CE 321 Sample Laboratory Report Packet

This packet contains the following materials to help you prepare your lab
reports in CE 321:

An advice table with Dr. Wallaces hints regarding common strengths

and weakness of each section of a lab report
A sample cover memo.
An annotated sample lab report prepared on a fluids experiment
similar to one you might do in this course.

8/15/2003
 Dr. Roger Wallaces Points-of-View
on Successful Lab Reports

Report Component and Characteristics of Characteristics of

Specifications Success Weakness
Abstract
Consists of no more than 150- 9 Summarizes the entire study : Omits critical findings.
250 words. within word limits. : Refers reader to figures or
States the major objectives. 9 Employs concise statements. tables in the report.
Briefly describes the methods 9 Contains specific information. : Relies on vague language.
and materials employed,
especially if they are novel or
unfamiliar.
Summarizes important results
and conclusions.

Introduction
Lists objectives of the study. 9 Usually consists of 1-2 pages. : Fails to clearly define the
Provides background on the 9 Provides a rationale for the problem and the relevance of
experiment, including relevant experiment. the experiment.
theory on which the 9 Supplies sufficient back
experiment is based. ground for readers to
Refers to important previous understand and evaluate this
studies. experiment and its results
without having to read
previous publications.

Methods and Materials

Provides a sketch of apparatus 9 Identifies by name commonly : Includes unnecessary detail
and its components if readers accepted methods. and makes repeated use of
would not be familiar with it. 9 Provides only enough detail then.
Identifies the materials for a skilled lab technician to : Fails to use lists or diagrams
employed and their relevant replicate the experiment. when those would be helpful.
properties. 9 Provides more detail if the
Lists in order the procedures method is novel or unfamiliar.
performed.

Results
Presents all experimental and 9 Includes reduced data in : Fails to summarize overall
analytical results. clear, properly constructed results.
tables and graphs. : Fails to present data in
9 States results in clear language formats that reveal critical
and in past tense. relationships (trends,
9 Delays interpretation of cause/effect, etc.)
results until the Discussion : Fails to identify units of
section. measurement.

8/01/03 1
 Dr. Roger Wallaces Points-of-View
on Successful Lab Reports

Report Component and Characteristics of Characteristics of

Specifications Success Weakness
Discussion
Interpret the results in light of 9 Compares your results with : The conclusions exaggerate
what you expected based on published results, focusing on what the results would
published information. the same relationships. support.
Identifies the significant 9 Summarizes the degree to : Fails to give a precise
sources of error and assesses which the experiment engineering explanation for
the reliability of your results. achieved its goals. any failure to obtain results.
Comments on any : Fails to explain or interpret
abnormalities in the procedure the significance of errors.
that might affect results.
Identifies and explains any
unusual or surprising results.

Conclusions and
Recommendations
Lists the conclusions reached 9 List conclusions and : Offers a conclusion or
as a result of this experiment. recommendations in order of recommendation that has no
Restates any limitations, importance. basis in the results of the
assumptions or violations of 9 Links conclusions and experiment.
assumptions that might recommendations to the : Fails to caution the reader
qualify the conclusions. information in previous about any limitations to or
sections of this report. uncertainties in the
9 Cautions the reader about conclusions.
limitations and uncertainties.

Appendices
Provides detailed information 9 The report is logical and : Fails to refer to appendices
(raw data, calculations, etc) readable without having to in the text of the report.
that might interest only a few refer to the appendices. : Fails to clearly label and
readers, especially those who 9 The report identifies what identify appendix material.
must verify the validity of material appears in
your results. appendices.

General Hints
Revise, revise.
--check all table and figures for accuracy and completeness.
--check all equations and units of measure.
--make sure conclusions and recommendations appear in order of importance.
--avoid strings of long sentences.
--make sure adjectives and adverbs relate closely to what the data actually show.
--have someone read the report aloud to you.

08/01/03 2
 SES/ Spartan Entropy Systems, Inc.

Memorandum

To: Roger Wallace, Engineering Standards Director

From: Gabe Studenta, Engineer II

Date: 8/15/2003

Re: Calibration of an Orifice Meter

As you requested in your e-mail of 08/07/03, I have attached a copy of my final report on
the Calibration of an Orifice Meter Experiment. Note that discharge predictions from the
fundamental discharge relationship and the calibration equation produced errors below the
10% that you had stipulated. Note also that further experiment may resolve some
uncertainties regarding the use of Equation 1. That step might be especially valuable if we
want to use this procedure with liquids other than water.

Please call me at ext. 347 if you have any further questions.

