type. 12 in c h elbOW Radius/Diameter: 1.5


k ,.2 cr Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.172 0.004 4/4 4 4/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82

W4
S e c tio n AA
cn
ru
cn

15.19 in.
S e c tio n AA

15.14 in.

Figure B-5. Diameter designations for 16 inch elbow (W4).

Table B-5. Test results for 16 inch elbow (W4)

Test Specie: W4 Test Type.16 inch elbow Radius/Diameter: 1.5


K ,, a Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.116 0.008 1/4 1 1/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83

X4
S e c tio n AA
cn

15.21 in.
S e c tio n AA

15.20 in.

Figure B-6. Diameter designations for 16 inch elbow (X4).

Table B-6. Test results for 16 inch elbow (X4)

Test Specie: X4 Test Type.-16 inch elbow Radius/Diameter: 1.5


K ,, cr Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.125 0.012 4/4 4 4/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
S e c tio n AA
cn
CJ
OJ

15.28 in.
S e c tio n AA

15.26 in.

Figure B-7. Diameter designations for 16 inch elbow (Y4).

Table B-7. Test results for 16 inch elbow (Y4)

Test Specie: Y4 Test Type:16 inch elbO W Radius/Diameter: 1.5


K ,, cj Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.120 0.019 2/4 2 2/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85

Z4
S e c t i o n AA

15.17 in.
S e c tio n AA

15.20 in.

Figure B-8. Diameter designations for 16 inch elbow (ZA).

T fa b l^ ^ ^ ^ fe s n re s u J t^ b M £ m d ^ lb c w ^ 2 ^
Test Specie: Z4 Test Type. 16 inch elbow Radius/Diameter: 1.5
K..2 cj Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.121 0.015 3/4 2 3/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86

W8
S e c tio n

ru
o

19.18 in.
S e c tio n AA

19.15 in.

Figure B-9. Diameter designations for 20 inch elbow (W8).

Table B-9. Test results for 20 inch elbow (W8)

Test Specie: W8 Test TyPe :2 Q inch elbow Radius/Diameter: 1.5


K ,, a Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.108 0.017 4/4 2 3/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87

X8
S e c t i o n AA

19.25 in.
S e c tio n AA

19.27 in.

Figure B -10. Diameter designations for 20 inch elbow (X8).

Table B-10. Test results for 20 inch elbow (X8)


Test Specie: X8 Test Type:20 inch elbow Radius/Diameter: 1.5
K ,, o Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.106 0.011 3/4 2 2/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88

Y8

19.27 in.
S e c tio n AA

19.30 in.

Figure B -11. Diameter designations for 20 inch elbow (Y8).

Table B-l 1. Test results for 20 inch elbow (Y8)

Test Specie: Y8 Test Type :20 inch elbow Radius/Diameter: 1.5


K j., a Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.107 0.012 2/4 2 3/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89

Z8
S e c t i o n AA

Ol

19.17 in.
S e c tio n AA

19.19 in.

Figure B -12. Diameter designations for 20 inch elbow (Y8).

Table B-12. Test results for 20 inch elbow (Z8)

Test Specie: Z8 Test T ype:20 inch elbow Radius/Diameter: 1.5


K,.2 a Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.101 0.012 1/4 1 1/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90

W10
S e c tio n AA
ru
GO

23.20 in.
S e c tio n AA

23.27 in.

Figure B-13. Diameter designations for 24 inch elbow (W10).

Table B-13. Test results for 24 inch elbow (W10)

Test Specie: W10 Test Type:2A inch elb O W Radius: 1.5


K ,., a Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.95 0.008 2/4 2 2/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91

S e c - t l o n AA

2 3 .2 5 in.
S e c tio n AA

2 3 .2 0 in.

Figure B -14. Diameter designations for 24 inch elbow (X10).

Table B-14. Test results for 24 inch elbow (X10)

Test Specie: X10 Test T y p e :2 4 inch elbOW Radius: 1.5


K.-2 a Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.102 0.010 3/4 4 3/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92

Y10
S e c tio n AA
ro
CJ
GO

23.28 in.
S e c tio n AA

23.21 in.

Figure B -15. Diameter designations for 24 inch elbow (Y10).

Table B-15. Test results for 24 inch elbow (Y10)

Test Specie: Y10 Test T y p e :2 4 inch G lboW Radius: 1.5


K ,, a Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.085 0.007 1/4 2 1/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93

Z10

23.19 in.
S e c tio n M

2 3 .2 1 in.

Figure B -16. Diameter designations for 24 inch elbow (Z10).

