Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1
1
Introduction
.........................................................................................................................................................
2
2
Theory
and
Assumptions
...............................................................................................................................
3
2.1
Underlying
Principle
................................................................................................................................
3
2.2
Governing
Equations
...............................................................................................................................
3
2.2.1
Continuity
Equation
.........................................................................................................................
3
2.2.2
Energy
Equation
................................................................................................................................
5
2.2.3
Minor
losses:
Head
loss
due
to
pipe
fittings
..........................................................................
8
2.3
Assumptions
................................................................................................................................................
8
3
Experimental
Procedure
.................................................................................................................................
9
4
Data
and
Measurements
...............................................................................................................................
11
4.1
Friction
Loss
Readings
For
The
Rough
Pipe
................................................................................
11
4.2
Friction
Loss
Readings
for
the
Smooth
Pipe
................................................................................
12
4.3
Contraction
Minor
Head
Loss
Readings
........................................................................................
13
4.4
Bend
Minor
Head
Loss
Readings
......................................................................................................
14
5
Calculations
and
Results
...............................................................................................................................
15
5.1
Sample
Calculation
.................................................................................................................................
15
5.1.1
Friction
Loss
in
The
Rough
Pipe
...............................................................................................
15
5.1.2
Friction
Loss
in
the
Smooth
Pipe
.............................................................................................
18
5.1.3
Contraction
Head
Loss
Coefficient
..........................................................................................
21
5.1.4
Bend
Head
Loss
Coefficient
........................................................................................................
23
5.2
Tabulated
Results
....................................................................................................................................
25
5.2.1
Friction
Loss
Trials
for
the
Rough
Pipe
.................................................................................
25
5.2.2
Friction
Loss
Trials
for
the
Smooth
Pipe
..............................................................................
25
5.2.3
Contraction
Loss
Trials
................................................................................................................
26
5.2.4
Bend
Loss
Trials
..............................................................................................................................
26
6
Discussion
and
Analysis
................................................................................................................................
27
6.1
Friction
Loss
Trials
for
the
Rough
and
Smooth
Pipes
.............................................................
27
6.2
Contraction
Loss
Trials
.........................................................................................................................
30
6.3
Bend
Loss
Trials
.......................................................................................................................................
31
7
Conclusion
...........................................................................................................................................................
32
Acknowledgments
...................................................................................................................................................
33
i
References
..................................................................................................................................................................
33
Table of Figures
ii
Abstract
This experiment is designed to allow the students to perform a hands-on activity in order to get familiar
with energy losses in pipes. The objective of the experiment is to determine the major and minor head loss
coefficients, such as the friction factor due to contact between water flowing and the inner walls of the
pipe, and the minor loss coefficients, such as the contraction and bend coefficients, due to changes in pipe
geometry. The flow is fixed for every reading. Four readings were ultimately carried out for four different
pipe segments, one rough pipe, one smooth pipe, one pipe with a contraction fitting, and another pipe with
a bend fitting. The corresponding head loss coefficients were calculated and were compared to the
literature values.
Upon the execution of the related calculations, significant errors were found due to several assumptions or
instrumental errors. For example, the errors in friction factors were found to be around 60%, while the
theoretical contraction head loss coefficients were found to be around 13 times as much as the theoretical
values. The bend coefficients were inconsistent as they were very close to the theoretical values for two
readings and very far from the theoretical values for the two other readings. An analysis was carried out to
study and interpret the errors and their origins and ultimately reach a conclusion that validates the results
of the experiment.
1
1 Introduction
A prevalent concept in hydraulics engineering is head losses in a system. Since hydraulics engineering
deals with water distribution systems, one cannot neglect the head losses that occur inside these systems.
Designing a water system targets the transport of water from one place to a desired location.Transport
mainly happens through the installation of pipes. Water, which is a non-ideal fluid, tends to flow under
turbulent yet steady conditions. Head losses are mainly due to these connecting pipes and the flow of
water in them. These losses can be considered major friction losses due to the roughness of the pipe too, or
they can be considered minor losses due to change in geometry such as the existence of bends or the
presence of contraction and expansion in pipe sizes.
