FLUID FLOW IN PIPES

Analyzing Fanning Friction Factors Turbulent Velocity Profiles

Team 12

Michael Danielson
Chris Kay
Carissa Sain
Danyelle Sinclair
Chad Zimmerman

February 20, 2003

Table of Contents

Abstract 1
Introduction 1
Background and Theory 1
Experimental: Equipment 4
Experimental: Procedure 5
Results and Discussion 6
Conclusion 10
References 11
Nomenclature Appendix A
Sample Calculation Appendix B
Data and Charts Appendix C
Abstract
The purpose of this experiment was to determine and analyze the relationship between
friction factor and Reynolds number by measuring flow and pressure drop through pipes. A
2.00” Plexiglas tube was used to analyze turbulent flow and a .125” brass pipe was utilized for
laminar flow. The relationship obtained between friction factor and Reynolds number for the
-.1632
Turbulent data was f=.0392*Nre . The same relationship for laminar flow was
-4027
f=.2489*Nre . In addition to this analysis, the velocity profile for flow through the Plexiglas
tube was also explored. The resulting n values for the Power Rule were 12.7 and 20.7 for a flow
3 3
rate of .0028 m /s and .0049 m /s.
Introduction
The purpose of this experiment is to develop a relationship between the fanning friction
factor (f) and the Reynolds number (NRe) for laminar and turbulent flow of water through
horizontal pipes. Other objectives include determining the velocity profile at the maximum flow
rate and comparing all findings to the theoretical expectation. Understanding this f- NRe
relationship is important to ensure the proper flow of fluids through pipes. Water, oil, natural
gas and steam are transported through pipes daily. In liquid waste fuel storage and burner supply
systems, being able to determine whether the flow is turbulent or laminar is essential to proper
functioning of the system. One of the major considerations when designing such a system is
maintaining turbulent flow. Turbulent flow must be maintained to insure that solids remain
suspended in the fluid and do not settle and plug the piping. However, maintaining turbulent
flow may not be necessary if the fluid viscosity is sufficiently high enough to impede the settling
of the solids. All of these ideas are explored in this experiment.
The important f- NRe relationship is determined by collecting pressure drop and
volumetric flow rate data using the Big Blue piping apparatus found in the Rothfus Laboratory.
The data is then manipulated using proper calculations to establish the f- NRe relationship.
Background and Theory
One of the most important applications of fluid flow is flow inside circular conduits,
pipes and tubes. When fluid is flowing in a circular pipe and the velocities are measure at
different distances from the pipe wall to the center of the pipe, it has been shown that in both
laminar and turbulent flow, the fluid center of the pipe is moving faster than the fluid near the
walls. Through experimentation Reynolds established that the onset of transitional flow and the
attainment of fully-developed turbulent flow were marked by specific values of the
dimensionless parameter, the Reynolds number (NRe):

NRe = < v > D ρ (1)

µ

Fluid flow can then be classified as either laminar or turbulent based on the value of the
Reynolds number. Flow is laminar if the Reynolds number is less than 2,100 and turbulent if the
Reynolds number is greater than 4,000. Flow with a Reynolds number between 2,100 and 4,000
is characterized as transitional.
In this lab all the values that needed for Equation 1 in order to calculate the Reynolds
number are know, except for <v>, however this term can be calculated form the following
relationship:
<v> = Q (2)
A
Q is the volumetric flow rate and A is the cross-sectional area of the pipe. For turbulent flow,
the volumetric flow rate was determined by measuring the pressure drop across an orifice plate
with a mercury manometer. The equipment manufacturer, Engineering Laboratory Design, Inc.
provides the following equation on the pipe apparatus:
1
2
Q k ⋅h (3)
where k is the orifice coefficient, which is also provided by the manufacturer on the apparatus
and h is the pressure drop across the orifice plate.
As stated in the introduction, the objective of this experiment is to express f as a function
of NRe. In this experiment the Fanning friction factor(f) is defined as:

f = -(∆P)gcD (4)
2ρH2O<v>2L

This is a rearranged form of the Fanning equation for pressure drop due to friction in a circular
tube or pipe. In the laminar range, the fanning friction factor can be expressed in terms of the
Reynolds number by combining the Hagen-Poiseuille equation (5) and the Fanning equation (4).
 -(∆P) = 32µ <v>L (5)
gcD2

which yields the following f- NRe relationship:

f = 16µ /( D<v>ρ) = 16/ NRe (6)

