Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Hydraulic Loss of Finite Length Dividing Junctions

[+] Author and Article Information
András Tomor

Department of Fluid Mechanics,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Budapest University of
Technology and Economics,
Bertalan Lajos Street 4-6,
Budapest H-1111, Hungary
e-mail: tomor@ara.bme.hu

Gergely Kristóf

Department of Fluid Mechanics,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,
Budapest University of
Technology and Economics,
Bertalan Lajos Street 4-6,
Budapest H-1111, Hungary
e-mail: kristof@ara.bme.hu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received May 12, 2016; final manuscript received October 2, 2016; published online January 19, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Francine Battaglia.

J. Fluids Eng 139(3), 031104 (Jan 19, 2017) (11 pages) Paper No: FE-16-1303; doi: 10.1115/1.4034876 History: Received May 12, 2016; Revised October 02, 2016

A general hydraulic loss coefficient correlation for perpendicular, cylindrical, finite length dividing pipe junctions is developed and implemented in a discrete dividing-flow manifold model. Dividing-flow manifolds are used in several technical appliances, e.g., in water and wastewater treatment, swimming pool technology, air engineering, and polymer processing. Ensuring uniform flow distribution is a major goal of a flow manifold system design, whose accuracy is usually determined by the accuracies of applied flow coefficients. Coefficient of turning losses is calculated by a computational fluid dynamics (CFD)-based approach applying a nonlinear fit. In the case of a single-phase flow, the loss coefficient depends on four dimensionless parameters: the Reynolds number, the ratio of port and header flow velocities, the diameter ratio, and the ratio of the port length and the diameter of the pipe. Instead of experimentally covering this four-dimensional parameter space, more than 1000 judiciously chosen three-dimensional simulations were run to determine the loss coefficient for the parameter range most used in engineering practice. Validated results of our novel resistance formula show that the velocity and port length to header diameter ratios have a significant effect on the turning loss coefficient, while the diameter ratio and Reynolds number dependency are weaker in the investigated parameter ranges.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Liseth, P. , 1976, “ Wastewater Disposal by Submerged Manifolds,” ASCE J. Hydraul. Div., 102(1), pp. 1–14.
Matsubara, Y. , 1979, “ Geometry Design of a Coat-Hanger Die With Uniform Flow Rate and Residence Time Across the Die Width,” Polym. Eng. Sci., 19(3), pp. 169–172. [CrossRef]
Holmes, J. D. , and Lewis, R. E. , 1987, “ Optimization of Dynamic-Pressure-Measurement Systems. II. Parallel Tube-Manifold Systems,” J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 25(3), pp. 275–290. [CrossRef]
Bassiouny, M. K. , and Martin, H. , 1984, “ Flow Distribution and Pressure Drop in Plate Heat Exchangers–I U-Type Arrangement,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 39(4), pp. 693–700. [CrossRef]
Wang, J. , 2008, “ Pressure Drop and Flow Distribution in Parallel-Channel Configurations of Fuel Cells: U-Type Arrangement,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 33(21), pp. 6339–6350. [CrossRef]
Wang, J. , 2010, “ Pressure Drop and Flow Distribution in Parallel-Channel Configurations of Fuel Cells: Z-Type Arrangement,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 35(11), pp. 5498–5509. [CrossRef]
Wang, J. , Gao, Z. , Gan, G. , and Wu, D. , 2001, “ Analytical Solution of Flow Coefficients for a Uniformly Distributed Porous Channel,” Chem. Eng. J., 84(1), pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
Hassan, J. M. , Mohammed, W. S. , Mohamed, T. A. , and Alawee, W. H. , 2014, “ Review on Single-Phase Fluid Flow Distribution in Manifold,” Int. J. Sci. Res. (IJSR), 3(1), pp. 325–330.
Wang, J. , 2011, “ Flow Distribution and Pressure Drop in Different Layout Configurations With Z-Type Arrangement,” Energy Sci. Technol., 2(2), pp. 1–12.
Wang, J. , 2013, “ Design Method of Flow Distribution in Nuclear Reactor Systems,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 91(4), pp. 595–602. [CrossRef]
Datta, A. B. , and Majumdar, A. K. , 1980, “ Flow Distribution in Parallel and Reverse Flow Manifolds,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 2(4), pp. 253–262. [CrossRef]
López, R. , Lecuona, A. , Ventas, R. , and Vereda, C. , 2012, “ A Numerical Procedure for Flow Distribution and Pressure Drops for U and Z Type Configurations Plate Heat Exchangers With Variable Coefficients,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., 395(1), p. 012060. [CrossRef]
Wang, J. , and Wang, H. , 2015, “ Discrete Method for Design of Flow Distribution in Manifolds,” Appl. Therm. Eng., 89(1), pp. 927–945. [CrossRef]