This cover memo goes with the report and helps

the reader recognize what the report contains and
why he or she is receiving it. It also highlights
important findings. Remember that memos are
written to readers within the organization; letters
are written to people outside the organization.
Note that the style of a memo is less formal than
that of the report. Use of first person address is
natural and normal

Attachment: Lab Report

CEE 321: Sample Lab Report

Calibration of an Orifice Meter

Gabriel F. Studenta
Note the title and Engineering Standards Department
identification of the Spartan Entropy Systems
author. 1092 Skunks Misery Road
Polanyi, MI 48888

August 15, 2003

Abstract
An experiment was conducted to explore the use of an orifice meter and manometer
Note how the for predicting fluid discharge through a pipe. Fifteen sets of measured discharge and
Abstract begins manometer readings were obtained. Discharge was measured by volumetric methods.
with a statement of The calibration equation was fit to the observations. Discharge predictions from both
what was done and the fundamental discharge relationship and the calibration equation were evaluated
why. The style of and compared. Both equations appeared to be suitable for predicting discharge. The
an abstract is calibration equation provided predictions with less than 2% error while the
formal, with more fundamental discharge relationship had errors as high as 8%. While the calibration
frequent use of equation appears to be more accurate, the fundamental discharge relationship has the
passive voice than advantage of being applicable for fluids other than water. The higher errors associated
you might employ with the fundamental discharge relationship may have been caused by improperly
in other sections of zeroing the manometer. Measured values of the orifice coefficient K were within 10%
the report. of published values.

This abstract (146

words) has
appropriate length.
Method gets little
mention because it
was such a standard
approach. Note
also the mention of
specific results and
conclusions.

8/15/03 1
CEE 321: Sample Lab Report

Introduction
Note how the
Introduction begins Discharge in a pipe can be measured with an orifice meter composed of an orifice plate
with a description and a manometer. The orifice causes a pressure loss across the plate that increases as flow
of physical increases. The manometer provides a means of measuring the pressure loss and predicting
conditions that the flow. This application of orifice meters was explored through achieving the following
underlie the three objectives:
experiment. Here
we also find the
objectives of the 1) Verify the applicability of Eqs. 1 and 2, and compare the resulting equations.
experiment and an 2) Measure the dependence of K on Reynolds number in the apparatus and
overview of its compare it to published results.
structure. These 3) Determine the uncertainty (using least squares analysis) in the measured
objectives provide values of K, assuming that the uncertainty in K results from uncertainty in
the pattern for both the manometer readings and the information used to determine
organizing the discharge.
Results, Discussion,
and Conclusions.
According to Potter and Wiggert (1997) the fundamental discharge relationship for an
orifice meter is
Note the correctly
formatted Q = KAo (2 gR( S 1))0.5 (1)
equation, with
terms defined.
Here the pipe discharge Q (m3/s) depends on an orifice coefficient K, the orifice area Ao
(m2), the gravitational constant g and the pressure-head drop. In Eq. 1 the pressure-head
drop is determined by the product R(S-1) where R is the manometer reading in meters
and S is the specific gravity of the manometer fluid. The derivation of Eq. 1 depends on
three assumptions:

Heres an example 1) The Bernoulli Equation applies to this situation.

of a useful list 2) The pressure measured at the side of the pipe downstream of the orifice plate
format. Note the provides an accurate means of determining the pressure at the centerline of the
parallel
grammatical
pipe at that cross section.
structure of list 3) Coefficients can be introduced into the equation to compensate for the
items. following:
--that the conditions required for application of the Bernoulli Equation are not
met;
--that the pressure at the downstream pressure tap does not allow accurate
determination of fluid pressure on the central streamline at that cross section.

Experiments have shown that the coefficient K depends on two dimensionless

numbersthe ratio of the orifice and pipe diameters (Do/D), and the Reynolds number
Here the author
explains the Re of the flow. For any fixed diameter ratio, K only depends on the Reynolds number of
relevance of the flow and tends to a constant value at large Reynolds numbers. As the diameter ratio
previous increases, the variation in K with Reynolds number increases. Eq. 1 may be used to
experiments. predict flow without calibrating the specific meter if the meter is constructed and
operated according to established criteria. In this case K must be obtained from
published relationships.

The calibration equation

Q = C ( R( S 1))m (2)
8/15/03 2
CEE 321: Sample Lab Report

yields the relationship between pressure drop across the orifice plate and flow rate. Here
again the pressure drop is determined by the product R(S-1). To determine the constants
C and m one must measure discharge and manometer readings.