Table B -16. Test results for 24 inch elbow (ZIP)

Test Specie: Z10 Test Type:2A inch elb O W Radius: 1.5


K,-2 a Rank Roughness Class Rank Transition Class
0.101 0.004 4/4 4 4/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94

cr>

----- 5.00 i n . -
L e n g th o f V a r ie d D la n e " te r

Figure B-17. Diameter designations for 12 x 10 inch expansion/reduction (W l).

Table B-17. Test results for 12 x 10 inch expansion/reduction (W l)

Test Specie: W1 rest TypeA 2 x 10 Nozzle/Diffuser


Nozzle K ,.2 a Rank Diffuser K ,_2 O Rank
0.146 0.003 3/4 0.105 0.004 1/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
3 3/4 1/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95

X1

OJ o
CD
cu

----- 4 .25 in . --
L e n g th o f V a r ie d D ia m e t e r

Figure B-18. Diameter designations for 12 x 10 inch expansion/reduction (XI).

T ab l^^ ^ ^^ esu esu lt^ o r^2 jM (H iK lu iX £ an sio n /red u ctio i^X 1 2


Test Specie: X1 Test TypeA2 x 10 Nozzle/Diffuser
Nozzle K ,.2 cr Rank Diffuser K ,_2 cr Rank
0.126 0.006 1/4 0.117 0.003 4/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
1 1/4 4/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96

Y1

SO
O'. cn
cr.

—----- 4 .80 in .-----


L e n g th of V a r ie d D ia m e t e r

Figure B-19. Diameter designations for 12 x 10 inch expansion/reduction (Y l).

Table B-19. Test results for 12 x 10 inch expansion/reduction (Y l)

Test Specie: Y1 Test TypeA 2 x 10 Nozzle/Diffuser


Nozzle K ,.2 cr Rank Diffuser K ,.2 cr Rank
0.147 0.008 4/4 0.108 0.004 2/4
Roughness Class Rank Varied Diameter Rank Transition Class
3 4/4 2/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97

Z1

o
oo
CT>
CP'

- 4.50 in .-----
L e n g th of V a r ie d D ia m e te r

Figure B-20. Diameter designations for 12 x 10 inch expansion/reduction (Zl).

Tabl^^2(X ^estresult^bi^2j^(H ncl^exj5ansion/ieductioiH |Z12


Test Specie: Z1 Test TyPe A 2 x 10 Nozzle/Diffuser
Nozzle K ,.2 cr Rank Diffuser K ,.2 cr Rank
0.141 0.006 2/4 0.114 0.005 3/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
2 2/4 3/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98

W6

in CO
CD
OJ
in

----- 10.35 In.—


L e n g th of V a r ie d D la n e t e r

Figure B-21. Diameter designations for 16 x 12 inch expansion/reduction (W6).

Table B-21. Test results for 16 x 12 inch expansion/reduction (W6)

Test Specie: W6 Test TypeA 6 x 12 Nozzle/Diffuser


Nozzle K cr Rank Difluser K ,_2 o Rank
0.104 0.004 1/4 0.056 0.002 1/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
2 1/4 1/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99

X6

CD
v*—
O
*
cu 5"
lt5

— 5.15 i n . ------
L e n g th of V a r ie d D ia n e t e r

Figure B-22. Diameter designations for 16 x 12 inch expansion/reduction (X6).

Table B-22. Test results for 16 x 12 inch expansion/reduction (X6)

Test Specie: X6 Test Type:16 x 12 N ozzle/Diffuser


Nozzle K ,_2 cr Rank Diffuser K ,.2 a Rank
0.167 0.006 2/4 0.086 0.003 2/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
4 3/4 3/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100

Y6

in □0
vO
OJ
in

-----4.80 in .-----
L e n g th of V a r ie d D ia m e t e r

Figure B-23. Diameter designations for 16 x 12 inch expansion/reduction (Y6).

Table B-23. Test results for 16 x 12 inch expansion/reduction (Y6)

Test Specie: Y6 Test TypeA 6 x 12 Nozzle/Diffuser


Nozzle K ,.2 cr Rank Diffuser K ,.2 cr Rank
0.186 0.007 3/4 0.087 0.002 4/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
3 2/4 4/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101

Z6

c
CD
ID
H
ru

ID

— 8 .3 5 in .-----
L e n g th o f V a r ie d D ia m e te r

Figure B-24. Diameter designations for 16 x 12 inch expansion/reduction (Z6).

Tabl^^24^Tesu^esuIts^bM^jM2jncl^x|jagMon/reductioir£Z6£

Test Specie : Z6 Test Type:16 x 12 Nozzle/Diffuser


Nozzle K ,.2 cr Rank Diffuser K ,.2 cr Rank
0.203 0.007 4/4 0.069 0.002 2/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
5 4/4 2/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102

W7

cn
ru

----- 13.55 ir* -


L e n g th of V a r ie d D ia m e te r

Figure B-25. Diameter designations for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction (W7).