Two major principles are noteworthy when it comes to designing a pipe, the continuity principle and that
of energy loss. If these two principles are to be examined thoroughly, the result is a functional hydraulic
system. As explained above however, there are several losses in a pipe due to friction or pipe geometry
and features. Nevertheless, one cannot find the losses except through experimentation and measurements.
From this perspective, a set of experiments is conducted to determine experimental head loss coefficients
due to friction, contraction, and bends existing in the pipe system. On the other hand, there are preset
empirical values that are predefined in textbooks and hydraulics manuals that define these coefficients.
These theoretical values will be used in order to evaluate the results of the experiments.
What follows in the report is a discussion on the theoretical principles that are related to the experiment.
The section after deals with the experimental procedure respected upon the execution of the laboratory.
The collection of data is then demonstrated along with the different measurements. What comes up after
are calculations based on the objective of the experiments, and finally a thorough analysis is offered to
explain the obtained results, their significance, and their validity.
2
𝑄! = 𝑄!
However, the flow rate is equal to the area of the cross section of the pipe, A, multiplied by the velocity of
the fluid moving inside the pipe at that critical section, v, as shown in equation 1.2.1.2. :
𝑄 = 𝐴 × 𝑣
By replacing equation 1.2.1.2 in equation 1.2.1.1., one obtains a third equation, 1.2.1.3. , referred to as the
continuity equation:
𝐴! ×𝑣! = 𝐴! ×𝑣!
The equation above shows an inversely proportional relation between velocity and area. As the cross
sectional area increases, the velocity at the critical section decreases and vice versa.
3
4
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! = +𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝛾 2𝑔 𝛾 2𝑔
where:
!
is the pressure head;
!
! ! !"
𝛼isthe kinematic correction factor,𝛼= ;
! × ! !
𝑣is the mean velocity in the conduit. (This is why the kinematic correction factor is used since the actual
velocity should be accounted for rather than the meanvelocity);
!!
is the velocity head;
!!
ℎ! is the minor head loss due to contraction of the pipe or its expansion or due to the elbow (i.e. bends) in
the pipe system.
5
As water flows through the pipe, it gets in contact with the pipe’s inner walls. This contact creates
frictional forces that causes head losses. These losses are referred to as major head losses. Pipes can be
PVC pipes, steel pipes, stainless steel pipes… The material used to build the pipe is directly related to how
much friction is being produced upon contact. Major head losses thus are due to viscous resistance and
result in the dissipation of energy due to frictional resistance. Equation 1.2.3.1, a universal equation
referred to as Darcy-Weisbach’s equation, shows how we can calculate the major head losses:
𝐿 𝑣!
ℎ! = 𝑓 ×
𝐷 2𝑔
where:
0.25
𝑓= !! !.!"
(log + )!
!.!×! !!!.!
6
where :
𝑅! isReynold’s number.
𝑣×𝐷
𝑅! =
𝜐
where:
𝑅! isReynold’s number;
𝑣is the velocity in the pipe;
𝐷is the diameter of the pipe;
𝜐is the kinematic viscosity.
7
𝑣!
ℎ! = 𝑘
2𝑔
where:
𝑘is the head loss coefficient due to contraction, expansion, bends, valves …
2.3 Assumptions
For the calculations presented later on in the report, the following assumptions a made. These assumptions
are as close to universal values and practical use as possible.
1) Water flows through the pipes under steady yet turbulent conditions, i.e. the kinematic correction
factor is approximately 1.04-1.06. However, for simplicity, the kinematic correction factor will be
assumed 1.
2) Temperature is constant throughout the experiment. It is assumed to be 20! 𝐶.
3) For the assumed temperate, the kinematic viscosity of water is 𝜐 = 1.004 ×10!! 𝑚 ! /𝑠.
4) The value for gravitational acceleration, g, is assumed to be 𝑔 = 9.81 𝑚/𝑠 ! .
5) The roughness of the rough pipe is assumed to be 1 mm and 0.007 for the smooth one.
6) The bend angle is assumed to be preciselyθ = 90! .
7) The contraction angle is assumed to be θ = 60! .
