Fluid Flow Analysis

Bader Alotaibi
ChE 330- Fluid Mechanic
4/27/2018
Introduction:

In this experiment, pressure drop was to be theoretically estimated for known

flow rates of water through an experimental piping system in a straight pipe model and a

coiled pipe model. The goal of the experiment was to find out which model of straight

pipe and coiled pipe better represents the 50ft of coiled tubing part that was used to get

pressure drops for different flow rates in lab.

For our project, we used the half-inch diameter pipe for experimentally observing

the pressure drop for different flow rates. The pressure drops for both the straight pipe

model and the coiled pipe mode were theoretically obtained from the Bernoulli’s

equation for the flow rates that we used to experimentally determine the pressure drop

in water. Pressure drop P was determined by the equation Pguage= ΔPconduit +

ΔPtubing. ΔPconduit was obtained by the values of pressure drop given in Appendix A.

ΔPtubing was obtained by using the Bernoulli’s equation .Work term was removed from

the bernoulli equation because there is no external work being done and velocity terms

were zero since the velocity of the inlet was equal to velocity of the outlet. ΔP tubing was

found to be:

𝛥𝑃𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 𝛥𝑃𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝛥𝑃ℎ

The height of the coiled tube was found to be 36 inches.

For the straight pipe, The friction factor was obtained by calculating the

Reynold’s number and obtaining the value of the friction factor corresponding to that

Reynold’s number from the graph. For the coiled tube, the Reynold’s number depends

on the diameter of the coil. So the Reynold’s number was calculated using the equation

given in Appendix B,
The friction factor was calculated by:

Using these equation, the pressure drop was calculated for both straight pipe and the

coiled pipe by using

Finally, graphs of experimentally determined pressure drop, and theoretically determine

pressure drops of both straight tube and coiled tube as a function of volumetric flow rate

were plotted on the same graph.

Results and Discussion:

Measurement of the experimental gauge pressure was collected at different values of flow

rates (from two to four gallons per second). To find the pressure drop across the piping, one can

calculate a straight pipe model or the coiled pipe. Then, by calculating the theoretical tubing

pressure drop for these two models and comparing it to the experimental data that we performed

in the lab, we can determine which model fits the best for this system.

The initial pressure gauge recorded the total pressure change as the water flows across the

whole system. There were multiple pressure changes due to the fittings, valves, elbows, and due

to the combination of the change in height of the tubing and also the frictional losses.

In this experiment, the given data was consisted of initial pressures at different

volumetric flow rates. The volumetric flow rate was adjusted by using a rotameter. When the

water reached a steady state, the pressure was recorded at the volumetric flow rate of 2,2.5,3,3.5
and 4 gpm. The half inch diameter for the tubing was chosen and based on that, area values were

obtained. The difference in elevation from the entrance of the fluid to the exist was given (36

inch). Diameters for the coiled tubing and the length both were given.

Table 1

∆P actual ∆P actual Ave.

Q Experimental tubing tubing ∆Pactual Standard Deviation
(gpm Experiment
) al Pgauge ∆Pconduit (psig) (psi) tubing (psi) ∆Pactual tubing (psi)

4.5 1 3.5 18.2

5 1 4 18.7

5.1 1 4.1 18.8

2 4.7 1 3.7 18.4 18.525 0.2753785274

6.5 2 4.5 19.2

6.03 2 4.03 18.73

2.5 6.3 2 4.3 19 18.97666667 0.2358671943

8.92 3 5.92 20.62

9.1 3 6.1 20.8

3 9 3 6 20.7 20.70666667 0.09018499506

 12 4 8 22.7

11.9 4 7.9 22.6

3.5 11.9 4 7.9 22.6 22.63333333 0.05773502692

16 7 9 23.7

16.1 7 9.1 23.8

4 15.9 7 8.9 23.6 23.7 0.1

In table 1, the data was obtained from the experiment. An increase in pressure was noted as we

increase the value of the volumetric flow rate. The averages and the standard deviations were

calculated from the change in pressure in the tubing relatively to the different flow rates. The

change in pressure caused by the tubing was calculated from equation one in the Appendix A,

and by using the values of the conduit pressure that were given.

Table 2

∆P

∆P straight straight ∆P straight

Q friction tubing tubing
(gpm
) Q(m^3/s) u(m/s) Re f (Pa) (Pa) (Psi)

7.30E-
2 0.0001261804178 0.9706185985 12326.8562 03 1.65E+04 7.54E+03 1.09E+00
6.90E-
2.5 0.0001577255223 1.213273248 15408.57025 03 2.44E+04 1.54E+04 2.24E+00
6.60E-
3 0.0001892706267 1.455927898 18490.2843 03 3.36E+04 2.46E+04 3.57E+00
6.36E-
3.5 0.0002208157312 1.698582547 21571.99835 03 4.40E+04 3.51E+04 5.08E+00
6.16E-
4 0.0002523608356 1.941237197 24653.7124 03 5.57E+04 4.68E+04 6.78E+00
In table 2, data shows the calculation for the theoretical straight pipe model. First the velocities

were calculated with the respect to the given flow rate and the area for the straight pipe. Then

based on the calculated velocities, Reynolds numbers were obtained. Friction factor was

calculated using the Von Karinen-Nikuradse equation. By using all of these values, change in

pressure due to elevation and tubing were obtained with psi and Pa units.

Table 3

∆P Coiled ∆P Coiled ∆P Coiled tubing

Q (gpm) Q(m^3/s) u(m/s) Re f Coiled friction (Pa) tubing (Pa) (Psi)

0.0001261 0.9706185 12326.856 0.009381 21212.969

2 804178 985 2 947888 9 30174.0899 4.375243035
0.0001577 1.2132732 15408.570 0.008974 31706.272 40667.3920
2.5 255223 48 25 632974 08 8 5.896771851
0.0001892 1.4559278 18490.284 0.008658 44047.702 53008.8227
3 706267 98 3 293152 77 7 7.686279302
0.0002208 1.6985825 21571.998 0.008401 58178.119 67139.2395
3.5 157312 47 35 853863 59 9 9.735189741
0.0002523 1.9412371 24653.712 0.008187 74049.689 83010.8094
4 608356 97 4 565568 47 7 12.03656737

In table 3, velocities were calculated for each volumetric flow rate. Reynolds number were

calculated using the obtained velocities. The critical Reynolds number was 8400. Since all values

are greater than the critical Re number, the flow can be assumed to be turbulent. Since the flow is

turbulent, the friction factor was calculated using

From all of these obtained values, change in pressure in piping and due to losses were calculated.
 Shown below is the graph for ... , as it’s shown the relationship of the the

There are many reasons for the difference in the experimental and the theoretical number for the

drop in the tubing pressure. The 2 and 2.5 gpm flow rate drop pressure were around 5 psi which

are the regime where the scale was not clear enough to verify between 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 psi.

Moreover, there water density and viscosity vary due to the temperature of the water and the

assumption of Newtonian fluid. Therefore, it could affect the calculation since both of density

and viscosity are function for the Reynolds number. Also, the Reynolds number was calculated

assuming a smooth pipe and it may not be. In addition, Human error such as an incorrect reading

of the pressure scale, converting units, or measuring the height.

Conclusion:

From the project, It can be concluded that the coiled tube model better represents the 50ft

of the tubing used to do the experiment to get the pressure drops for different flow rates done in

lab.

It was found that with increasing value of water volumetric flow rates, the value of

pressure drop increases as well. When a graph was plotted for Pressure drop (psi) versus
Volumetric flow rate (gpm) for experimentally determined data and theoretically determined

data for both straight and coiled tube , a linear relation was obtained for all of them.

The theoretically obtained data from the Bernoulli’s equation were a little far from the

experimentally determined data for the Straight tubing. The theoretically obtained data for the

coiled tube were a little far from the experimental data but they were closer to the experimentally

obtained data compared to the straight tube. The equation of the experimentally determined

pressure drop was y = 2.8014x + 12.504 and the R2 value was R² = 0.9702. For the theoretically

obtained data for straight tube, the equation was y = 2.844x - 4.78 and the R² value obtained was

R² = 0.9942. Similarly, the equation obtained for the coiled tube was y = 3.8322x - 3.5506 and

the R2 value obtained was R² = 0.9936.

The reason we believe the coiled tube model better represents the experimental data is that the

straight tubing fails to account the friction losses that were incurred by the 50ft of the tube in the

experiment. Whereas the coiled tube better incorporates the friction losses since it has more

accurate value of the friction losses, which can be seen from Table 3. It can be argued that the

straight pipe does not include the friction losses incurred due to the valves and the fittings as

good as the coiled tube. However, friction losses due to the length of the pipe can be assumed to

be same in both the cases as both the cases have the same length.

There discrepancies in the experimental and the theoretical number for the drop in the

tubing pressure could have occurred from many reasons. water was assumed to be a completely

compressible and Newtonian fluid whereas it is not absolutely true that density and viscosity

remain constant. They may vary due to the temperature of water. Therefore, it could affect the

calculation since both density and viscosity are functions of the Reynolds number. Another
important factor for discrepancies is that the Reynolds number was calculated assuming a

smooth pipe and it may not be.

 Appendix A

Figure 1: Schematic of fluid flow system

Pgauge

𝛥Pconduit

Coiled
Flow Tubing
meter
 Appendix B

Equation 1:
𝛥𝑃𝑡𝑢𝑏𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 𝛥𝑃𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝛥𝑃ℎ

Equation 2:

Equation 3:

Equation 4:

Equation 5:
𝜌𝑢𝐷
𝑅𝑒 = 𝜇
Equation 6:
f
Equation 7:

*Pressure drops through elbows and valves (all combined in experimental set-up)

1/2 inch ID tube 1/4 inch ID tube

Q (gpm) ΔP (psig) Q (gpm) ΔP (psig)
0.50 0.0 0.50 0.0
1.00 0.0 1.00 1.0
1.50 0.0 1.50 4.0
2.00 1.0 2.00 7.0
2.50 2.0 2.50 11.0
 3.00 3.0 3.00 15.0
3.50 4.0 3.50 20.0
4.00 6.0 4.00 28.0
4.50 7.0 4.50 34.0
5.00 8.0 4.70 37.0

Appendix C

Fanning friction factor chart

(from Welty, Wicks, Wilson, Rorrer. Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer.
John Wiley & Sons, 2008)
 • Additional Table:

Re(critical)
D tube 0.5 in
D tube 0.0127 m
h 91.44 cm
h 0.9144 m

ρ 1000 Kg/m^3

μ 0.001 Pa S
L 50 ft
L 15.24 m
A 0.0001266
D coil 8 in
Dcoil 0.2032 m
Re(critical) 8400