Table B-25. Test results for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction (W7)

Test Specie: W7 Test Type. 20 x 16 Nozzle/Diffuser


Nozzle K ,_2 cr Rank Diffuser K ,.2 cr Rank
0.137 0.003 4/4 0.016 0.002 1/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
3 4/4 1/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103

X7

cn
CU ru
CO
CJ
cS

----- 7.00 i n . -
L e n g th of V a r ie d D ia m e te r

Figure B-26. Diameter designations for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction (X7).

Table B-26. Test results for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction (X7)

Test Specie: X7 Test Type.20 x 16 Nozzle/Diffuser


Nozzle K |_2 cr Rank Diffuser K ,_2 cr Rank
0.133 0.001 3/4 0.022 0.001 2/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
2 3/4 2/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104

Y7

ui
00 00
OJ
5*
<T>

— 6.00 i n . -----
L e n g th o F V a r ie d D ia m e te r

Figure B-27. Diameter designations for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction (Y7).

^ b l^ B ^ 27^ estresu lt^ o^ ^ ^ ^ in c^ exgan sion/red uction ^ Y 7)

Test Specie: Y7 T estT ype:20 x 16 Nozzle/Diffuser


Nozzle K |_2 o Rank Diffuser K ,.2 a Rank
0.123 0.003 1/4 0.027 0.004 4/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
2 1/4 3/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105

Z7

cn
CO o
CU
cK

----- 5 .6 4 In . --
L e n g th of V a r ie d D ia n e t e r

Figure B-28. Diameter designations for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction (Z7).

Table B-28. Test results for 20 x 16 inch expansion/reduction (Z7)

Test Specie: Z7 Test Type:20 x 16 Nozzle/Diffuser


Nozzle K cr Rank Diffuser K. ,.2 cr Rank
0.124 0.003 2/4 0.023 0.001 3/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
2 2/4 4/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106

W9

vO
o
oj
CO
cu

----- 14.00 In.-----


L e n g th of V a r ie d D ia m e te r

Figure B-29. Diameter designations for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction (W9).

Table B-29. Test results for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction (W9)

Test Specie: W9 Test TyPe:24 x 20 Nozzle/Diffuser


Nozzle K j_2 a Rank Diffuser K ,.2 cr Rank
0.068 0.005 4/4 0.013 0.001 1/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
3 4/4 1/4 b

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107

X9
C
vS
kD CT>

ro 5*
cu

-7 .5 6 in.-
L e n g " th of V a r ie d D la n e t e r

Figure B-30. Diameter designations for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction (X9).

Table B-30. Test results for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction (X9)

Test Specie: X9 Test TyPe:2A x 20 Nozzle/Diffuser


Nozzle K !.2 a Rank Diffuser K ,_2 cr Rank
0.052 0.005 2/4 0.019 0.002 2/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
2 2/4 2/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108

Y9

\D
o U)
CO
CO 3
cu

-6.18 in.
L e n g t h o f V a r ie d D ia n e t e r

Figure B -31. Diameter designations for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction (Y9).

Table B-31. Test results for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction (Y9)

Test Specie: Y9 Test TyPe:24 x 20 Nozzle/Diffuser


Nozzle K ,.2 a Rank Diffuser K ,.2 cr Rank
0.046 0.004 1/4 0.025 0.006 4/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
1 1/4 4/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109

Z9

00

6 .3 4 in. - -
L e n g th of V a r ie d D ia m e te r

Figure B-32. Diameter designations for 24 x 20 inch expansion/reduction (Z9).

^ibl<^^^L^res^esult^Jfor^^j^2(HncJ^ex|)ansion/reductioi^Z9^

Test Specie: Z9 Test TyPe:24 x 20 Nozzle/Diffuser


Nozzle K ,.2 a Rank Diffuser K ,.2 or Rank
0.055 0.005 3/4 0.021 0.002 3/4
Roughness Class Rank Variable Diameter Rank Transition Class
2 3/4 3/4 a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110

W3
•13.19 In

—----- 11.83 li

Figure B-33. Diameter designations for 12 inch tee (W3).

