Flow Meter Discharge Coefficient Estimation

Courtland Vice
Lab Group 4
November 19th 2019

ABSTRACT
Data was collected from a FME18 Flow Meter demonstration system which was used to
calculate flow rate, pressure drop, energy loss, and discharge coefficients were for three types of
flow meters. The three types of meters tested were venturi, rotameter, and orifice flow meters. As
the flow rate increased the energy loss increased for both the venturi and orifice flow meters,
however for the rotameter the energy loss stayed stable no matter the flow rate. Both the venturi
and orifice experimental discharge coefficients were slightly above the theoretical values.

KEYWORDS
FME18 Flow Meter, energy loss, discharge coefficient, venturi, rotameter, orifice

INTRODUCTION
Energy loss in pipe systems due to friction is unfortunately inevitable. A way to try to
account for this loss is by using a correction factor called the discharge coefficient. Discharge
coefficient, Cd, depends upon the shape and condition of the constriction and the degree of the
upstream contraction (Trout 2013). In order to obtain the discharge coefficient the flow rate must
be obtained first. Flow rate through a pipe can be determined by constricting the flow and
measuring the decrease in pressure due to increase in velocity at the constriction site. Flow
meters based on this principle are called obstruction flow meters are devices that used to measure
the flow inside of pipe systems (Cengel and Cimbala, 2014). A venturi flow meter, rotameter,
and orifice flow meter were used to calculate the different flow rates throughout the system.

The Venturi flowmeter Figure 1 was the first flow meter in the system. Its gradual
contraction and expansion prevent flow separation and swirling and it only suffers frictional
losses on the inner surface. It is the most accurate but also the most expensive of the flow meters
(Cengel and Cimbala, 2014).

Figure 1. Venturi flow meter

 The second flow meter Figure 2 used was a variable-area flow meter called a rotameter.
It is made from a clear tube with a free moving float inside. The fluid moves through the tube
where the weight and buoyancy force of the float balance. Rotameters have significantly more
energy recovery than orifices due to the more gradual obstruction in a rotameter than in an
orifice (Ramirez et al.). Accuracy of a rotameter is around 5 percent which makes it not ideal for
applications that involve precise measurements (Cengel andCimbala, 2014)

Figure 2. Rotameter flow meter

The third flow meter used was the orifice flow meter Figure 3. It is one of the most
simple and common flow meter. Due to its simplicity it does produce a substantial amount of
head loss from swirling and a sudden change in flow area (Cengel and Cimbala, 2014).

Figure 3. Orifice Flow Meter

OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the lab was to estimate the discharge coefficients for venturi and orifice
flow meters. Another objective was to quantify energy losses due to flow through venturi, orifice
and rotameter flow meters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An FNE18 Flow Meter from Edibon was used to measure volumetric flow rate and
pressure differences in the system. The system was composed of 3 different flow meters where
pressure readings where obtained from 8 different manometer locations with 1-3 being the
venturi section inlet, neck, and outlet. Manometers number 4-5 were the rotameter inlet and
outlet. Manometers 6-8 were the orifice section inlet, after the orifice obstruction, and further
down-stream of the orifice meter obstruction. A dump valve system and timer was used to
measure the flow rate of the system. A knob was used to adjust the flow rate for 6 different trials.
The difference of manometer height was used in relation to Equation 1 and Table 1 in order to
obtain the pressure differences with P being the pressure in Pascals,  being the density of
water at 20C (998kg/m^3), g being gravity at 9.81m/s^2, and h being the change in the
height of the manometer. Energy loss was calculated after the pressure using Equation 2.

Equation 1
𝑃 = 𝜌 ∗ 𝑔 ∗ ℎ (𝑃𝑎)
Equation 2
𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠 = ∆P/𝜌 ( 𝑘𝐽 𝑘𝑔)

Table 1. Properties of Rotameter, Venturi, and Orifice Flow Meters

Flow Meter ∆P A1 (m^2) A2 (m^2)
Venturi P1-P2 8.04*10^-4 3.14*10^-4
Rotameter P3-P4 not given not given
Orifice P6-P7 9.62*10^-4 2.83*10^-4

Flow rate (Q) was obtained using Equation 3 and the square root of the pressure drop
was calculated using Equation 4 with V equaling volumetric flow and t equaling time in
seconds.

