N.Arun et. al.

/ International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology

Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3151-3164

CFD ANALYSIS ON DISCHARGE CO-

EFFICIENT DURING NON-
NEWTONIAN FLOWS THROUGH
ORIFICE METER
NAVEENJI ARUN*, MALAVARAYAN S, KAUSHIK M
Department of Chemical Engineering, Sri Venkateswara College of Engineering
Chennai, 602105, India
*
[email protected]
H.SRIANANTH
Tata Consultancy Services, Bangalore, India
[email protected]

Abstract:
Orifice meter is one of the most commonly used flows metering devices in the chemical process industries. It is
well known that for non-Newtonian flow, discharge co-efficient (Cd) is a function of Reynolds number and
reaches an asymptotic value at highly turbulent flow. CFD modeling was employed to determine the discharge
co-efficient as a function of Reynolds number with beta ratios 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 for single phase non-Newtonian
flows. Moreover, the analysis on discharge coefficient was performed for different concentration of the non-
Newtonian fluid. Generally, for higher Reynolds number (Re> 25000), the variation in discharge coefficient is
less pronounced and almost remains as a constant value ( Cd  0.6 ) which is similar to the commercial
standards. Discharge coefficient exponentially increased for the increase in Reynolds number from 100 to 10000
and then Cd values were constant for further increase in Reynolds number.

Keywords: Reynolds number, Discharge, Newtonian

1. Introduction
Orifice plate flow meters are simple and cost effective flow meters can handle large range of flows and more
than 80% of all the flow meters used in chemical industries are orifice plate flow meters. Orifice plate flow
meters are the most commonly used variable head flow meter. A pressure drop is generated across a fixed
restriction in the flow. Orifice meters have high pressure losses and correspondingly high pumping costs, but
because they are mechanically simple, they are cheap and easy to install [3, 4]. For small size lines, orifice
meters are much more common than other flow measuring devices. The discharge coefficients of all pressure
difference devices are affected by Reynolds number variations, so that they can only be used over a certain
range of flow rates. The throat of an orifice plate has a particular Reynolds number constancy limit below which
there are large changes in discharge coefficients. The shape of the expanding jet beyond the orifice is imposed
by nature. The vena contracta is smaller than the orifice opening and is approximately half a pipe diameter
downstream of the orifice plate. Orifice diameter is kept generally 0.5 times the diameter of the pipe, though it
may vary from 0.4 to 0.8 times the pipe diameter. Since there will be energy losses, the actual discharge will be
lesser than the ideal discharge. These two parameters are connected by the discharge coefficient.
Qact
Cd 
Qideal
The value of the Cd depends upon the geometry. Howland W. E and Richetta J. D. [6] emphasized on finding the
formula for coefficient of contraction. They predicted that larger the coefficient of velocity, greater is the
computed coefficient of contraction. Gan and Riffat [5] predicted that loss coefficient for the thin orifice plate is
3.4. This is about 8% higher than the measured value for the orifice plate and they have investigated on the

ISSN: 0975-5462 3151

 N.Arun et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3151-3164

effect of plate thickness on the predicted pressure loss coefficient for a square-edged orifice Plate. Turain et al
[10] stated that fine particulate suspension seems to approach limiting newtonian behavior at high shear rates if
preceded by power Law region. It was also found that in low shear range, turbulent flow data for each diameter
is steeper than laminar flow lines for 30.6% gypsum suspensions. Borutzky et al [2] obtained a theoretical
relation between discharge coefficient and Reynolds Number. They also obtained a theoretical relation between
fluid flow (Q) and pressure drop. Teyssedou et al [9] studied on the position of the orifice. They concluded that
the position of the orifice does not affect the onset of flooding Slugging. They also observed that frequency
decreases; either increasing the size of the orifices or placing the orifices further away from the elbow. Quinn
[8] developed an experimental study of a turbulent free jet of air issuing from a sharp-edged elliptic orifice plate
into still air surroundings. Variation of the turbulence intensities on the jet centerline and mean static pressure
distribution on the jet centerline were determined. Qing et al [7] compared the root mean square values of
different orifice diameters. It was found that small-hole orifice has a higher fluctuating pressure Level. They
concluded by saying that, usage of orifice with larger opening diameter can reduce the pressure fluctuations and
control the pipe vibration levels. They also found that higher the flow rate, the greater the intensity of the
fluctuating pressure. Bandyopadhyay and Das [1] had done a detailed experimental study on non-Newtonian
flows through pipefitting. Aqueous solution of Carboxy Methyl Cellulose (CMC) was used as a non-Newtonian
Liquid. A typical static pressure distribution curve was plotted for a flow of non-Newtonian fluid through orifice
plates .A plot was also made for the same fluid with different concentrations flowing through the orifice. The
objective of this work is to determine the discharge coefficient for a range of Reynolds numbers for single phase
Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids. The parameters which were taken into account are (a) Reynolds number
(b) Actual discharge (c) Pressure difference across the orifice meter.