!
8) The pipes have a circular cross sectional area, such that 𝐴 = ×𝐷 ! , D being the diameter of the
!
pipe.
9) Major losses are neglected when one is interested in finding the minor losses in the pipes with
contraction and bend.
8
3 Experimental Procedure
This section details the procedure followed in the experiment as to calculate the friction losses and the
minor losses.
1) Turn on the pump and choose a flow rate to begin the measurement.
2) Open the software on a nearby PC. You should be able to see the flow rate on the screen.
3) For each measurement, open the valve for the pipe you are interested in experimenting on and
close the valves for the other pipes on the board, as shown in figure 1.
4) Attach to the pipe under study two pressure differential sensors that will be also connected to the
PC so that the software can display the upper and lower pressure heads on the screen.
5) Click on the run button on the PC.
6) Open the plug on the hydraulic bench and record the time needed for the volume to become either
5L or 10L, according to preference and time management.
7) Once the volume read becomes 5L or 10L stop the stopwatch. Stop the software too.
8) Record the chosen flow rate, the flow rate related to the stopwatch-volume measurements, and the
upper and lower pressure heads on the screen, as shown in figure 2.
9
9) Keeping the picked flow constant, repeat the procedure for the smooth pipe, the pipe with
contraction, and the pipe with a 90-degree-bend.
10) Repeat the experiment for different flow rates.
11) Record the pipe dimensions for each of the studied pipes.
10
11
12
13
14
!".! ×!"!!
1) 𝑄 = 68.6 𝐿/ min = 𝑚 ! /𝑠 = 1.14×10!! 𝑚 ! /𝑠
!"
2) 𝐿 = 1 𝑚
3) 𝐷 = 17×10!! 𝑚
4) 𝑘! = 1×10!! 𝑚
! !
5) 𝐴 = ×𝐷 ! = ×(17×10!! )! = 2.27×10!! 𝑚 !
! !
! !.!"×!"!!
6) 𝑉 = = = 5.02 𝑚/𝑠
! !.!"×!"!!
To calculate the experimental result for the friction factor f, the energy equation is used.
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! = +𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝛾 2𝑔 𝛾 2𝑔
However, the pipe is horizontal so the elevation heads are equal, which allows us to simplify the equation
into:
15
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 + ℎ! = +𝛼 + ℎ! + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝛾 2𝑔 𝛾 2𝑔
The absence of any pump or turbine allows us to further simplify the equation so that it can be written as:
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 = + 𝛼 + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝛾 2𝑔 𝛾 2𝑔
Knowing that the flow is constant all along the pipe and the diameter is uniform all throughout, one can
use the continuity equality 𝐴𝑣! = 𝐴𝑣! to simplify the energy equation to:
𝑃! 𝑃!
= + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝛾 𝛾
The absence of any minor head losses due to change in geometry can simplify the equation to its final
form:
𝑃! 𝑃!
= + ℎ!
𝛾 𝛾
16
0.25
𝑓= !! !.!"
(log + )!
!.!×! !!!.!
𝑣×𝐷 5.02×17×10!!
𝑅! = = = 85000
𝜐 1.004 × 10!!
Replace the values of Reynold’s number, the diameter D, and the roughness constant, in the Darcy-
Weisbach equation, to find the theoretical value for the friction factor f.
0.25
𝑓!!!"#!$%&'( = !×!"!! !.!"
= 0.0778
(log + )!
!.!×!"×!"!! !"###!.!
The percent error between the experimental and theoretical values can be computed as such:
17
!".! ×!"!!
1) 𝑄 = 68.6 𝐿/ min = 𝑚 ! /𝑠 = 1.04×10!! 𝑚 ! /𝑠
!"
2) 𝐿 = 1 𝑚
3) 𝐷 = 16.5×10!! 𝑚
4) 𝑘! = 0.007×10!! 𝑚
! !
5) 𝐴 = ×𝐷 ! = ×(16.5×10!! )! = 2.14×10!! 𝑚 !
! !
! !.!"×!"!!
6) 𝑉 = = = 4.86 𝑚/𝑠
! !.!"×!"!!