Even though there Determining the coefficients in Eq. 2 by the method of least squares gave the following
is room left on this calibration equation
page, we request
that you start each Q = 0.0102 R 0.4609 (3)
section on a new
page.
Evaluating the uncertainty K in measured values of K was accomplished by assuming the
primary sources of error were the values of Q and R. With that assumption, uncertainty
K could be calculated with the following equation

0.5
K 2 K 2
K = Q + R (4)
Q R

Here R and Q represent the uncertainty in measured R and Q.

8/15/03 3
 CEE 321: Sample Lab Report

Methods and Materials

The apparatus consisted of a pipe equipped with an orifice meter, a differential mercury
manometer, and a discharge control valve. A pump at the upstream end of the apparatus
supplied energy to the water in the pipe to make high flow rates possible. A calibrated
measuring tank, used to measure water volume, was located at the pipe outlet. A digital
stopwatch was used to measure time.
A diagram of the
apparatus is often
helpful. Always
allow at least two
spaces between text
and tables or
figures.

Figure 1. The Orifice Meter Used in This Experiment

The following procedure was used to obtain the basic experimental data:

1. Close all operating valves.

Again, note the 2. Turn on the pump that supplies water to the pipe with the orifice meter.
parallel structure in
the list, particularly
3. Open the valve on the discharge side of the pump.
important in 4. With no flow in the pipe loop, open the appropriate manometer valves and adjust the
procedures. If the manometer reading to show zero pressure drop.
list were longer, we 5. Adjust the flow in the pipe by opening the valve at the measuring tank. At this time
might need to the flow is diverted directly into the lower reservoir.
break it into stages 6. Divert the water into the measuring tank and measure the time required for a specific
with steps within volume of water to accumulate.
each stage. 7. Record the following:
--water levels at the start of the timed period and at the end of the period,
--the time interval,
--and the observed manometer reading.
8. Collect data for 10 to 15 different discharges.

8/15/03 4
 CEE 321: Sample Lab Report

Results
The basic data collected, calculations from published values, as well as properties of the
system, appear in Tables 2, 3, and 4 in the Appendix (p 10-11.). Z is water surface elevation
in the measuring tank, t is time that it took the water surface to rise from Z1 to Z2, and R
is the manometer reading in meters of mercury. Q is the measured discharge that was
Figures 2 and 3 determined from measurements of Z and t; Q=At(Z1-Z2)/t. Here At is the cross-sectional
present area of the measurement tank (Table 1), Re is the Reynolds number of the flow
comparisons of the
basic results of the (Re=4Q/(D)), and K was calculated with Eq. 1 using the measured values of Q and R.
experiment.
Figures show
relationships;
therefore they may 0.010

be more useful than

tables in the text of
the report. Tables,
especially long and
complex ones, are
often found in the
/s)
Appendix. Q 3 Q = 0.0102R 0.4609
(m

The author has

suppressed the
symbols that
represent the Measured Q vs R
Eq. 3
equation so they
will not be 0.001
confused with data 0.01 0.1 1

points (a helpful
R
idea). (m)

Fig. 2. Comparison of Eg. 3 and Measured Relationship

Well-designed Between Discharge and Manometer Reading
figures are self-
explanatory. Their
meaning should be
clear. Define all The relationship between measured discharge and manometer reading and the
units.
relationship described by Eq. 3 are shown in Figure 2. For practical purposes, these two
Note that figures relationships are identical.
are properly labeled
beneath the chart Eq. 1 was also used to establish a relationship between Q and R (Table 2 in Appendix).
area. Here K was found using the published relationship between K and Re by a trial and error
process described by Potter and Wiggert (1997). The relationship obtained with Eq. 1 is
compared to the measured relationship in Figure 3. Eq. 1 shows increasing deviation from
To the extent published values as the manometer reading gets smaller.
possible, place
figures in close
proximity to the
text that refers to
them.

8/15/03 5
 CEE 321: Sample Lab Report

0.010

(m 3 /s)
Q

Q = K A o (2 gR (S -1 ))
0.5 M e asured Q v s R

Eq. ,1 K fro m Fig. 1 3.10 Po tter and W igge rt

0.001
0.01 0.1 1
R
(m )
These figures,
together with the Fig 2. Co m p aris on o f E q. 1 an d M eas ure d R elatio ns hip B etw ee n
text, tell the story Disc ha rge an d M an om eter Re ad in g
of this experiment.
Note the careful
wording in the
figure titles. That Measured values of K (Figure 4) were determined from the experimental data using Eq. 1.
helps make the Values of K depended on the Reynolds number of the flow. As the Reynolds number
contents clear to increased from 41,100 to 137,000 the value of K decreased from 0.784 to 0.710.
readers.