Fig 1. Diagram of Flow through orifice meter

2. Theory
An obstruction to the flowing fluid is offered by a plate called an orifice plate with a hole of diameter in the
middle, as sketched in figure 1. When a fluid flows through the orifice meter, a constriction is offered to the
fluid and thus the velocity of fluid increases with decrease in pressure. The ratio of orifice diameter d to the
inner diameter of the pipe D is Beta ratio (β) represented as

 d/D (1)

The value of the ratio range from 0.25 to 0.75 for most of the commercial orifice meters. For flow across any
two cross sections, By Bernoulli’s equation,

P1 V12 P V2
  z1  2  2  z2 (2)
 g 2g  g 2g

Since the pipe is assumed to be horizontal,

P1 V12 P V2
  2  2 (3)
 g 2g  g 2g
By conservation of mass, for incompressible flow across the cross-sections 1 and 2 (Fig 1), we have

ISSN: 0975-5462 3152

 N.Arun et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3151-3164

V1 A1  V2 A2 (4)

where A1 and A2 are the cross-sectional areas and V1 and V2 are the average velocities at locations 1 and 2
respectively. The cross sectional areas at sections 1 and 2 are given as A1   D / 4 and A2   d / 4
2 2

On substitution of the expressions for area in eq (4),

V1   2V2 (5)

Solving the Bernoulli equation for V2,

2( P1  P2 )
V2  (6)
 (1   4 )
.
Since V2 is the average velocity at location 2, The Volumetric flow rate V is represented as

. 2( P1  P2 )
V  A0V2  Ao (7)
 (1   4 )

A0 is the area of the orifice (A0=A2)

There are some irreversible losses occurring in real flows and these losses are corrected by introducing
discharge coefficient Cd related as

Qactual  Cd  QTheoretical (8)

Hence, the final equation for volume flow rate is

. 2( P1  P2 )
V  Ao Cd (9)
 (1   4 )

A typical equation for orifice meters is

Cd  0.5959  0.0312  2.1  0.184 8.0  91.71 2.5 / Re0.75 (10)

valid for 0.25 ≤ β ≤ 0.75 and 104 ≤ Re ≤ 107.

3. Design of the system

Fluent is a state of the art program for modeling fluid flow in complex geometries. Fluent provides complete
mesh flexibility for solving flow problems with structured meshes that can be generated about complex
geometry with relative ease. Support type includes 3D T-Grid Meshes. The mesh size was maintained in the
present work as 1 m and skew ness was maintained below 0.9. The mesh count was maintained at 10. The
solution adaptive grid capability is particularly useful for accurately predicting flow fields in regions with large
gradients, such as free shear layers and boundary layers. In comparison to solutions on the structured and block
grids, this feature significantly reduces the time required to generate a “good” grid. Solution adaptive refinement
makes it easier to perform grid refinement studies and reduces the computational effort required to achieve the
desired level of accuracy. Since the mesh refinement is limited to those regions where greater mesh resolution is
needed. The analyses were carried out using nine geometry’s, which include parameters like pipe diameter and
Beta ratio (ratio of orifice diameter to the pipe diameter). Three pipe diameters (50mm, 100mm, 200mm) were

ISSN: 0975-5462 3153

 N.Arun et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3151-3164

taken into consideration for defining the geometries. The Reynolds number was varied from 100 to 100000
covering both laminar and turbulent regime. Totally three sets of Beta ratios (0.4, 0.6, 0.8) were used. So, for
each pipe diameter (50, 100, 200mm), three Beta values were employed. This provides us with nine sets of
geometry’s design details

Table 1. Details of Geometry

Beta ratio Pipe diameter (mm)

1 0.4 50

2 0.6 100

3 0.8 200

4 0.4 50

5 0.6 100

6 0.8 200

7 0.4 50

8 0.6 100

9 0.8 200

4. Definition of Properties

The properties of water are specified by directly selecting it from the material panel, with its density as 998
kg.m-3 and viscosity of 0.001003 Kg m-1.s-1. The Non Newtonian liquids were dilute solutions of SCMC
(sodium salt of carboxy methyl cellulose, high viscous grade, Loba Chemie Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, India). The
liquid and air temperature used were closed to the atmospheric temperature, 31±2 °C. Four aqueous solutions of
SCMC of approximate concentrations 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 kg/m3 were used as the non-Newtonian liquid.
Table 2: Properties of Sodium salt of carboxy methyl cellulose solutions
Concentration Physical properties of the SCMC solution

(kg m−3)

Flow behavior Consistency index

index n′ K′, (Nsn′ m−2)