For turbulent flow, empirical correlations must be employed. Several analytical expressions
have been developed to represent this correlation:

f = a + b/(NRe)n (7)

where a, b and n are constants, which depend on the value of NRe as summarized in the following
table:
Table 1: Turbulent Fanning Friction Constants
Equation Name a b n NRe range
Blasius 0 0.079 0.25 4000 < NRe <105
Colburn 0 0.046 0.20 105 < NRe <106
Koo 0.0014 0.125 0.32 4000< NRe<3*106
(Jhon IX pg. 2)
There is also a Churchill equation that includes a correction for pipe wall roughness:
9
1/(f)1/2 = -4log((.27ε/D) + (7/N). ) (Perry’s Handbook) (8)
where ε represents the roughness. The Plexiglass tube used in this experiment has a small
roughness.
The other objective of this experiment is to determine a velocity profile. A velocity
profile can be constructed using the local velocities and pressure drop. For flow in smooth pipes
it is found that over much of the cross section the velocity profile may be correlated by the
“Power Rule”: v/vmax = (y/R)1/n (Jhon IV, pg.4) (9)
where R is the radius of the pipe and n is a slowly varying function of Reynolds number. The
exponent n is found to vary from a value of 6 at NRe = 4,000 to 10 at NRe = 3,200,000.
The local velocity for turbulent flow can be calculated using the following equation:
v = C * [(2∆Pt)/ρ]1/2 (10)
where C is a constant for the pitot tube and ∆Pt is the pressure drop from the location of the pitot
tube to the inner pipe wall.
+ +
In addition, the friction velocity parameter (u ) and the friction distance parameter (y )
can be determined for the velocity profile. These values can then be used to establish the
universal velocity distribution using the following relation:
+ +
u = A + Bln(y ) (11)
where A and B are empirical constants.
Experimental
Equipment
The “Big Blue” apparatus was used in this experiment (Figure 1). This apparatus has two
flow networks, consisting of four pipes and two pumps, one for turbulent flow and one for
laminar flow. For this experiment, the 2.00” Plexiglas tube was used for turbulent flow and the
0.125” brass pipe was used for laminar flow (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Two manometers were used for this experiment. A U-manometer containing blue fluid
was used to measure the pressure drop across the entire pipe. A mercury U-manometer was used
to measure the pressure drop across the orifice plate in the 2.00” Plexiglas pipe. A tape measure
was used to measure the difference in manometer fluid height and obtain accurate pressure drop
measurements. A graduated cylinder was used in the laminar flow setup to measure the
volumetric flow rate, since an orifice plate pressure drop setup was not applicable.
 The velocity profile of the turbulent flow was obtained using a simple pitot tube (Figure
2). The depth at which the pitot tube measured the velocity profile could be altered. Pressure
difference was measured between the flow on the pipe wall surface and the location of the pitot
tube.
The apparatus also had a temperature transmitter located in the water reservoir tank. The
temperature of the water was displayed on electronic reader located in the front of the apparatus.
A series of recycle pipes and control valves were located at the back of the apparatus.

Procedure
In order to obtain the f and NRe values to create a relationship in both the laminar and
turbulent flow regimes, measurement of pressure drop and volumetric flow was necessary to
perform the calculations.
The first part of this experiment involved measuring the volumetric flow rate and
pressure drop through a 2’’ Plexiglas tube. Flow rate is determined by obtaining a pressure drop
across an orifice plate (Po) using a mercury manometer. The resulting values were input into the
orifice coefficient equation to find the volumetric flow rate. The flow rate was controlled by
adjusting the valve on the pipe. Pressure drop along the pipe (∆P) was measured at various flow
rates using a second (blue fluid) manometer. The maximum flow rate was obtained by opening
the valve completely. The valve was closed at intervals for subsequent readings until an
acceptable minimum flow rate was reached. Temperature readings were also taken for each flow
rate.
The second part of this experiment was much similar to the first. However, in this case, a
.125’’ brass tube and smaller pump were used to measure laminar flow. As mentioned before,
the volumetric flow rate was determined using a graduated cylinder and stop watch instead of an
orifice plate and manometer. The mercury manometer was used to measure the pressure drop,
∆P, rather than the blue fluid manometer because the pressure in the smaller tube was too great
for the blue fluid manometer to measure. The smaller, laminar pump was turned on and the
valve opened so that maximum flow was achieved. Measurements were taken and temperature
readings recorded at several flow rates from maximum to minimum.
 The final part of this experiment was to determine the velocity profile for turbulent flow.
The blue fluid manometer was connected to the Pitot tube so that the pressure difference between
the mouth of the tube and the pipe wall (∆Pt) could be measured. The mercury manometer was
connected across the orifice plate to measure pressure drop, ∆P, which was then used to find
volumetric flow rate. ∆P across the orifice plate was measured once, since the flow will remain
constant. The Pitot tube was positioned at the bottom wall of the pipe to start and was moved
towards the middle in .005’’ increments. At each increment a ∆Pt was obtained. Temperature
was also measured throughout. Velocity profiles were taken at both a maximum and minimum
flow rate.

Results and Discussion

Turbulent Flow Analysis
The data obtained from the analysis of turbulent flow through the Plexiglass tube related
closely to the various theoretical models available. The equation obtained for our data is
-.1632
f=.0329*Nre Figure 1 shows the relationship between Reynolds number and friction factor
for the experimental data, along with the relationship for the literature correlations over the data
range of 87800 < Nre < 138800.
 Reynolds Number vs. Friction Factor
(Experimental and Various Models)

0.00850

0.00800

0.00750

0.00700
Experimental Data
Friction Factor

0.00650 Power (Experimental Data)

Power (Blausius Model)
Power (Koo Model)
0.00600 Power (Colburn Model)
y = 0.0329x-0.1623 Power (Churchill Model)
0.00550

0.00500

0.00450

0.00400
5000.00 25000.00 45000.00 65000.00 85000.00 105000.00 125000.00 145000.00 165000.00
Reynolds Number

Figure 1. Relationship between friction factor and Reynolds number in the Turbulent Range for
Experimental data and theoretical models.

From Figure 1, it can be seen that the experimental data seems to follow a similar trend as
the theoretical models for our data range, but at a slightly higher multiple. The exact percentage
deviation from the models is shown in Data C.III-3 in Appendix C. The can be attributed to a
roughness in the tube that was higher than the literature value used in the Churchill model. Since
Plexiglas is often approximated as a smooth surface, the model obtained from the Churchill
equation does not differ much for those for smooth tubes. Calculations show that the wall
roughness required to achieve our model is approximately 3.0E-5 ft. This is higher than the
literature value of 4.99E-6 ft. for drawn Plexiglas tubing by about a factor of 10. This increased
roughness could be due to impurities such as rust or dirt in the water, or manufacturing flaws in
the tube. In addition, to this increased roughness, measurement uncertainty and fluctuations of
the manometer fluid could cause the experimental friction factors and Reynolds numbers to be
slightly high.
Reynolds numbers (Nre) and Fanning friction factors (f) were calculated using bulk
velocity and pressure drop data obtained from the experiment. There is a sample calculation
located in Appendix B and the data used is located in Appendix C.
 The experimentally determined equation for the relationship of (f) as a function of (Nre)
is: f = .0174(Nre)-0.217
This is represented in Figure 2. Standard deviations were an average of +/- 124 for the Nre and
+/- .00007 for the f.

Nre vs. Fanning Friction Factor -0.217

Relationship of (f) as a experimental: f = 0.0714/Nre
function of Nre. Nre correlation: f = 16/Nre
0.0180
Fanning Friction Factor

0.0160
0.0140
0.0120 experimental

0.0100 Nre correlation

(Nre<2100)
0.0080
0.0060
0.0040
0.0020
0.0000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Nre

Figure 2 Graph of experimental results along with Nre correlation.

Obviously there is much discrepancy between the Nre correlation and the experimental
values for the friction factor. It must first be noted that all but three of our data points are for
Reynolds numbers greater than 2100, which is out of the laminar range. When doing the
experiment only the mercury manometer was used to measure the pressure drop along the pipe.
What should have been done was to disconnect the mercury manometer and connect the blue
fluid manometer when the lowest mercury manometer reading was obtained. More data within
the laminar region would have been obtained this way. The standard deviations used were an
average of six different deviations. This was done because there were only six multiple data
points due to our independent variable. But, a good discussion can still be based on the data
originally obtained.
 A much better representation of the experimental data would be to disregard all points
above a Reynolds number of 2100. This graph is represented in Figure C.III-6.
This graph shows that the data obtained experimentally (with Nre < 2100) was extremely close
to the Nre correlation points. What then of the data points above the Nre laminar range? There
are correlations for what is known of the transition between laminar and turbulent range. Figure
C.III-7 shows this correlation graphically.
This graph is a little hard to read, but the line on the left is for laminar flow. It stretches
downward until the Nre reaches 2100. At this point it jumps up and follows one of the many
lines to the right of laminar flow line. These are multiple lines based on multiple correlations.
Regardless of the correlation, it is easily seen that this graph is a good match for the graph in
Figure 2.
Manometer fluid heights fluctuated as much as an 1/8”. This could account for any
discrepancies in data. Also the temperature steadily increased throughout the duration of the
experiment. This could have affected the viscosity and eventually affected the calculations for
Nre. There was also human error involved in using the stop watch when calculating the flow
rates.

Velocity Profile
The velocity profiles obtained experimentally for the maximum flow rate of 4.9E-3 m3/s
and the minimum flow rate of 2.8E-3 m3/s (as calculated using the orifice plate and pressure
drop) coincided with velocity profiles of turbulent flows found in literature. (See Figure C.III-1
and Figure C.III-3 in Appendix C). The local velocities found near the wall were low as
expected, increased rapidly as the measurements were taken further from the wall, and
eventually leveled off demonstrating a plug flow in both cases. Furthermore, the bulk flow rate
could be calculated using the following relation:
R 2⋅ π
⌠ ⌠
1   n
Vb
⋅   y  ⋅ r dr dθ

Vmax
π⋅ R 
2
⌡ 
⌡ r
0 0

The Vmax was the maximum velocity from our data. The resulting bulk velocity could then be
multiplied by the cross-sectional area of the pipe to obtain volumetric flow rates. The flow rates
found were 5.5E-3 m3/s and 3.2E-3 m3/s for the high and minimum low rates, respectively.
These values differed from the values obtained using the orifice plate equation by 10.6 % for the
lower flow rate, and 10.9 % for the higher. The small discrepancy could be due to error in
reading the manometers, or an incorrect orifice plate coefficient.
Additional calculations were performed to obtain the value of “n” in the power rule
which represents turbulent flows. Linearizing the data through the use of a log plot provided
values of 20.7 and 12.7 for the max and min flow rates respectively. (See Figure C.III-2 and
Figure C.III-4 in Appendix C). These values are on the same order of magnitude of the
theoretical value n = 7 and only differ by a factor of 3 and 2 respectively also displaying a certain
degree of accuracy in the experimental data.
Lastly, values of u+, y+ were calculated to determine values of A and B the coefficients of
the Universal Velocity Distribution as summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
A B A-theor. B-theor. Equation
Q = 4.9E-3 13.1 1.1 5.5 2.5 u = A+B ln(y+)
+

m3/s
Q = 2.8E-3 5.9 .86 5.5 2.5 u+ = A+B ln(y+)
m3/s

Conclusion
In conclusion all the data that was experimentally determined coincided fairly well with
theoretical models and values. For the turbulent flow, the friction factor results were only
slightly higher than expected which could be attribute to cleanliness of the tubes, purity of the
water, and measurement errors. The laminar flow results for friction factor were very accurate
for Reynolds numbers in laminar flow range. Additionally, results in the transition range were
also fairly accurate in comparison to theoretical models. Any deviation from predicted values
could be caused by lack of a flow meter and human error due to experimental design (ie. using a
stop watch and graduated cylinder to determine volumetric flow rate.) The shapes of the
experimentally determined velocity profile were extremely accurate in comparison to expected
turbulent flow velocity profiles. The major areas of discrepancy were with the values for n in the
power rule and for the calculated coefficients of the Universal Velocity Distribution. Again,
error could be attributed to measurement error, purity of the water, and cleanliness of the tube.
For future experiments to test for friction factor, experimental design changes such as adding
flow rate meters, using distilled water, and having the ability to clean the tubes would allow for
more accurate data collection and results.
References
Berliner, Alison; Lut, Susan; Timko, Amy. Fluid Flow in Pipes. Carnegie Mellon University,
2002.

Constans, David L. Turbulent Flow in Pipes. Dec. 1998. On-line. Internet. 6 Feb. 2003.

Geankoplis, Christie J. Transport and Unit Operations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 1993.

Gribik, Anastasia; Ogirri, Queenelle; Royce, Sara; Solis, Earl. Exploring the Fanning Friction
Factor and Velocity Profiles, Carnegie Mellon University, 2002.

Jhon, Myung, Fluid Mechanics, Carnegie Mellon University, 2002.

Perry, R.H.;Green, D.W. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook (7th Edition), McGraw-Hill,
1997.

Welty, James R., Charles E. Wicks, Robert E. Wilson, and Gregory Rorrer, Fundamentals of
Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 2001.

White, Frank M. Fluid Mechanics (4th Edition), McGraw-Hill, 1999. .