This test demonstrates my ability to derive Bernoulli’s equation and apply it to series and parallel pipe systems. It demonstrates our ability to organize problems that require a high number of variables and calculations. Part one focuses on our ability to use Bernoulli’s to determine the head losses and pump head to determine the power required to push the require flow rate. Part 2 requires us to use 2 Bernoulli’s formulas for each pipe in a parallel system to determine the flow rates using iterations that are worked through in excel.

For part 1, in comparing my test to the solution, I was confused as to why the initial units were converted to metric. Was it more of a preference? My biggest mistake was trying to simplify the head losses into an equation for each section of pipe. I was able to solve for the correct Reynold’s number and D/e to get an accurate f1 and f2/f3 value for part 1. I had the correct conversions for flow rate to ft^3/s and correct velocity values. I should have solved for the loss of each part individually. It caused me to miscalculate some of the pipe losses. I did add the entrance and exit loss to my losses. I wasn’t sure that they should be there or not. If I were to separate each part individually, I would have been more organized and produced an accurate value. I followed the correct procedure for the pump power but produced an incorrect value due to previous mistakes in head losses.

For part 2, I was first lost in where I should start. I was able to select the current starting points. I derived a correct Bernoulli’s equation for each of the pipes. I was able to use the pump power equation to get an equation for each flow rate when the bypass gate was fully open. I was to solve for the fully open pipe before I would adjust the K value in excel. Due to inaccurate head loss values in part 1, I was not able to use the formula that I derived due to the values. When I inputted the values into excel, it was giving me a value that could not be used to obtain any accurate flow rate, or to show that I could iterate the rest of the values to obtain the friction factors and flow rates. If I were to obtain the accurate values for part 1, I believe I would have been able to iterate to find the correct or accurate values for part 2.   

I have broken down the rubric below to show what I believe is a fair grade.

5% – Procedure – I believe that my procedure statement showed that I understood the expectations of the problem and what I was to be solving for.

10% – Drawing – My drawing was accurate and labeled with the needed information with reference points for part 1 and 2.

5% – Sources – My source was present with the accurate description.

10% – Design Considerations – Design considerations had little that was needed. I was able to describe the relevant considerations.

5% – Data and Variables – My data and variables were present and accurate.

15% of 25% – for part 1, I was able to describe an accurate procedure. I attempted to simplify the head loss equations. For part 2, the procedure described was detailed and accurate to the process that was to be used.

5% of 20% – for part 1, I was able to determine the correct Reynold’s number and D/e, and solve for the correct friction factors. The issue with the calculations came with trying to simplify the equations for head losses. This mistake made the rest of the test difficult and unable to solve without finding this error. For part 2, I was able to use the data from part 1 to derive an accurate equation but with incorrect values that could not be used in excel to iterate for the values needed. I attempted to use arbitrary equations to show my ability to iterate, but it didn’t result in any accurate outcome. I believe I had an accurate set up for the excel to start the iteration process but was unable to iterate due to incorrect values in my head losses.

5% – Summary – I accurately summarized the test with details in where I was unable to obtain results needed to complete the excel part.

5% – Material – There was no material needed to complete this section. The materials that were described in the data and variable section show the data for water and the data for the fittings and parts.

5% of 10% – Analysis – I was able to use the information that I had to complete a partial analysis. Having inaccurate calculations did not allow me to complete the rest of the analysis.

In following the rubric for this test, I believe the max fair grade I could receive for this test is a 70% out of 100%. 70% of 90 points= 63, plus the 6 points for the Homework for a final grade of 69 out of 100.

My strength in this test was my persistence and determination to obtain an accurate result. My weakness was in my organization. I spent over 20 hours total on the calculations of the test. I continued to simplify each of the sections of pipe into an equation for each friction factor. I believed these to be correct, so I spent much of my time re-watching lectures and thinking that my formulas were the only issue. My issues were in my organization and not breaking down each head loss individually. This made the rest of the test difficult in trying to figure out where my issue was. I used an enormous amount of time on my test. The only thing that I would have changed was to break down each part individually for head losses. The new concept that I learned was in my organization of the problems. I believe this has given me a positive outlook on the amount of effort that I am able to put into my work.