Head Loss in Piping Systems and Centrifugal

Pumps - Final Report

ChE 0301, Tuesday A-5

Matthew Ball, Michael Hensler,

Reinis Bergholcs, Will Humble, Krishna Gnanavel

November 29, 2016

1
 Table of Contents Page

1.0 Introduction and Background…………………………………………………………………4

2.0 Experimental Methodology
2.1.1 Equipment and Apparatus for Piping System……………………………………….8
2.1.2 Equipment and Apparatus for Centrifugal Pumps.………………………………….9
2.2.1 Experimental Procedure for Piping System………………………………………..11
2.2.2 Experimental and Procedure for Centrifugal Pumps………………………………12
3.0 Results
3.1 Piping System Results…..…………………………………………………………...14
3.2 Centrifugal Pump Results……………………………………………………………17
4.0 Analysis and Discussion
4.1 Piping System Analysis..…………………………………………………………….22
4.2 Centrifugal Pump Analysis…………………………………………………………..24
5.0 Summary and Conclusion………………………………….………………………………...26
6.0 References………………………………………………..…………………………………..29
Appendix A-1: Experimental Data………………………………………………………………30
Appendix A-2: Example Calculations…………………………………………………………...33

2
Nomenclature
Head Loss Piping System
Symbol Term Units and Value (if
applicable)
t Time s
V Tank Volume m3
Q Volumetric Flow Rate m3/s
u Flow Velocity m/s
Re Reynolds Number dimensionless
H Head Loss m
H/L Head Loss per Length m/m
Ff Friction Factor dimensionless
e/D Relative Roughness dimensionless
D Pipe Diameter mm
k Overall Loss Coefficient dimensionless
g Gravity 9.81 m/s2
𝜈 Kinematic Viscosity m2/s
L Length of pipe m
𝜌 Fluid Density kg/m3

Centrifugal Pump
Symbol Term Units and Value (if
applicable)
H Pressure Head m H2O
Q Volumetric Flow Rate m3/s
u Linear Velocity m/s
A Throat Area m2
z Fluid Height m
P Power Input (Mechanical) W
I Input Amperes amps
V Input Voltage V
N Rotations per Minute 1/min
T Torque Nm
F Torque gauge reading N
Pf Power Output (Fluid) W
𝜂𝑠ℎ𝑎𝑓𝑡 Efficiency (Shaft) dimensionless
𝜂𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑜 Efficiency (Thermo) dimensionless
𝜂𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙𝑙 Efficiency (Overall) dimensionless

3
 1.0 Introduction and Background
Pumps and piping systems are, and have been, widely used in the engineering field.
Perhaps the earliest known use of a pump was in 2000 BC when the Egyptians invented the
shadoof to raise water from large reservoirs, such as rivers [1]. About 800 years later,
Archimedes developed the Archimedean screw pump, which is considered one of the greatest
inventions of all time [1]. This invention was, and still is, used in irrigation systems and some
sewage treatment plants. The centrifugal pump, which was used in this experiment, was invented
by Denis Papin in 1687 and used for drainage [1]. Since then, centrifugal pumps have been
further innovated to include more features to make them beneficial for practical and industrial
applications. Some of the advantages of centrifugal pumps include their operating reliability,
safety, long service life, versatility, and overall efficiency.
In industry, pumps are implemented in many ways, from small laboratory-scale devices
to large industrial units. Their main purpose is to transport fluids through piping systems. The
energy industry primarily uses centrifugal pumps to transport fluids through piping systems and
into reactors to produce power. Another common use for centrifugal pumps is in the water-
treatment industry. They pump specific amounts of raw wastewater into and out of treatment
plants. Although these examples are just a few applications of centrifugal pump technology, they
are very useful in chemical processing industries.
Concepts relevant to this process help draw conclusions to the technical objectives of this
experiment. Figure 1 shows a diagram representing how a centrifugal pump works.

Figure 1: Inside a Centrifugal Pump [2]

4
As pictured in Figure 1, fluid is suctioned into the inlet duct (D). An electrical motor (not
pictured in Figure 1) rotates the shaft (A), which turns the impeller (B). The blades of the
impeller project the fluid outward. The circular motion of the fluid, represented on the left-hand
side of Figure 1, gives the fluid a high velocity. This high-velocity fluid then flows through the
pump case (C) and into the volute (E), where the fluid is discharged. The pump case has a
gradually increasing area, which converts the fluid’s velocity energy into pressure energy.
Once the fluid has been discharged from the volute, it flows through a network of pipes.
In the circuit, the pipes have a variety of straights, bends, elbows, or tees. Figure 2 is a
generalized illustration of head loss in straight pipes.

Figure 2: Head Loss in Straight Pipes

As shown in Figure 2, fluid flows with a specified fluid velocity (u) along a pipe of length L and
diameter D. At Point 1 in the pipe, the pressure head is given by h1, whereas the pressure head is
given by h2 at Point 2. The difference in head pressure between these two points is denoted by hf.
The source for this head loss through the straight length of pipe is due to the friction between the
fluid and walls of the pipe.
In addition to straight lengths of pipes in the pipe network, there also exists bends,
corners, and elbows. The purpose for pipe fittings is to change the direction of the fluid flow.
Figure 3 shows a generalized image of a pipe bend and the head losses attributed to it.