T a b l^ B ^ ^ J e s ^ r e s u lt^ b M ^ jn c l^ e e ^ W ^
T est S p e c ie : W3 T est T y p e : 12 inch T ee
Roughness Class Rank Transition Class Overall Rank

3 3/4 a Branch= 2*/4 Mix= 3*/4


Branching flow Data Mixing flow Data
Q2/Q, K a Q3/Q1 K i.j c Q1/Q2 K 1.2 0 Q3/Q2 Km rr
too 0.102 0.008 0 N/A N/A to o 0.082 0.006 0 N/A N/A

75 0.021 0.021 25 0.691 0.056 75 0.391 0.123 25 -4.149 0.253

50 0.055 0.057 50 0.622 0.094 50 0.550 0.059 50 0.323 0.172

25 0.164 0.013 75 0.622 0.029 25 0.762 0.066 75 0.605 0 .102

0 N/A N'/A to o 0.671 0.026 0 N/A N/A 100 0.616 0.066

M ndirate^ijiUu^W entira|Uotha^j^no<twrjM ^pecie.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
X3
c ro
cu
CD
\D GO

-12.81 In

11.86 In

Figure B-34. Diameter designations for 12 inch tee (X3).

Table B-34. Test results for 12 inch tee (X3)

T e st S p e c ie : X3 Test Type: 12 inch Te©


Roughness Class Rank Transition Class Overall Rank
1 1/4 a Branch = 1/4 Mix = 3/4

Branching flow Data Mixing flow Data


q 2/q. K, 2 a Q/Q. K ct Qi/Qz Km a QAk CT

too 0.083 0.029 0 N/A N/A 100 0.063 0.030 0 N/A N/A

75 0.013 0.013 25 0.671 0.030 75 0.414 0.116 25 -3.149 2.184

50 0.029 0.023 50 0.545 0.018 50 0.829 0.180 50 0.297 0.126

25 0.150 0.034 75 0.528 0.058 25 0.972 0.870 75 0.673 0.074

0 N/A N/A 100 0.621 0.067 0 N/A N/A 100 0.675 0.033

* Indicates rank is identical to that o f another test specie.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112

C
m
\D

-12.03 In-

11.80 In-

Figure B-35. Diameter designations for 12 inch tee (Y3).

Table B-35. Test results for 12 inch tee (Y3)

T est S p e c ie : Y3 Test TypeA 2 inch Tee


Roughness Class Rank Transition Class Overall Rank
3 4/4 Branch = 3*/4 Mix = 2/4
Branching Row Data Mixing Row Data

Q i/Q i K ,: Q j/ Q i K ,., CT Q 1/Q 2 K .2 a QVQr a

too 0.094 0.015 0 N/A N/A 100 0.074 0.017 0 N/A N/A

75 0.058 0.045 25 0.688 0.017 75 0.353 0.077 25 -5.450 2.374

50 0.046 0.028 50 0.580 0.016 50 0.696 0.071 50 0.266 0.89

25 0.197 0.008 75 0.627 0.038 25 0.870 0.218 75 0.645 0.108

0 N/A N/A 100 0.673 0.020 0 N/A N/A 100 0.830 0.129

* Indicates ra n k is id en tica l to th a t o f a n o th e r te s t specie.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Z3
do

■12.72 In-

H .8 3 in-

Figure B-36. Diameter designations for 12 inch tee (Z3).

Table B-36. Test results for 12 inch tee (Z3)

T e s t S p e c ie : Z3 T est T y p e A 2 in c h T e e

Roughness Class Rank Transition Class Overall Rank


2 2/4 a Branch = 2/4 Mix = l*/4

Branching Flow Data Mixing Flow Data


Q^Qi K 12 a Q]/Qi K |.j cl Q 1 /Q 2 K O' Q /Q l K <7

100 0.066 0.038 0 N/A N/A 100 0.068 0.006 0 N/A N/A

75 0.009 0.007 25 0.665 0.011 75 0.286 0.071 25 -6.664 3.399

50 0.045 0.007 50 0.570 0.028 50 0.530 0..286 50 0.274 0.079

25 0.158 0.015 75 0.555 0.043 25 0.979 0.303 75 0.645 0.081

0 N/A N/A 100 0.652 0.087 0 N/A N/A 100 0.701 0.101

* In d ic a te s ra n k is id en tica l to th a t o f a n o th e r test sp e c ie .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114

W5
'CP

■16.38 in-

lS .0 9 ti

Figure B-37. Diameter designations for 16 inch tee (W5).