Hassan, J. M. , AbdulRazzaq, A. , and Kamil, B. K. , 2008, “ Flow Distribution in Manifolds,” J. Eng. Dev., 12(4), pp. 159–177.
Hassan, J. M. , Mohammed, W. S. , and Hameed, A. F. , 2012, “ Study of Three Dimensional Fluid Flow in Manifold-Laterals System,” Eng. Technol. J., 30(7), pp. 1132–1148.
Heggemann, M. , Hirschberg, S. , Spiegel, L. , and Bachmann, C. , 2007, “ CFD Simulation and Experimental Validation of Fluid Flow in Liquid Distributors,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 85(1), pp. 59–64. [CrossRef]
Tonomura, O. , Tanaka, S. , Noda, M. , Kano, M. , Hasebe, S. , and Hashimoto, I. , 2004, “ CFD-Based Optimal Design of Manifold in Plate-Fin Microdevices,” Chem. Eng. J., 101(1–3), pp. 397–402. [CrossRef]
Chen, A. , and Sparrow, E. M. , 2009, “ Turbulence Modeling for Flow in a Distribution Manifold,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 52(5–6), pp. 1573–1581. [CrossRef]
Yuan, J. , Rokni, M. , and Sundén, B. , 2001, “ Simulation of Fully Developed Laminar Heat and Mass Transfer in Fuel Cell Ducts With Different Cross-Sections,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 44(21), pp. 4047–4058. [CrossRef]
Kulkarni, A. V. , Roy, S. S. , and Joshi, J. B. , 2007, “ Pressure and Flow Distribution in Pipe and Ring Spargers: Experimental Measurements and CFD Simulation,” Chem. Eng. J., 133(1–3), pp. 173–186. [CrossRef]
Kapadia, S. , and Anderson, W. K. , 2009, “ Sensitivity Analysis for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Using a Three-Dimensional Numerical Model,” J. Power Sources, 189(2), pp. 1074–1082. [CrossRef]
Gandhi, M. S. , Ganguli, A. A. , Joshi, J. B. , and Vijayan, P. K. , 2012, “ CFD Simulation for Steam Distribution in Header and Tube Assemblies,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 90(4), pp. 487–506. [CrossRef]
Miller, D. S. , 1990, Internal Flow Systems, 2nd ed., BHRA (Information Services), Cranfield, Bedford, UK, pp. 87–95.
Idelchik, I. E. , 2008, Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance, 3rd ed., Jaico Publishing House, Mumbai, India, pp. 413–451.
Kubo, T. , and Ueda, T. , 1969, “ On the Characteristics of Divided Flow and Confluent Flow in Headers,” Bull. JSME, 12(52), pp. 802–809. [CrossRef]
Wang, J. , 2011, “ Theory of Flow Distribution in Manifolds,” Chem. Eng. J., 168(3), pp. 1331–1345. [CrossRef]
Liu, W. , Long, Z. , and Chen, Q. , 2012, “ A Procedure for Predicting Pressure Loss Coefficients of Duct Fittings Using Computational Fluid Dynamics (RP-1493),” HVACR Res., 18(6), pp. 1168–1181.
Badar, A. W. , Buchholz, R. , Lou, Y. , and Ziegler, F. , 2012, “ CFD Based Analysis of Flow Distribution in a Coaxial Vacuum Tube Solar Collector With Laminar Flow Conditions,” Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng., 3(1), p. 24. [CrossRef]
Ramamurthy, A. S. , Qu, J. , Vo, D. , and Zhai, C. , 2006, “ 3-D Simulation of Dividing Flows in 90 Deg Rectangular Closed Conduits,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 128(5), pp. 1126–1129. [CrossRef]
Acrivos, A. , Babcock, B. D. , and Pigford, R. L. , 1958, “ Flow Distributions in Manifolds,” Chem. Eng. Sci., 10(1–2), pp. 112–124.
Bajura, R. A. , and Jones, E. H. , 1976, “ Flow Distribution Manifolds,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 98(4), pp. 654–665. [CrossRef]
Menter, F. R. , 1994, “ Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J., 32(8), pp. 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
Tomor, A. , and Kristóf, G. , 2016, “ Validation of a Discrete Model for Flow Distribution in Dividing-Flow Manifolds: Numerical and Experimental Studies,” Period. Polytech., Mech. Eng., 60(1), pp. 41–49. [CrossRef]
Celik, I . B. , Ghia, U. , Roache, P. J. , and Freitas, C. J. , 2008, “ Procedure for Estimation and Reporting of Uncertainty Due to Discretization in CFD Applications,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 130(7), p. 078001. [CrossRef]
Pigford, R. L. , Ashraf, M. , and Miron, Y. D. , 1983, “ Flow Distribution in Piping Manifolds,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam., 22(4), pp. 463–471. [CrossRef]
Costa, N. P. , Maia, R. , Proença, M. F. , and Pinho, F. T. , 2006, “ Edge Effects on the Flow Characteristics in a 90 Deg Tee Junction,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 128(6), pp. 1204–1217. [CrossRef]
Bajura, R. A. , 1971, “ A Model for Flow Distribution in Manifolds,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 93(1), pp. 7–12. [CrossRef]
Majumdar, A. K. , 1980, “ Mathematical Modelling of Flows in Dividing and Combining Flow Manifold,” Appl. Math. Modell., 4(6), pp. 424–432. [CrossRef]
Wang, J. , and Wang, H. , 2012, “ Discrete Approach for Flow Field Designs of Parallel Channel Configurations in Fuel Cells,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 37(14), pp. 10881–10897. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Types of flow manifolds