5
 Figure 3: Head Losses in Pipe Bends
In addition to the frictional losses between the fluid and pipe walls within the straight length of
pipe, there also exists head loss due to the pipe fitting, which is known as “form friction” or
“minor losses.” Table 10 in Appendix A-1 gives values of minor losses for various pipe fittings.
As fluid flows through the bend, there is a force acting radially inwards on the fluid to provide
the inward acceleration needed to change directions. This radial force results in an increase in
pressure near the outer wall of the bend, starting at Point A and rising to a maximum at Point B.
Additionally, a reduction of pressure near the inner wall gives a minimum pressure at Point C
and a gradual rise in pressure from Points C to D. Thus, the fluid experiences a pressure gradient
between A and B and between C and D. The fluid particles closest to the wall between these
points have low velocities and cannot overcome the pressure gradient. This leads to a loss of
fluid energy along the bend known as “bend loss.”
The first technical objective for piping systems was to determine the head loss across a
series of straight pipe sections of varying diameters and surface roughness at varying volumetric
flow rates. The second technical objective was to determine the head loss across a series of bends
and elbows of varying geometry at varying volumetric flow rates. To achieve each of these
objectives, calculations of the energy dissipation due to head loss were performed. In both
technical objectives, the head loss is quantified by,
HL = Hupstream - Hdownstream, (1)

6
where Hupstream is the head loss from the upstream port and Hdownstream is the head loss from the
downstream port. After the head loss is known, a graph can be created with the head loss per unit
length versus the Reynolds number, which is calculated by,
𝑢𝐷
Re = (2)
𝑣

In Equation 2, u represents the linear velocity, D is the diameter of the pipe, and v is the
kinematic viscosity of the fluid. By graphing the head loss per unit length against the Reynolds
number, numerous trends can be analyzed. These trends are shown and discussed later in the
report.
The first technical objective for the centrifugal pumps was to create performance curves
to determine the respective best efficiency points (BEP) for single pump operation at speeds of
2000 and 3000 RPM. The second technical objective was to determine characteristic curves at
3000 RPM for the operation of Pump A and Pump B in parallel and in series. These curves are
created by graphing the head, pump efficiency and power versus the volumetric flow rate. The
BEP is found along the head curve at the maximum efficiency point. The calculations for the
head, pump efficiency, power, and volumetric flow rate are discussed in this report, and a
pictorial representation of the BEP is shown.

7
 2.0 Experimental Methodology
2.1.1 Equipment and Apparatus for Piping Systems
Figure 4 shows the entire piping system examined.

Figure 4: Piping Apparatus

The water basin is shown on the left of Figure 4 (1). The water flowing through the pipes
empties into this basin. A rod was placed in a drain in the basin to allow water to accumulate.
The target volume for the water in the basin was 15 L.
Figure 4 also shows the combination of bends and straights in the pipes. To measure
pressure differences caused by the effects of head loss, plastic tubes were used to connect the
pipes to the piezometer, which is shown on the right of Figure 4 (3). The water was extracted
through the tubes and flowed into the piezometer. The piezometer mimics the function of a
manometer and measures differences in pressure between two points in the pipe network. This
pressure difference reading helped with the calculation of head loss using Equation 1.

8
2.1.2 Equipment and Apparatus for Pumps
Figure 5 shows the front end of the pumping system.

Figure 5: Front End of Pumping System

As shown in Figure 5, water is drawn from the blue basin and fed into Pumps A and B,
(2) and (3) respectively. The suction valves (4) can be opened or closed to control the water inlet
to the pumps. After water flows through the pumps, it is discharged into the pipe network. The
rate at which the water is discharged from the pumps is controlled by the red discharge valves
(5). The values for the suction and discharge pressures are determined from the pressure-gauge
board (6). The cross-over valve (1) is used in the second technical objective to transition from
parallel to series operation.
The pumping power is determined by the current and voltage (5) supplied to the pumps,
which is shown in Figure 6. The power supply can be adjusted by the variac wheel (7) on the
electrical box. While only one electrical box is visible in Figure 6, an additional box exists
directly behind the one shown. Each of these two boxes controls the power supply for their
respective pumps. The power given to the pumps rotates the pump blades, which directly affects
the velocity of the fluid.

9
 Figure 6: Back End of Pumping System
The water entering the rest of the apparatus first travels through a venturi meter (6) as
shown in Figure 6. Figure 7 shows the anatomy of the venturi meter.

