School of Energy, Geoscience,

Infrastructure & Society

GROUP COURSEWORK
SUBMISSION FORM

Group 2

STUDENT NAME: STUDENT ID NUMBER:

Julia Dewi H00385722

Kah Rick Fong H00348051

Sanskha Dorova Johan H00368352

Yuen Fong Hoo H00348000

PROGRAMME:(eg MA Accountancy and Finance;

BEng Civil Engineering/ MEng Civil Engineering
MSc International Business Management)

COURSE NAME: Hydraulics & Hydrology A

COURSE CODE: D28HA

COURSEWORK TITLE:
Lab Report

Coursework hand-in deadline

October 29th, 2021
(date specified for hand-in)

All students are advised to keep a duplicate copy of all work submitted for reference.

DECLARATION:

I confirm that the work submitted is my own or that it reflects my contribution to a group submission. The
submission is expressed in my own/the group’s words. Any uses made within this work of the writing of other

1
authors or of any existing source is properly acknowledged, and a list of references used is included. The University
Ethical Code of Practice and the Schools' guidelines on plagiarism as contained within the SML handbook have been
understood and followed.

SIGNATURE OF EACH MEMBER: Rick, Yf, Julia , Sanskha

DATE: October 28th, 2021

2
 Table of Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………....4
Objective …………….……………………………………………………………………………5
Theory………………………………………...…………………………………………………..5
3.1 Head Loss ………..
………………………………………………………………………...5
3.2 Friction Factor…….……………………………………………………………………….5
Variables ...………………………………………………………………………………………..6
Apparatus and Material ………………………………………………………………………...7
Procedures ……………………….……………………………………………………………….7
Result……………………………………………………………………………………………...8
Discussion …………………………………………….………………………………………....12
8.1 Relationship between λ and Re………………………………………….……………….12
8.2 Comparisons of different values of λ obtained from different equations …………..…...12
8.3 Effective pipe roughness………………………....……………………………………....13
Conclusions………………………………………………..…………………………………….13
Reference ………………………………………………………………………………………..15

3
1. Introduction

The key objective of this experiment was to study the relationship between friction factor, λ and

Reynold’s Number, Re. When a fluid flows through a pipe, it loses energy, and this energy is

known as headlosses. In the proposal by Bulumulle, Millevithanatchy and Lim (2014) head

losses can be classified into two parts, one is major, one is minor. Major head losses, h f, can be

defined as the energy lost is due to frictional resistance which acts against the flow of fluid, and

it can be calculated by using Hagen-Poiseuille equation, which only applicable for laminar flow

and Darcy-Weisbach equation, which only applicable for turbulent flow. While minor head

losses, hL, can be defined as the energy lost is due to bends and junctions present in the pipe

system.

The second objective of this experiment was to compare the experimental results for λ, which

were obtained from Darcy-Weisbach equation, with the theoretical results for λ that were

obtained from Blasius and Prandtl/Karman equations. Blasius equation is dependent on R e only

while Prandtl/Karman equation is dependent on Re when the pipe is smooth, but when the pipe is

rough, it depends on the pipe roughness, ks. After obtaining the theoretical results for λ, it is

plotted on the same graph of experimental results for λ against Re, in order to be compared.

The final objective of this experiment was to determine the effective roughness of the pipe, k s

when the flow is turbulent by using a range of different equations such as Barr, Blasius,

Colebrook-White, Moody and Prandtl/Karman equations. The effective roughness of the pipe, k s

are easily calculated as other unknowns such as friction factor, λ and Reynold’s number, Re are

obtained from the previous steps.

4
2. Objective

1. Study the relationship between λ and Re

2. Compare the experimental results for λ with those obtained using a range of different

equations.

3. Determine the effective roughness for the pipe, ks, using a range of different equations.

3. Theory

3.1 Head Loss

To calculate head loss, hf, for laminar flow Hagen-Poiseuille(H-P) equation was used,

32 μLV
hf = where µ is the viscosity of water, L is the length of the pipe, V is the mean velocity,
ρg D 2

ρ is the density of water, g is the gravitational acceleration and D is the diameter of the pipe.

Based on H-P equation, the term of pipe roughness, λ is not included, therefore indicating that

the pipe roughness has no effect in calculating hf in laminar flow. For calculating the head loss,

λL V 2
hf, for turbulent flow, Darcy-Weisbach(D-W) equation was used, h f = where λ is the
2 gD

friction factor. In D-W equation, it does contain the term of pipe roughness which confirms that

the pipe roughness has an effect in calculating hf in turbulent flow. For Reynold’s number, Re,

VD
Re = .
μ

5
3.2 Friction Factor

0.316
λ=
To calculate friction factor, λ, Blasius equation is used, 1 . This equation is only
R e4

applicable up to Re=100000 and it is more suitable to apply in smooth pipe. Prandtl/Karman(P-

K) equation is also used to calculate λ, when the pipe is smooth, the equation used was

1 Re √ λ 1 3.7 D
=2 log ( ), while when the pipe is rough, the equation used was =2 log ( ) and λ
√λ 2.51 √λ ks

is solely depends on ks as in rough equation, it does not contain R e. When the Re <2000, another