To calculate the experimental result for the friction factor f, the energy equation is used.
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! = +𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝛾 2𝑔 𝛾 2𝑔
However, the pipe is horizontal so the elevation heads are equal, which allows us to simplify the equation
into:
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 + ℎ! = +𝛼 + ℎ! + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝛾 2𝑔 𝛾 2𝑔
18
The absence of any pump or turbine allows us to further simplify the equation so that it can be written as:
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 = + 𝛼 + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝛾 2𝑔 𝛾 2𝑔
Knowing that the flow is constant all along the pipe and the diameter is uniform all throughout, one can
use the continuity equality 𝐴𝑣! = 𝐴𝑣! to simplify the energy equation to:
𝑃! 𝑃!
= + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝛾 𝛾
The absence of any minor head losses due to change in geometry can simplify the equation to its final
form:
𝑃! 𝑃!
= + ℎ!
𝛾 𝛾
In this case,
𝐿 𝑣!
ℎ! = ℎ! + (𝑓 )( )
𝐷 2𝑔
19
0.25
𝑓= !! !.!"
(log + )!
!.!×! !!!.!
𝑣×𝐷 4.86×16.5×10!!
𝑅! = = = 780000
𝜐 1.004 × 10!!
Replace the values of Reynold’s number, the diameter D, and the roughness constant, in the Darcy-
Weisbach equation, to find the theoretical value for the friction factor f.
0.25
𝑓!!!"#!$%&'( = !.!!"×!"!! !.!"
= 0.0207
(log + )!
!.!×!".!×!"!! !"#!$!.!
The percent error between the experimental and theoretical values can be computed as such:
20
!!.! ×!"!!
1) 𝑄 = 55.1 𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛!! = 𝑚 ! 𝑠 !! = 9.18×10!! 𝑚 ! 𝑠 !!
!"
2) 𝐷! = 40 𝑚𝑚 = 0.040 𝑚
3) 𝐷! = 25 𝑚𝑚 = 0.025 𝑚
! !
4) 𝐴! = ×𝐷!! = ×0.040! = 1.26 ×10!! 𝑚 !
! !
! !
5) 𝐴! = ×𝐷!! = ×0.025! = 4.91 ×10!! 𝑚 !
! !
! !.!"×!"!!
6) 𝑣! = = = 0.729 𝑚𝑠 !!
!! !.!"×!"!!
! !.!"×!"!!
7) 𝑣! = = = 1.87 𝑚𝑠 !!
!! !.!"×!"!!
8) 𝜃 = 60°
To calculate the experimental result for the friction factor f, the energy equation is used.
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! = +𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝛾 2𝑔 𝛾 2𝑔
Taking 𝛼 = 1, and considering the fact that there is neither a pump nor a turbine, taking into account that
the pipe is horizontal, and neglecting major friction losses since the pipe is considered to be short, the
energy equation can thus be simplified to :
21
In this case,
The theoretical value can be found from “Table 1. Minor loss coefficients for pipes” (Basha 2014).
𝐷! 0.025
= = 0.625 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜃 = 60°
𝐷! 0.040
By interpolating over the values in the table (refer to the Appendix), the empirical, theoretical value for 𝑘!
can be found as 0.0588
The percent error between the experimental and theoretical values can be computed as such:
Since the relative error is so large, the proportion between 𝑘! !"#!$%&!'()* and 𝑘! !!!"#!$%&'( is calculated:
!! !"#!$%&!'()* !.!!!
Proportion= = = 9.44 ⟹ 𝑘! !"#!$%&!'()* = 9.44 𝑘! !!!"#!$%&'(
!! !!!"#!$%&'( !.!"##
22
!".! ×!"!!
1) 𝑄 = 56.4 𝐿𝑚𝑖𝑛!! = 𝑚 ! 𝑠 !! = 9.40×10!! 𝑚 ! 𝑠 !!
!"
2) 𝐷! = 17 𝑚𝑚 = 0.0417 𝑚
! !
3) 𝐴 = ×𝐷 ! = ×(17×10!! )! = 2.27×10!! 𝑚 !
! !
! !.!"×!"!!