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.80
K
0.75

0.70

0.65
Published K (Potter and Wiggert)
0.60 Measured K

0.55
1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07
0.50
Re
1.00E+03

Fig. 4. Values of the Orifice Coefficient K vs Reynolds Number

( Do/D=0.7)

8/15/03 6
 CEE 321: Sample Lab Report

Table 1 shows the

comparative data in Table 1. Comparison of Measured and Predicted Discharge
detailed format,
and so is useful in Experimental Values Equation 3 Equation 1
the text rather than R Q Q Error K* Q Error
in the Appendix. (m) (m3/s) (m3/s) (%) (m3/s) (%)
0.011 0.00127 0.00128 0.50 0.724 0.00117 -8.21
Make sure your 0.022 0.00176 0.00176 -0.40 0.718 0.00165 -7.16
data are aligned on 0.032 0.00210 0.00209 -0.58 0.716 0.00198 -6.08
the decimal points 0.043 0.00236 0.00239 1.39 0.714 0.00229 -3.10
and that values 0.052 0.00262 0.00261 -0.19 0.713 0.00251 -4.12
contain the same 0.064 0.00289 0.00287 -0.51 0.712 0.00278 -3.75
number of 0.073 0.00308 0.00305 -0.79 0.711 0.00297 -3.65
significant figures. 0.084 0.00326 0.00326 0.00 0.710 0.00318 -2.42
How many 0.092 0.00334 0.00340 1.76 0.710 0.00333 -0.27
significant figures 0.103 0.00360 0.00358 -0.67 0.710 0.00352 -2.29
depends on what is 0.115 0.00377 0.00376 -0.03 0.710 0.00372 -1.20
reasonable and 0.123 0.00390 0.00388 -0.42 0.710 0.00385 -1.33
useful for the 0.134 0.00402 0.00404 0.48 0.709 0.00401 -0.23
purposes of your 0.142 0.00414 0.00415 0.12 0.708 0.00412 -0.50
experiment.
0.148 0.00422 0.00423 0.25 0.708 0.00421 -0.21

Do not confuse * K from Potter and Wiggert

least count with least
squares. You Errors Q were assumed to be due to errors in Z. The absolute errors of 0.001 m in Z
should understand and 0.0005 m in R were assumed on the basis of least count analysis.
both terms

Note how carefully the author chooses words in throughout this

report. You should expect to labor a bit when trying to match
language and physical data. Therein lies the precision of a superior
report.

8/15/03 7
CEE 321: Sample Lab Report

Discussion
The errors Eqs. 1 and 3 can both be used to predict flow for manometer readings ranging from 0.011
mentioned in this to 0.148 meters of mercury. Eq. 3 predicted the measured discharges with errors less
paragraph are not than 2%; Eq. 1 was in error by less than about 8% (Table 1). Eq. 3 should provide
propagated errors, predictions with less than 2% error so long as the mercury manometer can be kept zeroed
but rather the at the same position that was used during the experiments. If the greater error observed
difference between with Eq. 1 is the result of an error in zeroing the manometer during the experiment then
what the equations it may be possible to improve the results that can be obtained with Eq. 1. This possibility
predict and what
was measured.
may be worth exploring because Eq. 1 has a significant advantage over Eq. 3 in that it
permits the meter to be used for fluids other than water at 16 C.

This paragraph The measured values of K fall within about 10 % of the published values (Fig. 4). This is
typifies the kind of reasonable agreement. Furthermore, these values show a tendency to decrease with
interpretation that increasing Reynolds number just as the published values show.
occurs in the
Discussion section Standard error propagation methods showed that measured values of K were subject to
and demonstrates
the difference
an uncertainty that ranged from about 2% at Reynolds numbers of 4.1(10)4 to less than
between Results 0.5% at Reynolds numbers of 1.4(10)5. The calculated uncertainty K (Table 4 in
and Discussion. Appendix) was used to construct error bars around each measured value of K (Fig. 4).
This analysis suggests that the values of K grow more uncertain as the Reynolds number
of the flow decreases. Nonetheless, within the range of the measured values, the
uncertainties in R and Q do not appear to explain the observed differences between the
measured values of K and published values.
Note how the
Discussion section
The values of K best agree with reported values at high Reynolds numbers, and they
goes beyond just
identifying the show an increased deviation from reported values as the Reynolds number decreased.
error, but also This consistent deviation suggests a bias in the results. A likely explanation, although it
discusses the source must be verified by experiment, is that the manometer was not properly zeroed during the
of errors and experiment. The improved agreement obtained by assuming a small (0.003m) zeroing
assesses the impact error is shown in Fig. 5 (in Appendix). To discover the true values of K in the apparatus
on the results of the requires that the experiment be rerun to verify the cause of the observed differences.
experiment.