64
equation λ= can also be used to calculate the value of λ.
Re

The effective roughness for the pipe, k s was determined and calculated by using Barr equation

1 ks 5.1286
=2 log ( + ), Blasius equation (mentioned above), Colebrook-White(C-W)
√λ 3.7 D R e 0.89

1 k 2.51 6 1
equation =−2 log ( + ), Moody equation λ=0.0055(1+( 20000 k s + 10 )3 ), and
√λ 3.7 D Re √ λ D Re

1 3.7 D
Prandtl/Karman equation =2 log ( ). All these equations can be used to calculate friction
√λ ks

factor, λ under smooth turbulent and rough turbulent condition with the exception of Blasius

equation can only be used under smooth turbulent and Barr equation can only be used under

rough turbulent

4. Variables

Independent variable: Pressure provided to the water, P

6
Dependent variable: Time taken to collect 0.009m3 of water, s

Constant variable: Diameter of pipe, D, Volume of water, m3, Viscosity of water, µ, Distance

between point A and point B, L, density of water, ρ

5. Apparatus and Material

Apparatus Quantity Material Quantity

Pressure gauge 1 Water

Stopwatch 1 Bucket 1

Pipe 1

6. Procedures

1. Apparatus was set up as shown in the above diagram.

2. Water was pumped through the pipe from point A to point B and into the bucket.

7
3. A stopwatch was used to measure the time taken for the bucket to be filled with 0.009m 3 of

water.

4. Time taken was recorded.

5. Steps 2 to 4 were repeated with different pressure provided to the water.

6. All data was recorded and tabulated.

8
7. Result

Pipe diameter: 0.017m

Volume collected: 9 litres

Area: 2.2698 ×1 0−4 m2

Viscosity, µ: 1.13 ×10−6 m2 /s

Time to h f (m) Flowrate Flowrate Velocity Re

collect (l/s) (m3 /s ) (m/s)
volume (s)

405 0.0016 0.0222 2.22×1 0−5 9.79×1 0−2 1459.3

270 0.0031 0.0333 3.33×1 0−5 1.47×1 0−1 2211.5

180 0.0063 0.0500 5.00×1 0−5 2.20×1 0−1 3309.7

120 0.0127 0.0750 7.50×1 0−5 3.30×1 0−1 4964.6

80 0.0258 0.1125 1.13×1 0−4 4.96×1 0−1 7461.9

53 0.0529 0.1698 1.70×1 0−4 7.48×1 0−1 11734.5

35 0.1117 0.2571 2.57×1 0−4 1.13 17000.0

23 0.2356 0.3913 3.91×1 0−4 1.72 25867.1

15 0.5258 0.6000 6.00×1 0−4 2.64 39716.8

10 1.1184 0.9000 9.00×1 0−4 3.97 59725.7

Table(1)

9
λ obtained from Darcy-Weisbach equation

λL V 2
To calculate λ from D-W equation: h f =
2 gD

hf (2 gD )
By making λ the subject, λ= , we can obtain the λ by subbing in h f and V
LV2

(0.0016)(2)(9.81)(0.017)
E.g. With h f =0.0016 m, λ= =5.568 ×1 0−2
(1) ¿ ¿

h f (m) Velocity(m/s) Re λ

0.0016 9.79×1 0−2 1459.3 5.568×1 0−2

0.0031 1.47×1 0−1 2211.5 4.785×1 0−2

0.0063 2.20×1 0−1 3309.7 4.342×1 0−2

0.0127 3.30×1 0−1 4964.6 3.890×1 0−2

0.0258 4.96×1 0−1 7461.9 3.498×1 0−2

0.0529 7.48×1 0−1 11734.5 3.154×1 0−2

0.1117 1.13 17000.0 2.918×1 0−2

0.2356 1.72 25867.1 2.656×1 0−2

0.5258 2.64 39716.8 2.516×1 0−2

1.1184 3.97 59725.7 2.367×1 0−2

λ obtained from Laminar flow equation (Re<2000)

64 64
λ= = =4.386 × 10−2
Re 1459.3

Re λ

1459.3 4.386×1 0−2

10
11
λ obtained from Blasius equation (Re>4000)
0.316
¿
By subbing in the Re values into the equation, λ 1 , we are able to obtain the λ
R e4
0.316
¿
E.g. λ 1 = 3.764×1 0−2
4964. 6 4

Re λ

4964.6 3.764×1 0−2

7461.9 3.399×1 0−2

11734.5 3.036×1 0−2

17000.0 2.767×1 0−2

25867.1 2.491×1 0−2

39716.8 2.238×1 0−2

59725.7 2.021×1 0−2

λ obtained from Prandtl/Karman smooth pipe equation (Re>4000)

1 R √λ
Subbing in Re values into the equation, =2 log ( e ), and rearranging to make λ the
√λ 2.51
subject, friction factor can be obtained.