4) 𝑉 = = = 4.14 𝑚/𝑠
! !.!"×!"!!
5) 𝜃 = 90°
To calculate the experimental value for the minor head loss coefficient due to bend fitting, the energy
equation is used:
𝑃! 𝑣!! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! = +𝛼 + 𝑧! + ℎ! + ℎ! + ℎ!
𝛾 2𝑔 𝛾 2𝑔
With 𝛼 = 1 and the non-existence of pumps or pipes in the system, the equation becomes:
Knowing that the flow is constant all along the pipe and the diameter is uniform all throughout, one can
use the continuity equality 𝐴𝑣! = 𝐴𝑣! to simplify the energy equation to:
𝑃! 𝑃! 𝐿 𝑣!! 𝑣!!
+ 𝑧! = + 𝑧! + 𝑓 × + 𝑘! ×
𝛾 𝛾 𝐷 2𝑔 2𝑔
23
Finally, since the length of the section of the pipe of interest is not large enough, one can neglect the major
losses due to friction. The final energy equation becomes:
𝑃! 𝑃! 𝑣!!
+ 𝑧! = + 𝑧! + 𝑘! ×
𝛾 𝛾 2𝑔
The difference between the elevations is around 6.8 cm which is 0.068 m which will be neglected.
(4.08 − 3.78)×2×9.81
𝑘! = = 0.343
4.14!
The theoretical value can be found from “Table 1. Minor loss coefficients for pipes” (Basha 2014).
𝑟
= 1 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝜃 = 90°
𝑑
From the table, 𝑘! = 0.350 (The table is found in the Appendix section.)
The percent error between the experimental and theoretical values can be computed as such:
24
Table 5 - Results for the Experimental and Theoretical Friction Factors for a Rough Pipe
Table 6 - Results for the Experimental and Theoretical Friction Factors for a Smooth Pipe
25
Note: All the values in the tables are written as three-significant-figure numbers.
26
6.1 Friction Loss Trials for the Rough and Smooth Pipes
Table 9 below shows the different values for the experimental and theoretical friction factor values for the
four readings. The table also shows the relative error between the two values.
Table 9 - Friction Loss Coefficient Error Calculations for the Rough Pipe
The relative errors between the experimental and theoretical friction cannot be studied unless the true
values of the roughness constant, Ks, are computed. Ks values can be taken from Moody Diagram.
However, in this case Ks/D values are very high on the Moody Diagram, so the values were calculated
from the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor equation. Table 10 tabulates the results gotten from the back-
calculation of Ks from 𝑓!"#!$%&!'()* .
Table 10 - Calculations for the Roughness Constant, Ks for the Rough Pipe
1 0.0203 0.00704
2 0.0301 0.0636
3 0.0405 0.177
4 0.0376 0.131
27
Table 11 below shows the different values for the experimental and theoretical friction factor values for
the four readings. The table also shows the relative error between the two values.
Table 11 - Friction Loss Coefficient Error Calculations for the Smooth Pipe
The relative errors between the experimental and theoretical friction cannot be studied unless the true
values of the roughness constant, Ks, are computed. Ks values can be taken from Moody Diagram (refer to
figure 3 in the Appendix). However, in this case Ks/D values are very high on the Moody Diagram, so the
values were calculated from the Darcy-Weisbach friction factor equation. Table 12 tabulates the results
gotten from the back-calculation of Ks from 𝑓!"#!$%&!'()* .
1 0.0137 -
2 0.0239 0.0154
3 0.0282 0.0363
4 0.0302 0.0455
28
Usually, the smooth pipe used in the lab is PVC pipeof roughness constant equal to 0.0015-0.007 mm.
However, The 𝑘! values are also greater than 0.007 mm in the smooth pipe. This is because of the
excessive use of these pipes and the constant experiments performed using these pipes, which increases
the surface roughness. The excessive consumption of these pipes without cleaning them leads to lowering
the effective diameter of the pipe as some particles start to accumulate around the inner periphery of the
pipes. Timeworn and expended pipes have a different value of roughness coefficient due to the build-up of
rust, and probably erosion, and scale that can alter their operative diameter [Munson, Young &Okiishi.