0.2 0.9013 0.0142

0.4 0.7443 0.1222

0.6 0.6605 0.3416

0.8 0.6015 0.7112

ISSN: 0975-5462 3154

 N.Arun et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3151-3164

Material properties are defined in the material panel, which allows inputting values for the properties that are
relevant to the problem. These properties includes density, heat capacity, thermal conductivity, enthalpy,
consistency index, flow behavior index, effective viscosity, reference temperature
□
5. Results and Discussion

5.1 Variation in Discharge Co-efficient at CMC Concentration 0.2 Kg/m3 solution

Studies on the variation of Reynolds number was performed at CMC concentration of 0.2kg/m3 (Fig 2-4) and by
keeping the beta ratios at 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8. At higher Reynolds numbers, the discharge coefficient decreases from
0.75 to 0.65. At low Reynolds numbers, Discharge coefficient (Cd) increases till a particular value and then
becomes constant. At higher Reynolds numbers, the discharge coefficient decreases from 0.85 to 0.75. These
values are more than the values obtained for Beta ratio 0.4. The Discharge coefficient decreases with increase in
Pipe diameter for a Reynolds number range from 100-100000. It decreases from 0.9 to 0.75 for higher Reynolds
numbers.

Fig 2. Effect of variation of pipe diameter, Beta ratio (0.4)

Fig 3. Effect of variation of pipe diameter, Beta ratio (0.6)

ISSN: 0975-5462 3155

 N.Arun et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3151-3164

Fig 4. Effect of variation of Pipe diameter, Beta ratio (0.8)

5.2 Variation in Discharge Co-efficient at CMC Concentration 0.4 Kg/m3 solution

The discharge coefficient decreases from 0.68 to 0.64 for the increase in Pipe diameter. The discharge
coefficient becomes constant at higher Reynolds number (Fig 5-7). The discharge coefficient decreases for the
increase in Pipe diameter from 50mm to 200mm. These discharge coefficients are greater than that of 0.4 Beta
ratios.

Fig 5. Effect of variation of pipe diameter, Beta ratio (0.4)

ISSN: 0975-5462 3156

 N.Arun et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3151-3164

Fig 6. Effect of variation of Pipe diameter, Beta ratio (0.6)

Fig 7. Effect of variation of Pipe diameter, Beta ratio (0.8)

The discharge coefficient decreases from 0.88 to 0.76 for an increase in Pipe diameter from 50 to 200 mm for
the same range of Reynolds number.

5.3 Variation in Discharge Co-efficient at CMC Concentration 0.6 Kg/m3 solution

The discharge coefficient decreases from 0.72 to 0.65 for higher Reynolds numbers, since it is independent of
Reynolds number at higher values. The discharge coefficient decreases from 0.75 to 0.7 for Beta ratio 0.6 with
the increase in pipe diameter from 50 to 200mm. At higher Reynolds number, the discharge coefficient becomes
constant. The discharge coefficient decreases for an increase in Pipe diameter from 50mm to 200mm. At higher
Reynolds number, the discharge coefficient is independent of Reynolds number and becomes constant (Fig 8-
10)

ISSN: 0975-5462 3157

 N.Arun et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3151-3164

Fig 8. Effect of variation of pipe diameter, Beta ratio (0.4)

Fig 9. Effect of variation of Pipe diameter, Beta ratio (0.6)

Fig 10. Effect of variation of Pipe diameter, Beta ratio (0.8)

ISSN: 0975-5462 3158

 N.Arun et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3151-3164

5.4 Variation in Discharge Co-efficient at CMC Concentration 0.8 Kg/m3 solution

As the Pipe diameter increases from 50mm to 200mm, the discharge coefficient decreases from 0.68 to 0.65 at
higher Reynolds number. The discharge coefficient decreases from 0.73 to 0.68 for the increase in Pipe diameter
from 50mm to 200mm. The discharge coefficient increases for laminar flow and then becomes constant in the
turbulent regime. These values decrease from 0.9 to 0.3 for an increase in Pipe diameter (Fig 11-13).

Fig 11. Effect of variation of Pipe diameter, Beta ratio=0.4

Fig 12. Effect of variation of Pipe diameter, Beta ratio (0.6)

ISSN: 0975-5462 3159

 N.Arun et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3151-3164

Fig 13. Effect of variation of Pipe diameter, Beta ratio (0.8)

5. 5 Comparison of Discharge coefficient for water and CMC solutions

Analysis was done to find the variation of discharge coefficient for different beta ratios and pipe diameter. To
avoid complexity, studies were done at beta ratio of 0,4,0,6 and 0.8 only. In all these cases, the value of
coefficient was investigated at three different diameters i.e.50mm, 100mm and 200mm.

5.5.1 Beta ratio 0.4

As the solution density increases, the discharge coefficient increases. This variation is shown for geometry with
Beta ratio 0.4 and Pipe diameter 50mm. At higher Reynolds numbers, the discharge coefficient becomes
constant. The discharge coefficient increases for an increase in density of the solution. The variation of
Discharge coefficient with Density of solution is shown. As Density of the solution increases, the discharge
coefficient also increases (Fig 14-16)

Fig 14. Effect of change in solution, Pipe diameter (50mm)

ISSN: 0975-5462 3160

 N.Arun et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3151-3164

Fig 15. Effect of change in solution, Pipe diameter (50mm)

Fig 16. Effect of change in solution, Pipe diameter (200mm)

5.5.2 Beta ratio 0.6

The discharge coefficient decreases with the decrease in density of the fluid. It becomes constant at higher
Reynolds number. The discharge coefficient decreases from 0.73 to 0.68 for change in solution. At higher
Reynolds number, the discharge coefficient becomes constant (Fig 17-19). The discharge coefficient decreases
for a decrease in Density of the solution. The discharge coefficient is least for water for the same set of
Reynolds number.

ISSN: 0975-5462 3161

 N.Arun et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3151-3164

Fig 17. Effect of change in solution, Beta ratio (0.6) and Pipe diameter (50mm)

Fig 18. Effect of change in solution, Beta ratio (0.6) and Pipe diameter (100mm)

Fig 19. Effect of change in solution, Beta ratio (0.6) and Pipe diameter (200mm)

ISSN: 0975-5462 3162

 N.Arun et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3151-3164

5.5.3 Beta 0.8

The discharge coefficient increases with the increase in density of the fluid. At higher Reynolds number, it
becomes constant. The discharge coefficient increases with the increase in density of the fluid. At higher
Reynolds number, it becomes constant. The variation of discharge coefficient with an increase in Reynolds
number is shown. It is compared with different fluids and it increases with an increase in Density of the fluid.
The discharge coefficient decreases with the decrease in Density of the fluid. It becomes constant at higher
Reynolds number (Fig 20-22)

Fig 20. Effect of change in solution, Pipe diameter (50mm)

Fig 21. Effect of change in solution, Beta ratio (0.8) and pipe diameter (100mm)

ISSN: 0975-5462 3163

 N.Arun et. al. / International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology
Vol. 2(7), 2010, 3151-3164

Fig 22. Effect of change in solution, Pipe diameter (200mm)

6. Conclusions
Simulation was carried out for nine different geometry’s to study the effect of Beta ratio, pipe diameter on the
discharge coefficient of the orifice meter for a range of Reynolds numbers (100 – 100000) covering both
laminar and turbulent regime. From the results obtained for non-Newtonian fluids, it is evident that discharge
coefficient decreases with the increases in pipe diameter for constant Beta ratio. It can also be seen that the
discharge coefficient increases with the increase in Beta ratio for the same pipe diameter for all the fluids. The
results also show the variation of discharge coefficient with the density. This attempt was successful in
validating the CFD predictions with that of the literature available.

References
[1] Bandyopadhyay T. K and Das S. K. (2007). Non-Newtonian pseudoplastic liquid flow through small diameter piping components.
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 55,156–166.
[2] Borutzky B, Barnard, J. Thoma .(2002). An orifice flow model for laminar and turbulent conditions” Simulation Modeling
Practice and Theory,10,141–152.
[3] Dugdale D. S. (1997). Viscous flow through a sharp edged orifice. International Journal of engineering Science, 35, 725-729.
[4] Fossa M., Guglielmini G. (2002). Pressure drop and void fraction profiles during horizontal flow through thin and thick orifices.
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 26,513–523.
[5] Gan G., Riffat S.B. “Pressure Loss Characteristics of Orifice and Perforated Plates” Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 14, 160-
165
[6] Howland W. E. and Richetta J. D. (1937). Derivation of coefficients of orifices. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 223, 1, 83-94.
[7] Qing M. , Jinghui Z., Yushan L., Haijun W., Quan D. (2006). Experimental studies of orifice-induced wall pressure Fluctuations and
pipe vibration. International Journal of Pressure Vessels and Piping, 83,505–511.
[8] Quinn W.R. “Experimental study of the near field and transition region of a free jet issuing from a sharp-edged elliptic orifice plate”.
European Journal of Mechanics B-Fluids, 26, 583-614
[9] Teyssedou A., Onder E.N. and Tye P. (2005) “Air–water counter-current slug flow data in vertical-to-horizontal pipes containing
orifice type obstructions”. International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 31, 771–792.
[10] Turian R. M., Ma T. –W., Hsu F. -L. G and Sung D. -J. (1998). Flow of concentrated non-Newtonian slurries: 1. Frictional loss
through straight pipe. International Journal of Multiphase flow, 24,225 – 242.

ISSN: 0975-5462 3164