Re λ

4964.6 3.747×1 0−2

7461.9 3.342×1 0−2

11734.5 2.961×1 0−2

17000.0 2.695×1 0−2

25867.1 2.432×1 0−2

39716.8 2.201×1 0−2

59725.7 2.009×1 0−2

12
Figure(1)

13
Pipe roughness, k s(mm)
By rearranging the equations and making k sthe subject and subbing in the corresponding values
of λ and Re, pipe roughness can be determined.
λ Re Barr Colebrook & Moody Prandtl &
white Karman
(rough)

3.890×1 0−2 4964.6 1.777×1 0−2 2.223×1 0−2 1.915×1 0−2 1.835×1 0−1
3.498×1 0−2 7461.9 1.814×1 0−2 2.031×1 0−2 1.698×1 0−2 1.334×1 0−1

3.154×1 0−2 11734.5 1.916×1 0−2 2.046×1 0−2 1.777×1 0−2 0.962×1 0−1
2.918×1 0−2 17000.0 1.900×1 0−2 2.004×1 0−2 1.784×1 0−2 0.744×1 0−1

2.656×1 0−2 25867.1 1.565×1 0−2 1.633×1 0−2 1.486×1 0−2 5.378×1 0−2
2.516×1 0−2 39716.8 1.823×1 0−2 1.924×1 0−2 1.742×1 0−2 0.443×1 0−1

2.367×1 0−2 59725.7 1.727×1 0−2 1.820×1 0−2 1.642×1 0−2 3.538×1 0−2
Average 1.789×1 0−2 1.954×1 0−2 1.721×1 0−2 8.871×1 0−2
Table(2)

8. Discussion

8.1 Relationship between λ and Re

A graph of λ vs Re is plotted as shown in Figure(1). According to the graph, λ is inversely

1
proportional to Re ( λ= ), as the Reynold’s number increases, the friction factor decreases. This
Re

is true as according to the equations, except for the Prandtl/Karman equation for rough pipes.

However, even though the friction factor decreases, this does not indicate that friction decreases

when flow rate/Re increases as the experiment has shown there is an increase in head loss, h f

which indicates the energy loss due to friction increases.

14
8.2 Comparisons of different values of λ obtained from different equations

The theoretical values for λ are plotted on the same graph in Figure(1). It is discovered that the

values vary slightly with the experimental values at lower Re with a percentage error of

approximately 3-5%, but the variation increases as the R e increases, with up to 17% for both

Blasius and Prandtl/Karman equations for smooth pipes. Overall, the values obtained from both

equations show the same relationship between λ and R e, as the λ calculated from the Darcy-

Weisbach equation. However, the λ calculated using the Laminar Flow equation (0.04386),

where its Re is less than 2000, has a noticeable difference with the value from Darcy-Weisbach

equation, this might be because the Darcy-Weisbach equation is applicable to laminar flow only

64
if λ= . Thus, there is a larger difference shown on the graph in Figure(1).
Re

8.3 Effective pipe roughness

The results for the roughness, k s are tabulated in Table(2). An average is taken for the values

from each equation. The average pipe roughness, in mm, for Barr, Colebrook-White, Moody,

Prandtl/Karman((rough) equations are 0.01789, 0.01954, 0.01721 and 0.08871 respectively. The

range of k svalues calculated from all the equations except for the Prandtl/Karman equation,

shows more consistency while the results from P-K equation deviates significantly from each

other. Therefore, indicating that the P-K equation for rough pipes might not be suitable to

calculate k sin this case. The reason for this might be because λ is dependent on Re as shown in

Figure(1), while the P-K equation for rough pipes shows λ is independent of Re. In addition,

Bansal (1989, p. 451) stated that in turbulent flow through smooth pipe, λ depends on Re, while

15
for rough pipes λ only depends on k s. Hence, theoretically the pipe used in the experiment is a

smooth pipe.

9. Conclusions

In conclusions, the pipe friction factor, λ is inversely proportional to the Reynold’s number, R e as

shown in the graph in Figure(1). The experimental results for λ was found to be different from

the theoretical results for λ obtained from various equations with a percentage error of

approximately 3-5% at lower value of Re and a percentage error up to 17% at higher value of R e.

Lastly, the effective pipe roughness obtained are 0.01789mm from Barr equation, 0.01954mm

from Colebrook-White equation, 0.01721mm from Moody equation and 0.08871 from

Prandtl/Karman(rough) equation.

16
Reference

Bansal, R.K (1989) A Textbook of Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machines. 9th rev. edn.

New Delhi: Laxmi Publications.

Bulumulle, R., Millevithanacthy, D. G., and Lim, Z. Y. (2014) Friction flow in pipe. Available

at:

<https://www.academia.edu/28234816/MEC2404_Frictional_Flow_in_Pipe_Lab_Report_D

one_by> (Accessed: 15 Oct 2021).

Nuclear Power (2018) Friction Factor for Turbulent Flow – Colebrook Equation. Available at:

<https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-engineering/fluid-dynamics/major-head-loss-

friction-loss/friction-factor-turbulent-flow-colebrook/> (Accessed: 18 Oct 2021)

17