Equation 3
𝑉 1𝑚3
𝑄 = 𝑡 × 1000𝐿( 𝑚^3/ 𝑠 )

Equation 4
𝑄𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 = √∆𝑃

Equation 5 was used to calculate the actual discharge coefficient (Cd) with slope
equaling the slope of the plotted line for either the venturi or orifice,  equaling the diameter
ratio. Equation 6 was used to calculate the theoretical discharge coefficient for the venturi meter
and Equation 7 was used to calculate the theoretical discharge coefficient of the orifice meter.

Equation 5
2
Slope= 𝐶𝑑𝐴2 √ 𝐴
𝜌(1−[ 2 ]2
𝐴1
Equation 6
6.53𝛽 0.5
Cd= 0.9975 − 𝑅𝑒 0.5

Equation 7
91.71𝛽 2.5
Cd=0.5959 + 0.0312𝛽 2.1 − 0.184𝛽 8 + 𝑅𝑒 0.75

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In Figure 4 when energy loss for the rotameter was plotted versus volumetric flow rate
the energy loss was almost constant. When energy loss for the venturi meter was plotted versus
the flow rate the energy loss increased gradually as volumetric flow increased this was likely due
to friction. Energy loss for the orifice increased the most drastically versus flow rate compared to
the other two flow meters this was also due to friction.
2.5

2
Energy loss (kj/kg)

1.5

Venturi
Rotameter
1
Orifice

0.5

0
0 0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035 0.0004
Volumetric Flow (m^3/s)

Figure 4. Energy versus Volumetric Flow Rate

When the Volumetric flow rate of the rotameter was plotted versus the square root of the
pressure drop in Figure 5, a vertical line was formed which relates to the trend in Figure 4 that
the pressure drop is constant as flow rate increases. The trendlines for the venturi and orifice data
were used to determine the slop of the line which was then used to calculate the estimated
discharge coefficient in Equation 5. The slop of line of the venturi flow meter was .00002 and
.00001 for the orifice.
 0.0004

0.00035 y = 1E-05x
y = 2E-05x
Volumetric Flow Rate (Q) m^3/s

0.0003

0.00025
Venturi
0.0002 Rotameter
Orifice
0.00015
Linear (Venturi)
Linear (Orifice)
0.0001

0.00005

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Square Root of Pressure Drop (Pa)

Figure 5. Volumetric Flow Rate versus Square root of change in Pressure

Table 2 shows the calculated experimental discharge coefficients from Equation 5 and
experimental discharge coefficients from Equation 6. The theoretical and experimental
discharge Coefficient was higher for the venturi than it was for the orifice. The % Relative Error
was higher for the venturi flow meter in comparison to the orifice. For both flow meters the
experimental discharge coefficients were decently higher than the theoretical discharge
coefficient. This meant that both flow meters had more energy loss than expected, this was likely
due to human error.

Table 2. Data Comparison of Experimental and Theoretical Discharge Coefficients for

Venturi and Orifice Flowmeters.
Flow Meter Cd Experimental Cd Theoretical %Relative Error
Venturi 1.3098 0.964 35.87136929
Orifice 0.7544 0.6174 22.18982831

CONCLUSIONS

Using the data collected from a FME18 Flow Meter demonstration system, flow rate,
pressure drop, energy loss, and discharge coefficients were calculated for the three types of
flowmeters. As the flow rate increased the energy loss increased for both the venturi and orifice
flow meters while the rotameter energy loss stayed constant. The venturi flow meter had the least
drastic energy loss with increasing flow rate which was expected due to its gradual contraction
and expansion. The orifice had a bigger steeper jump in energy loss which was expected and was
due to the sudden change in flow area and swirling. For the rotameter the energy loss stayed
stable no matter the flow rate. Both the venturi and orifice experimental discharge coefficients
were above the theoretical values by a decent amount, this was likely due to human error.

REFERENCES
Cengel, Y.A., and Cimbala, J.M., (2014) Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and Applications.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014. Print.

Ramirez, B. C., G. D. N. Maia, A. R. Green, D. W. Shike, L. F. Rodríguez, &R. S. Gates. (2014)

Technical note: DESIGN AND VALIDATION OF A PRECISION ORIFICE METER FOR
VENTILATION RATE CONTROL IN OPEN-CIRCUIT RESPIRATION CHAMBERS.
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASABE. N.P. N.D. 57(6): 1865-1872.

Trout, T.J. (2013) Orifice plates for Furrow Flow measurement: Part 1 – Calibration
Transactions of the ASABE Vol 29.