Figure 7: Venturi Meter

The diameters of the inlet and throat areas for the venturi meter are 55.6 mm and 30.9 mm,
respectively.
After proceeding through the venturi, the water is expelled into the other side of the water
tank from which it was drawn. The basin has a setup called the V-notch. The V-notch is used to
measure and confirm the volumetric flow rate of water through the system and to assist in head-
pressure calculations. The basin is separated into two sections, the suction channel and the
discharge channel. Naturally, the volume of water in the discharge channel should be higher as
water is being recycled through the system via the suction channel. To quantify the flow of water

10
from discharge to suction, a partition with a v-shaped opening is inserted. Figure 8 shows the
setup of the V-notch flow inside the water basin. This partition allows for a height difference,
which is used for calculations shown in the Results section.

Figure 8: V-notch Wier

2.2.1 Experimental Procedure for Piping Systems

The first technical objective was to obtain head loss for flow through straight pipes. The
second technical objective was to obtain head loss for flow through bends and elbows. To begin,
the valve on the panel was turned 90 degrees counterclockwise to allow water to flow through
the pipe network and into the basin. The rod was placed in the hole in the basin to allow the
water level to rise. Once the water level in the basin reached 0 L, a stopwatch was started. The
stopwatch was stopped and the rod was removed from the basin when the water level reached 15
L. The time for the water to accumulate 15 L was recorded to determine the volumetric flow rate.
Plastic tubes were connected from the pipes of interest to the piezometer. Once the column
heights settled on the piezometer, the values were recorded to the nearest millimeter. The valve
was then turned to the next position, and the new flow rates and column heights were recorded
for each trial for further analysis. The valve positions and configurations of interest are
illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1: Ports and Valve Positions for Piping System
Run 1:
Circuit Valve Positions Type Upstream Port Downstream Port
0.25
0.50 50mm bend 15 16
Light Blue 0.75
1.00 100mm bend 17 18
1.50

11
Run 2:
Circuit Valve Positions Type Upstream Port Downstream Port
0.25
0.50 150mm bend 19 4
Light Blue 0.75
1.00 26.2mm Smooth 10 11
1.50

Run3:
Circuit Valve Positions Type Upstream Port Downstream Port
0.75 13.6mm Smooth 13 14
1.00
Dark Blue Mitre Corner 20 21
1.50
2.00 Elbow Corner 22 23
Run 4:
Circuit Valve Positions Type Upstream Port Downstream Port
1/4
17mm Smooth 7 8
3/8
Gray
1/2
17mm Rough 31 30
3/4

2.2.2 Experimental Procedures for Centrifugal Pumps

Technical Objective 1: Determine BEP for single Pump A operation
With the valves in the closed position, the power to the Pump A variac unit was turned
on. The variac was set to 40 V. Then, the suction valve to Pump A was opened, followed by the
exit valve downstream from the venturi meter. The variac input was slowly increased until the
voltage achieved 130 V. The tachometer was used to ensure a shaft speed of 2000 RPM. The
voltage was adjusted if the tachometer did not give a reading of 2000 RPM. The voltage, current,
V-notch height, torque, shaft speed, venturi pressure, suction pressure, and discharge pressure
were recorded at this condition.
The discharge valve was opened via a ⅙ turn counterclockwise, and the voltage was
readjusted to 130 V (if necessary). The tachometer, again, ensured a shaft speed of 2000 RPM
and each of the eight measurements were recorded. The discharge valve continued to be opened
by a ⅙ turn, the shaft speed and voltage were readjusted to their respective values (if necessary),
and all data was recorded until the valve was opened two complete turns. After the valve was
opened two full turns, the discharge valve was closed and the V-notch was allowed to settle to
below 15 mm. This process was repeated for a shaft speed of 3000 RPM and a voltage of 195 V.

12
After the discharge valve was opened two full turns under these conditions, the exit valve
downstream from the venturi meter and discharge valve were closed. The variac setting was
gradually decreased until it achieved 40 V. Then, the suction valve to Pump A was closed and
the variac was adjusted to zero volts. Finally, the power to the Pump A variac unit was turned
off.

Technical Objective 2: Determine characteristic curves for Pumps A and B operating in series
and parallel
With all the valves in the closed position, the power to the Pump A variac unit was turned
on. The variac was set to 40 V. The suction valve to Pump A was opened, followed by the exit
valve downstream from the venturi meter. Then, the power to the Pump B variac unit was turned
on, the variac was set to 40 V, and the suction valve to Pump B was opened. The variac input for
Pump A and Pump B was slowly increased until the voltage reached 195 V and 200 V for Pump
A and Pump B, respectively. The tachometer was used to ensure a shaft speed of 3000 RPM for
both pumps. The voltage was adjusted if this speed was not obtained. The voltage, current, V-
notch height, torque, shaft speed, venturi pressure, suction pressure, and discharge pressure were
recorded for both pumps at this condition.
For Pump A, the suction pressure (measured in bars) was negative, which means that a
vacuum exists. For Pump B, the suction gauge is a vacuum gauge and measured the suction
pressure in inches Hg vacuum. The discharge valves for both pumps were opened via a ⅙ turn
counterclockwise, and the voltages were readjusted to obtain 195 V and 200 V for Pump A and
Pump B, respectively. The tachometer verified that the shaft speed remained at 3000 RPM, and
each of the eight measurements were recorded at the ⅙ turn. The discharge valves continued to
be opened by a ⅙ turn, the shaft speed and voltages were readjusted to their respective values (if
necessary), and all data was recorded until the valves were opened two complete turns. After the
valves completed their two turns, the discharge valves from Pump A and Pump B were closed,
and the V-notch reading was allowed to fall to below 15 mm. Once the V-notch reading fell
below 15 mm, the suction valve to Pump B was closed, and the cross-over valve from Pump A to
Pump B was opened. The process was repeated by only turning the discharge valve from Pump
B. After the valve was opened two full turns, the exit valve downstream from the venturi meter
and the discharge valve for Pump B were closed. The variac settings for both pumps were
gradually decreased to achieve 40 V. The cross-over valve to Pump B was closed, and the Pump

