DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY

Gokongwei College of Engineering

Chemical Engineering Department

CHE LABORATORY 1 AY 2018-2019

(LBYCHEE) 2nd Term

FINAL LABORATORY REPORT

Experiment No. 8
UNSTEADY HEAD FLOW

Group No. 4 Section EA2

NAME SIGNATURE Criteria Score

1. Acyatan, Alyssa Mae C. Content (50%)
2. Bueno, Brian Gerald C. Presentation (25%)
3. Dar, Lloyd Ross M. Relevance (25%)

4. De Leon, Sean Francis S. Total (100%)

5. San Pedro, Anna B.

Percentage
6. Soriano, Elijah Jeremie D. Equivalent

11 February 2019 25 March 2019

Date of Performance Date of Submission

Dr. Allan N. Soriano

Instructor
1. Introduction and Objectives application of Bernoulli equation by solving unsteady
In the process industries, various flow operations state mass balance equation [3]. Considering a tank of
are all assumed and studied to operate under steady varying cross-section with a horizontal pipe
state. These include operations such as mixing, connected near the bottom as shown in Figure 2.1
separation operations, and chemical reactions. below.
However, not all industrial processes operate at
steady state and some inevitably occur as unsteady
state operations. One of the most common is the
behavior of filling and emptying a water tank which
occur in a large variety of shapes and sizes [1]. This
is because the rate of the rise and fall of the amount
of water in the tank varies with time. By modelling Figure 2.1. Tank with Varying Cross-Sectional Area with
its behavior, it is possible to be able to predict its a Horizontal Pipe [1]
efflux time or the time it takes to empty the tank of The change in volume can be expressed as
its contents. Performing an experiment with respect 𝑆𝑑ℎ = 𝑄1 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑄2 𝑑𝑡 (1)
to the efflux time for a tank and doing the needed
analyses can provide more knowledge and S = area of the surface of the liquid
understanding in the behavior of this unsteady state h = vertical depth
system. This application is very important in almost Q1 = rate of inflow
all industries because it is part of the startup Q2 = rate of outflow
processes before the processes reach steady state
conditions for operation. Also, it is crucial in many If the liquid is discharged through an orifice of
emergency situations besides productivity area Ao with C, a correction factor, as the discharge
considerations and are of considerable interest in coefficient, the rate of outflow, Q2, can be expressed
industries like chemical, food, and pharmaceutical as
[2]. 𝑄2 = 𝐶𝐴𝑜 √2𝑔𝑐 ℎ (2)
This experiment aims to compare the theoretical
efflux times for a rectangular tank with exit pipes of Rewriting and integrating Eq. 1 gives
various lengths and sharp edge orifices of various ℎ2
𝑆1 𝑑ℎ
diameters and shapes using water as the fluid. Also, 𝑡 = −∫ (3)
ℎ1 𝑄1 − 𝑄2
the theoretical and actual instantaneous flow rates of When Q1 is equal to zero and Q2 = S2V2 = S2 f(h,
the tank will be compared. This experiment also aims L), the time for the water level to change from h1 to h2
to study the effects of changes of kinetic energies, is
entrance losses, and friction losses in exit pipes on ℎ2
𝑆1 𝑑ℎ
the flow rates and efflux times as well as to 𝑡 = −∫ (4)
ℎ1 𝑆2 𝑓(ℎ, 𝐿)
investigate the occurrence of fully developed flow
patterns in the exit pipes under unsteady state For laminar flow, the instantaneous average
conditions [1].
velocity of the liquid in the exit pipe with a constant
cross-section is expressed as
𝑔𝑐 𝑅22 𝜌ℎ
𝑉2 = (5)
2. Theoretical Background 8𝜇𝐿
Efflux time is the time required for draining out
the contents of a vessel. It is obtained by the given that the fluid is an incompressible

[2]
Newtonian fluid, and there is no acceleration of fluid
in the pipe. 3.2 Engineering Drawing or Sketch
For turbulent flow, the Blasius formula is used.
The fanning friction factor is approximated by
1
𝑓 = 0.0791(𝑁𝑅𝑒 )−4 (6)

Thus, the instantaneous average velocity is

expressed by
2𝑔𝑐4 𝑅25 𝜌ℎ4
𝑉2 = (7)
(0.0791)4 𝜇𝐿4

Using Eq. 5 & 6 to solve Eq. 4, the efflux time for

laminar flow is
8𝜇𝐿𝑆1 ℎ1
𝑡= 𝑙𝑛 (8)
𝜋𝑅2 4 𝑔𝑐 𝜌 ℎ2

For turbulent flow, the efflux time is

3 3
7𝑆1 𝐶 7 7 Figure 3.3 Schematic Diagram of Equipment for Unsteady
𝑡= 2 [ℎ1 − h2 ] (9)
3𝜋𝑅2 Head Flow
4. Summary of Procedure
where
4
The pump was turned on to deliver a supply of
1 7 water in the tank. A pipe was installed in the joint of
(0.0791)𝐿𝜇 4 (10)
𝐶=[ 1 1 5 ] the test tank and its end was covered with a rubber
24 𝑔𝑐 𝜌4 𝑅2 4 stopper. Once the level in the depth gauge reached
above the 20cm mark, the stopper was removed, and
the stopwatch was started when the level reached 20
cm. Time was recorded for every interval of 5cm the
level reached the 80cm mark. This procedure was
3. Experimental Set-Up repeated for the different pipes and orifice.

3.1 Actual Set-up

5. Data

Length of Tank = 31.5 cm

Width of Tank = 31.5 cm
Height of Tank = 91.4 cm

A. Pipe and Orifice Dimensions

Parameter Orifice Orifice Pipe Pipe Pipe
1 2 1 2 3
Length - - 80.6 50.2 30.5
(cm)
Figure 3.1 Actual Set-up Figure 3.2 Pipes of Diameter 13.02 9.03 10 9.042 8.084
for Unsteady Head Flow Different Lengths (cm)

[3]
 60 35.83 37.87 36.85
B. Efflux Time vs. Liquid Length for Orifice 65 40.84 39.26 40.05
Height Orifice 1 Efflux Orifice 2 Efflux 70 46.74 46.19 46.465
(cm) Time (sec) Time (sec) 75 54.22 54.24 54.23
Trial 1 Trial 1 80 68.28 78.66 73.47
20 0 0
25 13.46 20.25
30 15.50 21.71 6. Results and Analysis
35 15.88 21.83
40 16.77 23.55 The difference in potential and kinetic energy, and
45 18.03 24.83 the friction losses of the efflux time of the water was
50 19.09 26.40 determined in this experiment. Each of these factors
affect the mechanical energy balance of the
55 19.55 28.02
equipment system.
60 23.64 31.47
65 29.67 34.60
100
70 32.65 39.90
75 46.80 47.33 90
80 63.09 65.13
Pipe 80
1
C. Efflux Time vs. Liquid Length for Pipe 70
Height Pipe 1 Efflux Time (sec) Pipe 2 Efflux Time (sec) Pipe
(cm) 2
Trial Trial Average Trial Trial Average 60
Time (sec)

1 2 1 2 Pipe
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 50
25 32.21 32.36 32.285 29.78 29.67 29.725
30 32.29 32.94 32.615 29.61 29.66 29.635 40
35 33.82 33.3 33.56 31.45 32.21 31.83
40 35.85 36.11 35.98 32.67 34.37 33.52 30
45 37.40 37.79 37.595 35.11 34.94 35.025
20
50 41.07 40.37 40.72 38.31 37.91 38.11
55 43.32 43.77 43.545 39.65 38.55 39.1 10
60 47.68 48.53 48.105 45.39 45.09 45.24
65 52.65 51.29 51.97 48.95 47.68 48.315 0
70 61.04 61.22 61.13 56.30 55.12 55.71 -80 -60 -40 -20
75 69.88 70.22 70.05 69.11 60.17 64.64 Negative Height of Water Level (cm)
80 94.75 94.53 94.64 96.49 97.73 97.11 Figure 6.1 Experimental Time vs. Water Level Height
Using Pipes Varying in Length
Height (cm) Pipe 1 Efflux Time (sec)
Trial 1 Trial 2 Average Three pipes varying in length were used to
20 0 0 0 determine the relationship of the pipes’ length to the
time it takes to let the water run out in the tank.
25 24.83 25.45 25.14
Figure 6.1 shows the comparison of the relationship
30 24.39 24.45 24.42
of different lengths of pipes. It can be observed that
35 26.24 26.26 26.25 the pipe 1 with the longest length takes greater time.
40 27.22 27.81 27.515 Therefore, results show that the length is directly
45 27.9 28.04 27.97 proportional to the time of flow.
50 31.64 31.89 31.765
55 33.04 32.71 32.875

[4]
 0.9 7000

6000

Potential Energy Difference

0.8

5000
0.7
4000
0.6
Efflux Time Ratio

3000
0.5
2000
0.4 Pipe 1
1000
Pipe 2
0.3 Pipe 3 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0.2
Pipe Length
0.1
Figure 6.3 Potential Energy Difference vs. Pipe Length
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Figure 6.3 shows the relationship of the potential
Water Height energy difference to the pipe length. The table only
Figure 6.2 Efflux Time Ratio vs. Water Level Height shows a horizontal line since the water height is
Using Pipes Varying in Length constant at 80 to 20 cm. The length of the pipe was
not used and is not related to the formula of the
The values of the ratio of the experimental and potential energy.
theoretical efflux ratio was calculated and tabulated
against water height as seen in Figure 6.2. It can be 0
observed from the table that as the height of the water 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
decreases, the value of the experimental gets closer to
the theoretical values. This circumstance can be -5
Kinetic Energy Difference

explained by the amount of potential energy the

system exhibits. At lower water levels, the potential
energy exhibited is lower which would explain the -10
decrease in the velocity of the flow.
-15

-20

-25
Pipe Length

Figure 6.4 Kinetic Energy Difference vs. Pipe Length

In Figure 6.4, it can be seen that the longer the

pipe, the lower the kinetic energy difference applied.
When comparing the longest pipe to the shortest pipe,
a huge difference in kinetic energy can be observed.
This can be explained due to the contact of water with

[5]
the surface of the pipes. This trend supports the prior 70
observations concerning the efflux time ratio and pipe
length. That a higher pipe length will lead to a higher 60
efflux ratio.
50
18
y = -0.7368x + 61.003
40
16

Time
R² = 0.7938
14 30
12
Friction Loss

20
10
8 10

6
0
4 0 20 40 60 80 100
2 Height of Water
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Fig 6.6 Experimental Time against the Water Level for the
First Orifice
Pipe Length
The same procedure was done to analyze the water
Figure 6.5 Friction Loss vs. Pipe Length
level of emptying the tank. However, this part of the
experiment, the exiting of the water flow was changed
The contact of water within the pipe causes
from the various pipe now to different opening or the
friction loss. Figure 6.5 shows the trend between the
circumferential exit through orifices. As the height of
friction loss and the length of the pipe. It can be
the water inside the tank decreases as seen in Figure
observed that a greater friction loss is present within
6.6, the average time that it reached that certain point
the longest pipe A longer pipe would account for a
increases. It would take a longer time for the water to
longer friction loss as water is continuously in contact
exit the tank when the water level is minimal
with the surface of the pipe.

70

60

50

40 y = -0.7212x + 65.676
Time

R² = 0.8247
30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Height of Water

[6]
 Fig 6.7 Experimental Time against the water level for the San rate of drain. Also, as the water’s
first orifice Pedro height goes down, the time to reach
Table 6.1 Reynolds Number and Total Time for each Pipe
the mark increases.
Pipe NRe Flow Time Elijah There were leaks observed while the
Soriano experiment was performed. This may
80.6 27842.79891 Turbulent 1301.473 contribute to the errors in the flow. The
50.3 39941.38097 Turbulent 994.089 flow was relatively longer for longer
30.2 59211.70729 Turbulent 742.7095 pipes as compared to shorter ones.

Table 6.1 shows the Reynolds Number and time

calculated in different length of pipes. It can be 8. Conclusion and Recommendation
observed that this data supports the trends created in
the table earlier that the total time decreases as the In this experiment, the varying pipe length and
length of the pipe also decreases. orifice circumferential area were used, to determine
the time it took for the water in the tank to be drained.
Table 6.2 Potential and Kinetic Energy Difference, and As expected, the pipe with longer length resulted in
Friction Loss for each Pipe increased time, due to slower flow caused by fluid
Pip Friction contact within the pipe. Frictional forces tend to
PE Diff KE Diff f
e Loss lessen the fluid flow; thus, taking longer time for
80.6
5871.28
-3.1414
0.00612347
6.201774122
longer pipes to drain the water. Consequently, the
5 9 efflux time ratio approached unity at lower water
5871.28 - 0.00559526 heights, indicating that the experimental time slowly
50.3 9.844602941
5 7.90704 6 becomes equal to the theoretical time. This trend is
5871.28 - 0.00507077 due to the lower potential energy exhibited by having
30.2 16.69512422
5 21.9349 8
lower water levels. On the other hand, the
circumferential area for the orifice also affected the
7. Individual Observations draining time the water. Having smaller area indicated
faster fluid flow, which decreased the time for the
Name Observation water to be drained.
Alyssa As the pipe length decreased, the time
Acyatan duration for each trial also decreased. 9. Industrial Applications
This was even more evident when only
the two orifices were used which cut Every chemical process industry relies on the flow
down the time duration by half compared of the system, to possibly identify products that are
to the pipes. manufactured. The knowledge on these flow types
Brian In this experiment, the time that it takes enable the correct and accurate calculation of various
Bueno for the certain water level to reach every reactions, especially when simulated. Two flows are
interval increases. I have also observed present for chemical industries, the steady-state and
that it took longer to drain the tank when unsteady-state flows. The previous is independent of
using the longer time, in which its properties do not change with time,
pipe. while the latter is time dependent.
Lloyd The pipe length and orifice area greatly Most processes involved in the industry are
Dar affected the amount of time needed for known to perform at steady-state. Some of which are
the water to drain off the tank. Increasing mixing and separating reactions, which are typically
pipe length and decreasing orifice conducted in continuous systems. However, to
opening resulted to faster draining time. achieve steady-state, the process first experiences
Sean De unsteady-state behavior, particularly during start-up
Leon processes. Similarly, downtime processes also incur
Anna An increase in pipe diameter increases the unsteady-state flow, since inlet flow is stopped,

[7]
causing the system to have varying flow rates.
10. Guide Questions
10.1 Does the experiment efflux time deviate
more from the theoretical efflux time as
the exit pipe becomes shorter? Explain.
There is a deviation of the actual efflux
time as the exit pipe becomes shorter. This is
attributed to the friction factor. In addition,
to that, the fouling in the pipe may increase
the friction. This effect is increased as the
length increases, increasing the efflux time.
10.2 How does the experimental efflux time
obtained with very short tubes compare
with the theoretical efflux time predicted
for the drainage of the tank through an
orifice?
As the used pipe got shorter, the efflux time
was near that of the orifice. However, it still
took a longer efflux time when a pipe was
used rather than an orifice.
10.3 How does the magnitude of the
neglected terms in the mechanical energy
balance compare with that which were
not neglected? Tabulate and give
percentage errors.
With the simplifications made in the
mechanical energy balance, the calculated
values for this experiment are lesser
compared to the actual values. However, the
calculation in the mechanical energy balance
still considers some assumptions which
makes the values lesser compared to the
actual or experimental data
10.4 Explain the deviation obtained and the
effect of the tube length on the actual and
theoretical efflux rates as prepared in
Analysis #9.
Generally, as the length of the tube is
increased, the efflux time is also increased.
This can be explained by the extended
surface the length of the pipe possesses,
[8]
causing for water to travel longer when
compared to that of orifices. Furthermore, as
the tube length increases, the efflux ratio
decreases. This can be explained by the
transition of the laminar flow to its turbulent
counterpart. When the liquid exits the orifice,
it produces a laminar flow; however, when it
exits the pipe, it transitions, and becomes
turbulent causing the deviation.
10.5 Discuss briefly the development of flow
patterns for circular tubes.
In general, there are two types of flow:
laminar and turbulent. As the name implies,
laminar flow is characterized by a low fluid
velocity. As such, eddy does not occur when
the fluid flows this way. Basically, eddy is
the swirling of the fluid and the formation of
reverse currents. On the other hand,
turbulent flow is characterized by a high
fluid velocity which results to the occurrence
of eddy. The type of flow can be determined
by determining the Reynold’s number.
Reynold’s number is a dimensionless
number which is defined as the ratio of the
fluid density, fluid velocity, and pipe
diameter to the fluid velocity. For laminar
flow, the value ranges from 0 to 2100 while
for turbulent flow, the value is greater than
4000
REFERENCES
[1] Olaño Jr., S. Performance of a Tubular
Condenser Experiments in Chemical
Engineering, 2nd ed., pp. B-15 – B-20.
[2] Geankoplis, C. (1993). Transport processes
and separation process principles. 3rd ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Professional Technical Reference, pp.803-805.
[3] Uma Devi, A., Gopal Singh, P.V., Reddy,
G.V.S.K., Dharwal, S.J., and Subbarao, C.H.V.
(2011). A Review on Efflux Time. Middle-
East Journal of Scientific Research, 9(1), 57-
63. Retrieved from
http://www.idosi.org/mejsr/mejsr9(1)11/9.pdf
[4] Subbu, M. (2014). Efflux Time. Retrieved
from http://www.msubbu.in/ln/fm/Unit-
II/EffluxTime.htm
 [5] Available online at
http://www.brighthubengineering.com/hydrau 4. For Potential Energy:
lics-civil-engineering/55543-pipe-flow-
calculations-1-the-entrance-length-for-fully-
developed-flow/
5. For Kinetic Energy:

APPENDICES

Pipe Area L D V
80.6 0.09 0.806 10 2.50655
50.3 0.09 0.503 9.042 3.976692
30.2 0.09 0.302 8.048 6.623431

Pipe Viscosity Gc Density R C

80.6 0.000898 1 997.5 0.0049 1.148304376
50.3 0.000898 1 997.5 0.0049 0.877096288
30.2 0.000898 1 997.5 0.0049 0.6553012

Sample Calculations:

1. For C:

2. For V:

3. For NRe:
ρVD 997.5(2.5)(0.010)
𝑁𝑅𝑒 = = = 27770.044
µ 0.000898

[9]