2006].
As for the rough pipe, the wrong assumption of the roughness constant,𝑘! , leads to the difference in values
between the theoretical and experimental values of the friction factor. Moreover, the rough pipes used
contain some sand and other material on their surface, which makes them rougher and not exactly of the
same roughness as PVC alone.
Furthermore, one cannot compare the friction factors between the rough pipe and the smooth pipe since
they are of different diameter and have a different actual flow of water in them.
There are other factors that might have affected the experiment. These factors have a less impact than that
of the wrong roughness constant assumption.
1) Water temperature is assumed to 20oC, which is directly related to the value of the kinematic
viscosity. The temperature throughout the experiment might have fluctuated between several
values. This will lead to changing the value of the kinematic viscosity and therefore that of
Reynold’s number and ultimately the value of the friction factor f.
2) The kinematic correction factor is assumed to be 1, which means that the mean velocity was
considered the same as the actual velocity at any point. The velocity profile is thus considered
rectangular throughout a given cross section, whereas the actual velocity profile in a pipe starts
from zero at the pipe borderlines and increases to reach a maximum in the center.
3) Also, the instrumental errors and experimental errors are prominent in any experiment, for
instance there is an inconsistency between the measured flow (which is the actual flow) and that
chosen on the PC screen; moreover, the difference in the sensors leads to minor piezometric head
readings on the screen. This can be seen through the head readings on the screen that take time to
attain a definite value.
4) The measurement of 10L or 5L might not have been exactly 10L and 5L.
5) The measurement of the timing it took for the volume to become 10L or 5L might have not been
measured exactly. So from (4) and (5), one can say the flow might not have been exact.
29
The values of the experimental head loss coefficients are 9 to 18 times greater than the predefined
theoretical values. Several factors might have affected the discrepancy in these values:
5) Since the coefficient of contraction is a function of the upper and lower pressure heads, the
incorrect calibration, or even the neglect of calibration for the different sensors might have lead to
wrong pressure head readings.
6) The measurement of 10L or 5L might not have been exactly 10L and 5L.
7) The measurement of the timing it took for the volume to become 10L or 5L might have not been
measured exactly. Hence the flow chosen might not have been exact.
30
The errors are due to several factors that are listed below:
31
7 Conclusion
In conclusion, the error in calculating the friction factor when considering the major head losses
due to the contact between the fluid, water, and the inner walls of the pipe, is as high as
approximately 60%. This is due to the factors affectingthe value of Ks which changes normally
even between two consecutive readings. As for the minor losses, when calculating the contraction
coefficient, the results showed that the experimental coefficients are on average 13 times greater
than the theoretical ones. And upon calculating the bend coefficients, the results were sometimes
accurate and others inaccurate. The instrumental errors, like the wrong calibration of the sensors,
as well as the assumptions of constant temperature and perfect geometry, might have affected the
results immensely. It if thus safe to say that when the theoretical values are being agreed upon, all
the factors that change the readings and setting are taken into consideration and are noted and
studied thoroughly.
32
Acknowledgments
A special thanks is dedicated to Dr. Liliane Malaeb, the CIVE 440 instructor, for giving the
lectures regarding pipe flow and teaching the students the related concepts, and for assisting the
students whether in class or in her office
Also, a special thanks is dedicated to Ms. Dima Hassanieh, the CIVE 440 lab instructor, who did
her best to help in the comprehension of the methodology that should be adopted to carefully
execute and finish the laboratory experiment on time and efficiently.
References
• Basha, H., Hydraulics and Laboratory - Class Notes, February 2014.
th
• Finnemore, E. J., & B. Franzini, J., Fluid Mechanics with Engineering Applications, 10 ed.,
McGraw Hill, New York, 2002.
• Crowe, C.T., Elger, D. F., Williams, B.C., Roberson, J. A., Engineering Fluid Mechanics,
th
10 ed., chapter 10, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2013.
th
• Munson B.R., Young D.F., Okiishi T.H., Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, 5 ed., Iowa, 2006
33
Appendix
Moody’s Diagram
Minor Loss Coefficients for Pipes
34