Hazen-Williams is simpler to use than D’Arcy-Weisbach where The Hazen- Williams equation has narrow applicable ranges for Reynolds numbers and pipe. same as the H-W nomograph in the CERM. to solve several problems (example Friction head loss (ft H2O per ft pipe) in water pipes can be estimated with the empirical Hazen-Williams equation.

Hazen–Williams equation - Wikipedia

Why is it that when I try to solve problems using nomographs, the answers are typically errored signifigantly. I looked at problem 3. Ultimately, you are looking for velocity v for each pipe length for substitution back into the Energy Equation.

Velocity v cannot be determined from that nomograph you provided.

Hazen–Williams equation

This nomograph has an axis column for determining velocity. You have to be really careful with nomographs and other charts. I just used the flow rates for each segment. Didn’t bother with velocities. Willizms lenghts are, and feet. You need to be a member in order to leave a comment.

Sign up for a new account in nomograoh community. Already have an account? Posted January 30, I’ve tried to use http: I am trying to be very careful with my lines, but still - huge errors.

Am I using this method incorrectly? Using these methods would be a huge time saver, but is this a lost cause? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites.

Posted January 31, Looking back, I can get ‘close’ to the head loss using the chart I provided. I think I introduce lots of error due to the long lenghts of each pipe segment.

My feeling is that nomographs would probably be ‘closer’ for shorter pipe lenghts. Thanks for the help.

Create an account or sign in to comment You need to be a member in order to leave a comment Create an account Sign up for a new account in our community. Register a new account.

Sign in Already have an account? Sign In Sign Up.