Finding the flow rate through an open-end pipe

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around estimating the flow rate through an open-end pipe, specifically a 15 mm diameter, 20-meter long pipe connected to a water main with a static pressure of 5 bars. Participants explore various methods and calculations to determine the flow rate, considering factors such as head loss, friction factors, and iterative approaches.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests treating the problem as an orifice flow issue, proposing an iterative approach to balance head loss and flow rate.
  • Another participant reports a calculated flow rate of 13.5 gallons/minute (3.1 m³/hr) using a program based on the Moody Chart, indicating a discrepancy with earlier estimates.
  • A different calculation yields a flow rate of approximately 3.54 m³/hr using Bernoulli and Darcy-Weisbach equations, considering pressure drops along the pipe.
  • Another participant calculates a flow rate of 3.85 m³/hr using the Swamee-Jain equation, factoring in roughness and viscosity.
  • Discussions arise regarding the use of different kinematic viscosity values and their impact on Reynolds number and friction factor calculations.
  • One participant mentions using the Blasius equation for friction factor calculations, presenting results for pressure drops at various flow rates.
  • Concerns are raised about the significant differences in flow rate results among participants, questioning the friction factors used in calculations.
  • Some participants discuss the relationship between Fanning and Moody friction factors, noting the conversion factor and its implications for their calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing results for the flow rate, indicating that multiple competing views remain. There is no consensus on the correct flow rate or the methods used to calculate it, as various assumptions and parameters lead to different outcomes.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying assumptions about kinematic viscosity, friction factors, and the iterative methods employed. The discussion reflects a range of approaches and calculations without resolving the discrepancies between them.

  • #31
Chestermiller said:
Well the Darcy friction factor is 4x the fanning friction factor, so you decide.

Great catch, I got sloppy with my friction factors and wasn't distinguishing between Fanning and Darcy.

Here's the updated equation set:
upload_2017-2-2_15-53-2.png


And the results:
upload_2017-2-2_15-56-8.png


Looks like this is about as accurate a calculation as I can provide given the parameters known? Thanks @Chestermiller and @JBA , I learned a good deal in this thread!
 

Attachments

Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
I thought of one more possible error- the water main's pressure will probably be specified at gauge pressure, meaning the discharge pressure P2 would be zero, not 1 atm (gauge pressure of zero).

That increases the flow a bit, see here:
upload_2017-2-2_16-13-21.png


I also tried a quick check by comparing calculated flow rates against a hose discharge chart here: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-discharge-hose-d_1524.html. The flow rates calculated by my sheet appear to be right in-line with the values from this chart.

Calculated values from my sheet (100 ft length for all):
  • 1/8" hose, 100 psi: 0.25 gpm
  • 1/2" hose, 40 psi: 6.38 gpm
  • 1/2" hose, 100 psi: 10.75 gpm
  • 3/4" hose, 40 psi: 19.02 gpm
  • 3/4" hose, 100 psi: 32.03 gpm
  • 6" hose, 10psi: 1965 gpm
  • 6" hose, 60 psi: 5202 gpm
Compare to chart from EngineeringToolBox.com:
water-discharge-hose-diagram.png
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K