13
B variac was adjusted to zero volts. Then, the suction valve to Pump A was closed, and the Pump
A variac was adjusted to zero volts. Finally, the power to the respective variac units was turned
off.

3.0 Results
3.1 Piping Systems Results
Data for both the centrifugal pump and the head loss in piping systems was collected via
two experiments. The head loss in piping systems required measurements of pressures at various
points along the rig, as well as the amount of time needed to fill a basin to 15 L. All the pressures
were determined in units of mm H2O. Table 13 in Appendix A-1 displays the data collected for
the head loss experiment for the first and second lab session. The raw data was used to calculate
values that led to the overall roughness of the straight pipes. These values satisfy technical
objective 1 and are displayed in Table 2.
Table 2: Straight Pipe Results

Technical objective 1 also required a plot of the head loss per unit length vs. the
Reynolds number for each pipe section at each of the valve positions. Figure 9 shows a positive

14
power-based trend between the head losses per unit length and the Reynolds numbers. The
values for the section between 26.2 mm smooth are shifted due to lower Reynolds numbers.

Figure 9: Straight Head Loss per Length vs Re

The 26.2 mm smooth pipe also had the largest inside diameter (ID) at double the value
for the other sections. Additionally, this large ID section displayed head loss per unit length
values that were about one order of magnitude smaller than the other sections of pipe at most
valve positions. It was also observed that the rough section, 17 mm pipe, had some of the largest
head loss per unit length values compared to the smooth sections.
Technical objective 2 for the head loss experiment required calculations that led to the
overall bend loss coefficient. These values are displayed in Table 3.

15
 Table 3: Bends/Elbow Results

When comparing the values of the bend loss coefficient for the elbow, mitre corner, and
radius bends, it was found that bends had the lowest loss coefficient values, the elbow had mid-
range values, and the mitre corner had the largest values. The second technical objective also
required a graph of the bends and corners head loss per unit length versus the Reynolds numbers
with the 13.6 mm smooth straight pipe data as reference. This graph is displayed in Figure 10.

16
 Figure 10: Bends/Elbow Head Loss per Length vs Re
The overall power-based trend shown in Figure 10 is similar to the trend in Figure 9. The
smooth pipe data was included in this graph as a basis for comparison with the bends. The
smooth pipe shows the lowest average head loss per unit length over the span of the Reynolds
numbers, while the mitre corner has the highest average head loss per unit length over the span
of the Reynolds numbers. The overall values of head loss per unit length, similar to the bend
coefficient values, were highest in the mitre corner pipe and lowest in the bend pipes.

3.2 Centrifugal Pump Results

The second experimental system dealt with centrifugal pumps both individually and in
series and parallel. Data for this system was recorded in Tables 12 and 13 in Appendix A-1.
Technical objective 1 dealt with single pump operations at 2000 RPM and 3000 RPM. This
objective required the calculation of values for head pressure (m of H2O), flow rate in m3/hr
(using the v-notch and venturi manometer readings), fluid power (W), pump mechanical power
(W) and pump efficiency (thermodynamic efficiency). These values are displayed in Table 4 for
2000 RPM and Table 5 for 3000 RPM.

17
 Table 4: 2000 RPM Single Pump Results

Table 5: 3000 RPM Single Pump Results

The head pressure, pump mechanical power, and pump efficiency were plotted against
the flow rate in Figures 11 and 12 for the 2000 RPM and 3000 RPM runs, respectively, to
determine the BEP. The values for the BEPs are displayed in Table 6. Technical objective 1 also
required a “prediction” of the values for flow, head pressure, and pump power at 3000 RPM

18
using the affinity laws for a centrifugal pump and the data from the 2000 RPM experiment. The
predicted BEP value for 3000 RPM is also displayed in Table 6.

Figure 11: 2000 RPM Single Pump BEP Plot

Figure 12: 3000 RPM Single Pump BEP Plot

19
 Table 6: BEP Values for Single Pump Systems

The predicted BEP values are similar to the values from the experimental data at 3000
RPM and thus reaffirmed the calculations based on 3000 RPM.
Technical objective 2 of the centrifugal pump system dealt with Pumps A and B in
parallel and in series with each other. The same initial calculations used in objective 1 were
required for objective 2. These values are displayed in Table 7 for the parallel pumps and in
Table 8 for the series pumps.
Table 7: Results for Pumps A and B in Parallel

20
 Table 8: Results for Pumps A and B in Series

The same BEP plots were also required with the values from Tables 7 and 8 and are displayed in
Figure 13 for parallel and Figure 14 for series.