Table B-37. Test results for 16 inch tee (W5)

T est S p e c ie : W 5 T est T yp e: 1 6 in c h T © 6

Roughness Class Rank Transition Class Overall Rank


3 4/4 b Branch = 4/4 Mix = 3*/4
Branching Row Data Mixing Row Data

Q/Q K ,2 a oyQi k i.j cr Q/Qa K |.i a Qj/Qa a

too 0.021 0.002 0 N/A N/A 100 0.020 0.003 0 N/A N/A

75 0.034 0.026 25 0.611 0.005 75 0.255 0.086 25 -3.915 0.148

50 0.059 0.026 50 0.523 0.019 50 0.921 0.322 50 0.529 0.233

25 0.069 0.023 75 0.530 0.035 25 1.999 1.931 75 0.896 0.240

0 N7A N/A 100 0341 0.018 0 N/A N/A 100 0.687 0.028

* Indicates ra n k is id en tica l to th a t o f a n o th e r te s t specie.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115

cr»
in ru
in

•16.22 li

15.13 In-

Figure B-38. Diameter designations for 16 inch tee (X5).

Table B-38. Test results for 16 inch tee (X5)

T e s t S p e c ie : X5 Test Type16 inch Tee


Roughness Class Rank Transition Class Overall Rank
1 1/4 Branch = l*/4 Mix = 1/4
Branching Flow Data Mixing Flow Data
Qi'Qi K,2 C Q 3/Q , K ,.j cr Q./Q 2 Kw cr QAL cr

too 0.035 0.007 0 N/A N/A too 0.034 0.007 0 N/A N/A

75 0.058 0.006 25 0.638 0.014 75 0.315 0.041 25 -4.313 0.291

50 0.057 0.018 50 0.507 0.014 50 0.871 0.170 50 0.474 0.138

25 0.060 0.028 75 0.508 0.057 25 1.434 0.578 75 0.757 0.029

0 N/A N’/A too 0.490 0.032 0 N/A N/A 100 0.684 0.069

* In d ica te s ra n k is identical to th a t o f a n o th e r te s t sp e c ie .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116

U!
tn

-1 5 .9 8 Ii

• 1 5 .1 2 In -

Figure B-39. Diameter designations for 16 inch tee (Y5).

T a b l^ ^ S S ^ T esu esu lt^ o M ^ in cln e^ Y ^

T e st S p e c ie : Y5 Test TypeA 6 inch Tee


Roughness Class R ank Transition Class Overall Rank
2 2/4 Branch = 2/4 Mix = 2/4
Branching Flow Data Mixing Flow Data

q 2/q, k 12 a QVQ, cr QAk K .r a 0 3 /Q j (T

too 0.043 0.005 0 N/A N/A too 0.046 0.005 0 N/A N /A

75 0.060 0.004 25 0.666 0.014 75 0.335 0.026 25 -3.929 0.271

50 0.074 0.007 50 0.487 0.020 50 0.880 0.202 50 0.389 0.062

25 0.092 0.012 75 0.460 0 .0 1 1 25 1.764 0.706 75 0.733 0.058

0 N/A N/A 100 0.522 0.020 0 N/A N/A too 0.653 0.015

* In d icates ra n k Is identical to t h a t o f a n o th e r te st sijjecie.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117

Z5
cn
ru
oj sO
in \D

1 5 .1 5 In

Figure B-40. Diameter designations for 16 inch tee (Z5).

Table B-40. Test results for 16 inch tee (Z5)

T e s t S p e c ie : Z5 Test Type.-16 Inch Tee


Roughness Class Rank Transition Class Overall Rank
2 3/4 b Branch =l*/4 Mix = 3*/4
Branching Flow Data Mixing Flow Data
CM2i Ki 2 <3 CM2. *.» Q./Qi QVQj a
to o 0.022 0.006 0 N/A N/A to o 0.021 0.006 0 N/A N/A

75 0.036 0.009 25 0.610 0.016 75 0.316 0.025 25 -4.031 0.409

50 0.066 0.008 50 0.510 0.014 50 0.870 0.062 50 0.791 0.178

25 0.090 0.015 75 0 .572 0.046 25 2.895 0.815 75 0.863 0.055

0 N/A N/A 100 0.605 0.044 0 N /A N/A 100 0.987 0.125

* In dicates ra n k Ls id en tical to th a t o f a n o th e r te s t sp e c ie .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C. Photographs

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119

Figure C -l. Miscellaneous test fittings.

Figure C-2. Miscellaneous test fittings.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120

Figure C-3. 12 inch tee configuration.

Figure C-4. 12 inch tee configuration.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
121

Figure C-5. 16 inch tee configuration

Figure C-6. 16 inch tee configuration.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122

Figure C-7. 12 inch elbow test configuration.

Figure C-8. 16 inch elbow test configuration.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123

Figure C-9. 20 inch elbow fitting.

Figure C-10. 24 inch elbow test configuration

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124

Figure C -l 1. 20 x 24 inch expansion test configuration.

Figure C-l 2. 20 x 16 inch reduction test configuration.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen