1

Major and Minor Losses Due to Friction

Kaylee Neal | Team 3 | 5 November 2019

ABSTRACT
Calculating the major and minor losses for experimental values is important because it
determines the effectiveness of certain machinery and must be taken into consideration for the
operation and calibration of various equipment. Experimentation in pressure drop is an effective
way to measure major loss and minor loss. The friction factor is responsible for the major loss
and in a water-controlled system of pipes. Theoretical friction factor was found to be larger than
experimental friction factor for major loss. The smaller the diameter for a pipe the faster the
fluid will flow through it. The percent error for the smaller diameter pipe was larger than the
percent error of the larger diameter pipe which were on average 13.37% and 15.25%
respectively. This is most likely due to human error. Pressure drop can also be determined by
minor losses due to different fittings. The percent average for loss due to fittings was averaged to
be 50.9%. This is due to variation in fittings.
INTRODUCTION
Head loss is important to be able to calculate and predict results based on the machinery
and equipment that are used in many different fields, including agriculture. Different fittings on
different sets of piping can affect irrigation, along with the change in pressure in these piping
systems. Famers need to calculate head loss and pressure gradients effectively. One way to do
this is by determining the friction factor in different kinds of piping as it largely contributes to
any form of major head loss they might experience (Raheman and Jindal, 2001). Head loss is a
representative of the extra work a pump or system needs to do in order to overcome variables
such as the friction factor (Cengel and Cimbala, 2018). The orifice is crucial to determining head
loss, as they are flow measuring devices. They are used to determine volumetric flow rate and
flow velocity.
Different types of fittings that are incorporated into irrigation systems play a large part on
not only crop yield but also the farming economy. Over time, different fittings, depending on
their efficiencies, can change the monetary spending on irrigation. It is important to know which
fittings are best for certain systems. Over time in certain piping systems, some order of fitting or
types of fittings must be rearranged or altogether replaces due to excess wear and tear on the
fittings. A more efficient set up can be determined to prevent this beforehand (Rains and
Cundiff, 1996).
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the lab is to measure the effect of pipe diameter on friction factor (major
loss) and the effect of fitting type on minor losses.
 2

METERIALS AND METHODS

The equipment used in this lab were the Technovate Fluid Circuit System and the Edibon
Energy Losses in Bends Module FME05. Water was the liquid used in the equipment. The
Technovate Fluid Circuit System was used to obtain 6 readings for height difference and thus
pressure drop across the orifice. An additional 6 readings were taken for designated pipes 3 and
4. The pressure readings were taken evenly between 0-inch readings and the maximum readings
for each piping section. Pressure drop along the orifice was used to determine the volumetric
flow rate (Q) given by the formula:
2∆𝑃𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒
Q=𝐴𝑜 𝐶𝑑 √
𝜌(1−𝛽 4

where ρ is 1000kg/m3, Poriface is the difference in heights from measurements 1 and 2 from each
recording converted to pressure (ρgh), and β is d/D, given respectively as d= 0.625 inches and
D= 1.025 inches. 𝐴𝑜 was calculated as the surface area of the orifice. All measurements were
converted to SI units before calculating.
Head loss (hL) was calculated as the difference in pressure divided by ρg. This was used
in the given equation to determine the experimental friction factors for pipes 3 and 4 using goal
seek:
𝑓𝐿𝑉 2
ℎ𝐿 =
𝐷2𝑔
L was given to be 5 ft before it was converted into SI units. V is flow velocity taken as
volume flow rate (Q) divided by A (cross sectional area). Theoretical values of the friction factor
were calculated by using the Colebrook equation. Gravity constant was given by g.
The Edibon Energy Losses in Bends Module was used to obtain 6 readings for the
following fittings: Long Bend, Widening, Narrowing, Elbow, Short Bend, Membrane and Mitre.
The control flow valve was used to measure flow rate. Initial volume and final volume were
recorded, subtracted, and divided by run time (120s) to calculate the flow rate. These values were
converted to velocity, and then V2 values. Theoretical K was found using the equation
𝑉2
ℎ𝐿 = 𝐾 2𝑔. Where g is the constant for gravity and 𝑉 2 is the velocity squared value.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Major Losses:
For pipe 3, with a diameter of ½”, the theoretical friction factors and experimental factors
followed the same pattern: they started at higher values and slowly decreased and then leveled
out. The average percent error was found to be 13.37%. This indicates that as volume increased
the friction factor decreased, meaning that the higher the velocity, the easier it is to overcome the
frictional force. The average standard deviation was calculated to be 0.0025. The area in meters
of the pipe was calculated to be 0.0127 using its diameter squared multiplied by pi and divided
by 4.
 3

0.035

0.03

Friction Factors for Pipe 3

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
V2 (m2/s2)

Experimental Friction Factors Theoretical Friction Factors

Figure 1: Friction Factor versus Velocity Squared for Pipe 3 Readings

The data for pipe 4, with the larger diameter of 3/8”, was more sporadic and did not seem
to follow a pattern. The percent error was much larger for this data, on average being 57.25%.
This is most likely due to human error and correlates with the fact that it is much more sporadic
than the data for pipe 3 and does not show a perfectly sequential decline. The data still showed
that as the velocity increased, the friction factor decreased. The average standard deviation for
pipe 4 data was calculated to be 0.01, much higher than that of pipe 3. The area in meters of the
pipe was calculated to be 0.009525 using its diameter squared multiplied by pi and divided by 4.

0.035

0.03
Friction Factors for Pipe 4

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

0
0 5 10 15 20
V2 (m2/s2)

Experimental Friction Factors Theoretical Friction Factors

Figure 2: Friction Factor versus Velocity Squared Values for Pipe 4

 4

Minor Losses:
Different head losses were found for different fittings, as shown in Figure 3. Each set of
data was given a trendline and had an intercept set to 0. The slope found for each of these values
was the K value divided by 2 times gravity. To find the K value, 2 and gravity were multiplied.
Minor losses depend upon the K value (Cengel and Cimbala, 2018). Theoretical K and
experimental K are compared in Table 1.01. The average percent error for K values was found to
be 51.9%. The data shows that head loss increased as velocity increased.
The average standard deviation for these values was found to be 0.28. The membrane
fitting gave the highest theoretical and experimental K value, while the long bend fitting gave the
lowest theoretical K value and the widening fitting gave the lowest experimental K value. The
widening fitting gave the largest percent error value, coming out to 74% making it the most
inaccurate fitting. The elbow fitting had the smallest percent error of 13%, making it the most
accurate fitting. Human error could lead to higher percent errors. An example of how human
error could have affected this data is by misreading the equipment water height levels with the
human eye.

Table 1.01. K Values According to Fitting for Minor Losses

Fitting Experimental K Theoretical K

Long Bend 0.36 0.25

Widening 0.15 0.59

Narrowing 0.91 0.40

Elbow 0.34 0.30

Short Bend 0.75 0.90

Membrane 3.64 2.30

Mitre 1.32 1.10

 5

0.14 y = 0.1853x
R² = 0.4755
0.12 y = 0.0672x
R² = 0.6479
0.1 y = 0.0464x
R² = 0.5444
Headloss (m)

0.08 y = 0.0382x
R² = 0.4351
0.06 y = 0.0186x
R² = -0.564
0.04 y = 0.0174x
R² = -2.149

0.02 y = 0.0077x
R² = 0.1744

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

V2 (m2/s2 )

Long Bend Widening

Narrowing Elbow
Short Bend membrane
Mitre Linear (Long Bend)

Figure 3: Head Loss versus Velocity Squared for Different Fittings

CONCLUSIONS
Smaller diameter and corresponding smaller surface area of piping gave an increased
velocity. As velocity increased, the friction factor became less important. Different fittings give
different K values and results. The elbow was the most accurately predicted fitting and the
widening fitting was the least accurate according to theoretical and experimental values. These
differences indicate that head loss varies according to fitting. The smaller pipe diameter had a
greater percent error of 57.25% compared to the larger pipe diameter percent error of 13.37%.
Human error can largely affect the accuracy of the equipment used in this lab and most likely
played a factor in the larger percent errors.
 6

REFERRENCES
Cengel, Y.A., Cimbala, J.MM. 2018 “Fluid Mechanics, Fundamentals and Application” McGraw
Hill Education 4th edition. 398-399
Raheman, H., Jindal, V. K., 2001 “Pressure Drop Gradient and Solid Friction Factor in
Horizontal Pneumatic Conveying of Agricultural Grains” Published in Applied
Engineering in Agriculture Vol. 17(5): 649-656
Rains, C. G., Cundiff, J. S. 1996, “Bond Graph Modeling of a Hydraulic Circuit on a Whole-
Stalk Sweet Sorghum Harvester” Published in Transactions of the ASAE Vol. 39(3):
785-792