Figure 13: BEP Plot for Pumps in Parallel

21
 Figure 14: BEP Plot for Pumps in Series
With the plots for the different pump setups, the BEPs were determined and are displayed in
Table 9.
Table 9: BEP Values for 2 Pump Systems

When the pumps were run in series, the head valve pressure increased dramatically with very
little change in flow rate compared to the single pump at 2000 RPM and 3000 RPM. Conversely,
when the pumps were run in parallel, the flow rate increased with only small changes in head
valve pressure compared to the single pump systems.

4.0 Analysis and Discussion

4.1 Piping System Analysis
In the first technical objective for Head Loss in Piping Systems, one of the goals was to
calculate the head loss in straight-pipe flow. This value of head loss varied with changing
parameters of pipe diameter and volumetric flow rate, which was determined by the position of
the opening valve. The examples for trends will be explained using the 26.2 mm straight pipe
data. As shown in Table 2, the position of the valve increasing from 0.25 to 1.5 turns led to an
increase in linear velocity, from 0.309 m/s to 0.598m/s. This was determined through Equation 3,

22
 u = Q/A, (3)
where a constant diameter led to a constant area of 0.000539 m2. This constant area resulted in
an increased velocity with increasing volumetric flow. Another factor that grew with increasing
velocity was the Reynolds number. Using Table 2, a change in velocity from 0.309 m/s to 0.598
m/s resulted in a linear increase of the Reynolds number from 4047 to 7838. The three other
piping systems had diameters of 13.2 mm and 17.0 mm. These differences in diameter resulted in
smaller cross-sectional areas of 0.000227 m2 and 0.000145 m2. These smaller areas would result
in a larger change in velocity between the two valve positions, but still follow the same trend as
the 26.2 mm pipe.
The head loss was calculated through Equation 1 by using the height difference of water
on the piezometer. Following a similar trend, the head loss of the piping systems increased with
increasing linear velocity. Using Table 2 for the 26.2 mm pipe, head loss increased from 0.005 m
to 0.023 m with increasing velocity, from 0.309 m/s to 0.598 m/s. The four straight pipes
followed similar trends regarding head loss per length and Reynolds number, and this can be
better represented through Figure 9. As the Reynolds number increased, so too did the head loss
per unit length. In terms of the friction factor, the pipes had different trends. For the 13.6 mm
smooth and the 17.0 mm smooth pipes, the friction factor decreased as velocity increased. With
the 26.2 mm smooth and the 17.0 mm rough pipes, the friction factor increased, reached a
maximum, and then decreased. The friction factor was calculated using Equation 4,
Fd=HL/((L/D)*(u2/2g)). (4)
The trends in area and Reynolds numbers do not correlate with the friction abnormalities. A
possible source of error could have occurred with the piezometer not being calibrated properly.
The final parameter analyzed for objective 1 was pipe roughness. These values were directly
obtained using the Darcy friction factor in conjunction with the Moody chart. Therefore, the pipe
roughness follows the same exact trend as the friction factors. With this, it is observed that
increasing pipe roughness leads to decreasing head loss per unit length.
The second technical objective for Head Loss in Piping Systems analyzed similar
parameters to objective 1. However, the target changed from straight pipe flow to the
bends/elbows of the system, which resulted in analysis of hbend and k-values. The bends/elbows
followed the same initial trends as the straight pipes. As the volumetric flow rate increased, so
too did the velocity. This ultimately led to increasing values of head loss and Reynolds number.
Using the values for 50 mm radius bend from Table 3, increasing velocity from 1.13 m/s to 2.19

23
m/s led to an increase in head loss from 0.117 m to 0.402 m. These values of head loss also
accounted for the geometry of the bend. For the elbow, mitre corner, and 100 mm radius bend,
the head loss of the bend increased with increasing velocity and Reynolds number. For the elbow
using Table 3, with increasing velocity from 0.63 m/s to 2.02 m/s, the bend head loss increased
from 0.027 m to 0.26 m. However, for the 50 mm and 150 mm radius bends, there was an error
as these values were determined to be negative. These values were calculated using Equations 5,
6, and 7,
Ff = FD / 4, (5)
Hfriction = Ff * (L/D) * u2/2g, (6)
H-bend = HL - Hfriction. (7)
A possible source of error could have been through an inaccurate piezometer reading or there
could have been internal issues within the pipe and its walls. Finally, for all bends/corners, the
value of friction factor decreased with increasing Reynolds number. Using Table 3 for the elbow
system, with increasing velocity from 0.63 m/s to 2.02 m/s, the friction factor decreased from
0.033 to 0.025. When comparing the experimental k-values calculated in Table 3 to the literature
values, there were major discrepancies. Due to the error of a negative bend loss calculation, the
50 mm and 150 mm bend resulted in a negative k-value. However, the elbow, mitre corner, and
100 mm bend produced viable values. The literature value of the elbow is 0.75 and the mitre
corner is 1.3. The values comparing head loss per length and Reynolds number is shown in
Figure 10, showing a similar trend to the straight pump experiments.

4.2 Centrifugal Pump Analysis

The second experiment that was analyzed was the Centrifugal Pump system. The first
technical objective focused on single pump operation at RPM’s of 2000 and 3000. Looking at
Table 4 for 2000 RPM, upon opening the valve, the flow rate of water increased. With this, the
head loss value decreased, starting at a maximum of 19.16 m and decreasing to a minimum of
4.82 m. The 3000 RPM run, using Table 5, followed a similar route, starting at 25.6 m and
decreasing to 9.41 m. This occurred because the suction pressure was decreasing at a slower rate
than the discharge pressure, resulting in overall head loss. Looking at the fluid power produced,
with increasing flow rate, both 2000 RPM and 3000 RPM increased to a max and then started to
decrease. The 2000 RPM experiment increased to 214 W at a 1/6 turn, then slowly decreased to
ranges of 165-170 W from one rotation to two valve rotations. The 3000 RPM experiment

24
increased to a max of 681 W at a half turn, then slowly decreased to a value of 447 W at two full
rotations. For both RPM’s, mechanical power steadily increased as the valve became more open.
This power changed from 138 W to 435 W and 435 W to 1425 W for 2000 and 3000 RPM
respectively. As the volumetric flow rate increased, so too did the torque, resulting in an overall
increase in mechanical power. Finally, the thermodynamic efficiency was produced by
comparing the fluid power versus the mechanical power. The trend followed that of the fluid
power, increasing to a max and then decreasing further. The values were plotted against the flow
rate in Figures 11 and 12. Using these charts, the BEP was determined through the efficiency
curve and displayed in Table 6. The 2000 RPM BEP was calculated at 8.10 m3/hr and the 3000
RPM BEP was calculated at 9.47 m3/hr. When comparing the affinity laws prediction results to
the actual experimental values for 3000 RPM, using Table 6, the values are fairly similar. The
prediction yielded a flow rate of 12.2 m3/hr and a pressure head of 21.9 m, while the experiment
produced a flow rate of 9.47m3/hr and a pressure head of 23.1 m. This resulted in a higher
predicted efficiency of 65.5% compared to the experimental at 56.4%.
The second technical objective looked at dual pump operation, with pump A and B
running in series and in parallel. Beginning with series, the head loss had the same effect as
single pump operations. The head loss started high and continued to decrease with increasing
valve position. However, the quantitative value was much larger due to having two pumps in
operation. At a closed position as seen in Table 8, the head loss reached a high of 52.7 m. This
value would decrease to 8.5 m at two full rotations. The flow rate of the series pumps resembled
that of a single pump at 3000 RPM, reaching a max at 18.9 m3/hr. The trend of the fluid power
and mechanical power matched the single pump, however these values were doubled due to two
pumps being operated; fluid power reached a high of 1584 W before decreasing to 438 W and
mechanical power steadily increased to a max of 2929 W. Using Figure 14, the BEP of series
pumps was reached at a flow rate of 18.1 m3/hr. This flow rate is greater than that of single pump
operation with a larger head loss and much larger mechanical power produced. Because of this
high mechanical power value, the thermodynamic efficiency is low value at 32.7%.
In terms of parallel operation, a trend opposite to that of series occurred. The head loss of
parallel operation resembled that of the single pump, yet the flow rate increased by a factor of
two. Using Table 7, the head loss started at a high of 25.1 m and decreased to 12.5 m.
Meanwhile, the flow rate increased steadily to a total of 37.9 m3/hr. In terms of fluid power,
parallel followed a similar trend to single pump and series operations. However, due to having a