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Geometrical model of the junction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

A typical mesh for the investigated flow manifold segment. Presented geometry: D2/D1 = L2/D1 = 0.625 (D1 = 0.02 m). Cell number: 240,000 (a) numerical mesh with boundary conditions and (b) mesh zone details.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Major geometrical and flow properties of a dividing junction

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Representative results of the fitting procedure: total pressure loss as a function of the velocity ratio for fitting both loss coefficients. Re1 = 80,000… 200,000.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Representative results—loss coefficients as a function of Re1; D2/D1 = L2/D1 = 0.625 (a) fitting two loss coefficients and (b) fitting only one loss coefficient (assuming ζ1 = 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Turning loss coefficients as a function of the velocity ratio for the two different approaches

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Structure of a dividing-flow manifold

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Locations of demonstrated velocity profiles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of simulated (present) and measured [36] inlet velocity profiles; vb = 1.07 m/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Comparison of simulated (present) velocity profiles with experimental data [36] around the bifurcation region; vb = 1.07 m/s, (a) profile P2, (b) profile P3, and (c) profile P4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Turning loss coefficients as a function of the velocity ratio—comparison of calculated values with literature data (a) D2/D1 = 0.625, Re1 = 10,000 and (b) D2/D1 = 0.75, Re1 = 300,000

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Turning loss coefficients as a function of the velocity ratio—comparison of calculated values with literature data: the small vicinity of the critical velocity ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Turning loss coefficient as a function of the ratio of the port length and the inner diameter of the header pipe for fitting both loss coefficients—validation of the asymptotic values for large L2/D1. Re1 = 300,000.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Turning loss coefficient as a function of the diameter ratio for three different port lengths to header diameter ratios

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Effect of Reynolds number on the turning loss coefficient

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison of calculated dimensionless volume flow rate distributions to experimental data (a) comparison with data of Acrivos et al. [30] and (b) comparison with data of Bajura [37]



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In