25
flow rate approximately double that of the single pump operation, the fluid power value was also
doubled. The fluid power peaked at 1575 W, but only decreased down to 1294 W afterwards. In
terms of mechanical power, the trend follows that of series pump operation due to having two
pumps in operation. Because of this, the thermodynamic efficiency was calculated to be
relatively high, going no lower than 45.4%. Using Figure 13, the BEP was determined to be at
20.8 m3/hr. Comparing parallel and series to single pump operation, the BEP’s have a higher
flow rate in conjunction with a slightly lower thermodynamic efficiency, while being at similar
head loss values.
5.0 Summary and Conclusions
The centrifugal pump converts rotational kinetic energy into fluid pressure energy. An
electric motor provides a fluid flow into an inlet duct which is then rotated by the blades of an
impeller, which then flows into an expanding valve called the volute. The decrease in fluid
velocity allows the pump to produce both pressure head and volumetric flow rate.
The first experiment consisted of three circuits: Gray, Dark Blue, and Light Blue. The
Light Blue circuit featured a smooth straight pipe with varying bends, roughnesses, and diameter
sizes. Meanwhile, the Gray and Dark Blue Circuits featured a series of bends and elbows. These
factors found in the pipe circuits affected the fluid head loss, the energy lost due to friction, flow
direction, and pipe size.
In the first lab session, the light blue circuit was used. The upstream/downstream port
pressure (mm H-2O) and drainage times were measured for each incremented valve position for
the following designs: 50 mm, 100 mm, 150 mm bends and 26.2 mm smooth. In the second lab
session, two different circuits were used, the Dark Blue and Gray circuits. Similarly, the
upstream/downstream port pressures (mm H-2O) and drainage times were measured for each
incremented valve position for the following designs in the Dark Blue Circuit: 13.6 mm Smooth,
Mitre Corner, and Elbow Corner. Lastly, the upstream/downstream port pressure (mm H-2O) and
drainage times were measured for each incremented valve position for the following designs in
the Gray Circuit: 17 mm Smooth and 17 mm Rough pipe types.
The objective for the first lab session was completed by calculating the volumetric flow
rate (m3/sec), flow velocity, Reynolds Number, head loss, head loss per unit length, and friction
factor based on the head loss for each valve position. The relative roughness of the pipe surface
was determined by using the Moody chart. A figure showing the head loss per unit length versus

26
the Reynolds Number was prepared. These calculations determined the effects of pipe diameter
size and surface area roughness on the head loss of a straight pipe.
According to the calculations, as the Reynolds number increased, the head loss increased
too. This trend was apparent throughout the graphs plotting head loss per unit length as a
function of Reynolds number for all four pipe designs. Additionally, as the valve opened, the
pipe allowed a larger volume of water to pass through. This phenomenon increased the linear
velocity of the fluid which increased head loss. Lastly, the head loss increased as the pipe
roughness increased; however, a few inconsistencies showed otherwise. This flaw was attributed
to human error or the piezometer not being calibrated properly.
The same variables were calculated for the second lab session in addition to the overall
loss coefficient for the bends and elbows. A figure showing the head loss per unit length versus
Reynolds number for each bend or elbow was prepared. The figure and calculations determined
the head loss across a series of bends and elbows of varying geometry in the pipe circuits.
The bends and elbows in this pipe system resulted in varying head losses for the fluid.
The results showed the highest k-coefficient was associated with the mitre corner, followed by
the elbow, and then the 100 mm bend. Negative k-coefficient values were calculated for the 50
mm and 150 mm bend type due to the error of a negative bend loss calculation. Similar to the
straight pipe, the head loss increased with an increasing Reynolds number because the velocity
of the fluid is greater, resulting in more resistance force from pipe walls, especially in sharp
bends.
The other experiment began by the operation of one centrifugal pump. The pump was
configured and operated at two different shaft speeds, 2000 and 3000 RPM. As the pump
operated, the voltage, current, venturi pressure, V-notch, torque, and suction/discharge pressure
measurements were recorded with each 1/6 turn increment of the discharge valve. With this data,
the experiment was guided by several objectives to help understand the usefulness of the pump.
The head pressure was determined by calculating the difference between the suction and
discharge pressure. The flow rate was found by using the V-notch and venturi manometer
readings. Pump performance curves were made by plotting the head pressure, pump efficiency,
and mechanical power versus flow rate. The BEP was determined for both 2000 and 3000 RPM
along with the head pressure, pump efficiency, and pump mechanical power at that point. Lastly,
scale-up predictions were made for 3000 RPM based on the experimental results from the data
obtained at 2000 RPM for comparison.

27
 As the flow rate increased, the head loss decreased because the suction pressure
decreased at a slower rate than the discharge pressure. Fluid power increased to a max for both
RPM’s, then decreased. Mechanical power steadily increased as the flow increased because the
torque increased. The BEP for 2000 RPM was calculated at 8.10 m3/hr and for 3000 RPM, the
BEP was calculated at a greater value of 9.47 m3/hr to match the higher mechanical power. The
affinity law prediction for 3000 RPM was similar to the actual data collected. The pressure head
predicted value was only 1.2 m H2O lower than the experimental value while the flow rate
predicted value was 2.73 m3/hr higher than the experimental value. These calculations resulted in
a higher predicted efficiency of 65.5% compared to the experimental at 56.4%.
Next, both pumps were used in parallel and series with the same shaft speed of 3000
RPM. For the series operation, the suction valves were opened and the cross-over valve from
Pump A to B was opened. Similar to the single pump procedure, the voltage, current, venturi
pressure, V-notch, torque, and suction/discharge pressure readings were recorded with each 1/6
turn increment turn of the discharge valve.
When the centrifugal pump was in series, the head loss was double the single pump’s
head loss at 3000 RPM because the flow rate remained the same. Whereas in parallel, the head
loss values were around that of the single pump’s because the flow rate doubled- causing a lower
pressure difference between the discharge pressure and suction pressure. For series and parallel,
the trend of the fluid and mechanical power matched the trend of the 3000 RPM single pump, but
yielded different values. In parallel and series, two pumps delivered twice as much mechanical
power than that of the 3000 RPM single pump. However, the fluid power for series and the 3000
RPM single pump were the same while the parallel pumps delivered twice the fluid power due to
the doubled flow rate. Thermodynamic efficiency greater than 100% was detected for both series
and parallel. The mishap was most likely due to the human error of inaccurately reading the
torque values. This error led to a higher fluid power being calculated by mistake. Comparing
parallel and series to single pump operation, the BEP’s have a higher flow rate in conjunction
with a slightly lower thermodynamic efficiency, while being at the same head loss value.
After analyzing the data from the centrifugal pump and piping systems, several
conclusions were drawn. For the a single pump, as flow rate increased, head loss decreased and
the BEP increased as RPM increased. Additionally, the affinity law was useful in predicting the
flow rate, head loss, and efficiency of another RPM. In series, head loss increased by a factor of
2 compared to the single pump while in parallel the head loss stayed the same. The pumps in

28
series and parallel produced the most mechanical power but only the pumps in parallel produced
the most fluid power because of the increased flow rate. For the piping systems, head loss
increased with an increase in either the Reynolds Number or the pipe roughness. The pipe design
with the highest roughness was the mitre corner, followed by the elbow, and then by the 100 mm
bend.

6.0 References
[1] P. Staff, "The history of pumps: Through the years," in Pumps and Systems. [Online].
Available: http://www.pumpsandsystems.com/topics/pumps/pumps/history-pumps-through-
years.
[2] M. McMahon, "Pumping and Head Loss in Piping Systems," Michael McMahon, University
of Pittsburgh, Jul. 2016.

29
Appendix A-1: Experimental Data and Results

Table 10: Minor Loss Values for Various Pipe Fittings

30
Table 11: Centrifugal Pump Raw Data Session 1

Table 12: Centrifugal Pump Raw Data Session 2

31
Head Loss Piping Data

Table 13: Head Loss in Piping Systems Data Session 1 & 2

32
Appendix A-2: Example Calculations

Piping Systems: P31-P30 ¼ turn

1) Calculate Volumetric flow rate:

Q =V/t
Q = 0.015 m3/73.04s
Q = 0.000205 m3/s

2) Calculate linear velocity

u=Q/A
u= 0.000205 m3/s / (pi * (0.007m)2)
u= 1.33 m/s

3) Calculate Reynolds number

Re = u*d/ν
Re = 1.33 m/s * .014m/ (1.0x10-6 m2/s)
Re = 18620

4) Calculate head loss

HL = H1 – H2
HL = .590 m - .550 m
HL = 0.04m

5) Calculate Friction Factor

Fd = HL/ ((L/D) * (u2/2g))
Fd = 0.04m/ ((0.2m/0.014m) * (1.33(m/s)2/2*9.81m/s2))
Fd = 0.0310 - use chart to gather roughness data

Bends & Elbows: P22-P23 elbow ¾ turn

Steps 1-4 same as above
5) Calculate Ff
Ff = FD / 4
Ff = 1.316 / 4
Ff = 0.0329

6) Calculate Hfriction
Hfriction = Ff * (L/D) * u2/2g
Hfriction = 0.0329 * (0.912m/0.0136m) * 0.63 (m/s)2/2* 9.81m/s2
Hfriction = 0.0446m

33
7) Hbend calculation
H-bend = HL - Hfriction
Hbend = 0.072m – 0. 0446m
Hbend = 0.0273m

8) KB Calculation
KB = 2*g/u2 * Hbend
KB = 2 * 9.81(m/s2) / (0.63 (m/s)2 * 0.273m
KB = 1.349

Centrifugal Pump: Single pump operation 2000 RPM 1/6 turn

1) Calculate HL
HL = Hd – Hs
HL = -1 * -0.12 * 10.1974428892 – 14* 0.7030889074
HL = 11.07 m H2O

2) Calculate volumetric flow

Q = A* √2(𝜌𝐻𝐺 – 𝜌)𝑔𝛥𝑧/𝜌[(𝐴/𝑎)2 − 1].
Q = (PI*(0.0556/2)^2)*SQRT((2*(13600-1000)*9.81*0.5/100)/
(1000*(((PI()*(0.0556/2)^2)(PI()*(0.0309/2)^2))^2-1)))*3600
Q = 3.16 m3/hr

3) Calculate Fluid Power

Pfluid = g * Q * HL * ρ
Pfluid = 9.81 (m/s2) * 3.16 m3/hr * 1/3600 h/s * 11.07 m * 1000 kg/m3
Pfluid = 95.17 W

4) Calculate Mechanical Power

Pmechanical = 2 * pi * N * 0.165 * F / 60
Pmechanical = 2 * pi * 2000 RPM * 0.165 * 6.5 N / 60
P-mechanical = 224.62 W

5) Calculate thermodynamic efficiency

η­thermodynamic = Pfluid/ Pmechanical * 100%
η­thermodynamic = 95.17 W/ 224.62 W * 100%
η­thermodynamic = 42.37%

34