8/15/03 8
CEE 321: Sample Lab Report

Placing
Conclusions
Conclusions in lists
makes them easier This experiment yielded the following conclusions:
to read and gives
them a clear Eqs. 1 and 3 can both be used to predict flow in this system for manometer
hierarchy. Note readings ranging from 0.011 to 0.148 meters of mercury.
how they derive Measured values of K fall within 10% of published values, a result acceptable
from the Results
and Discussion and
for all but the most carefully designed and executed experiments. Measured
are organized to values of K show the best agreement with published values at high Reynolds
reflect the original numbers. That agreement decreases as the Reynolds number decreases, but this
objectives of the effect does not entirely explain the disparities. Eq. 3 will provide more accurate
experimentone predictions if the mercury manometer can be kept zeroed at or near the same
bullet point for position that was used during the experiments.
each objective. If the greater uncertainty in predictions with Eq. 1 is the result of an error in
zeroing the manometer during the experiment, then it may be possible to
This experiment
improve the accuracy of predictions with Eq. 1. Further experiments to resolve
did not require
Recommendations. this issue may be worthwhile because Eq. 1 has a significant advantage over Eq. 3
If it had, they in that it permits the meter to be used for fluids other than water at 16 C.
would appear last,
in order of
importance, and
again derived from
what you learned.

8/15/03 9
CEE 321: Sample Lab Report

Appendix

Table 2. Experimental Data and System Properties

Run Z1 Z2 t R Q* Re K
3
(m) (m) (s) (m) (m /s)
1 0.02 0.25 65.43 0.011 0.00127 4.11E+04 0.784
2 0.07 0.30 47.11 0.022 0.00176 5.71E+04 0.770
3 0.15 0.45 51.61 0.032 0.00210 6.80E+04 0.760
4 0.02 0.25 35.22 0.043 0.00236 7.64E+04 0.737
5 0.02 0.30 38.66 0.052 0.00262 8.47E+04 0.743
6 0.02 0.30 35.02 0.064 0.00289 9.35E+04 0.739
7 0.02 0.30 32.87 0.073 0.00308 9.97E+04 0.737
8 0.03 0.35 35.49 0.084 0.00326 1.05E+05 0.728
9 0.02 0.30 30.31 0.092 0.00334 1.08E+05 0.712
10 0.03 0.35 32.09 0.103 0.00360 1.17E+05 0.727
11 0.02 0.30 26.86 0.115 0.00377 1.22E+05 0.719
12 0.07 0.40 30.57 0.123 0.00390 1.26E+05 0.720
13 0.10 0.45 31.45 0.134 0.00402 1.30E+05 0.711
14 0.05 0.40 30.51 0.142 0.00414 1.34E+05 0.712
15 0.14 0.50 30.83 0.148 0.00422 1.37E+05 0.710

Do (m) = 0.03541 (m2/s) 1.14(10)-6

=
Ao (m2) = 0.0009848 S= 13.55
At (m2) = 0.3612
D (m) = 0.0508
T (C) = 16
*Q = At (Z2-Z1)/(100t)

08/15/03 10
CEE 321: Sample Lab Report

Appendix
Table 3. Q vs R From Published Table 4. Error in K
Values of K
0.5
Q = KAo (2gR(S-1))
K K
K+ K
K-
R Q Re K*
3
(m) (m /sec)
0.018 0.802 0.766
0.011 0.00117 3.79E+04 0.724
0.009 0.779 0.761
0.022 0.00165 5.31E+04 0.718
0.006 0.767 0.754
0.032 0.00198 6.39E+04 0.716
0.043 0.00229 7.39E+04 0.714 0.005 0.742 0.731
0.052 0.00251 8.11E+04 0.713 0.004 0.747 0.738
0.064 0.00278 8.98E+04 0.712 0.004 0.743 0.735
0.073 0.00297 9.58E+04 0.711 0.004 0.741 0.734
0.084 0.00318 1.03E+05 0.710 0.003 0.731 0.725
0.092 0.00333 1.07E+05 0.710 0.003 0.716 0.709
0.103 0.00352 1.14E+05 0.710 0.003 0.730 0.724
0.115 0.00372 1.20E+05 0.710 0.003 0.722 0.716
0.123 0.00385 1.24E+05 0.710 0.003 0.723 0.717
0.134 0.00401 1.29E+05 0.709 0.002 0.714 0.709
0.142 0.00412 1.33E+05 0.708
0.002 0.714 0.710
0.148 0.00421 1.36E+05 0.708
0.002 0.712 0.708
K* from Fig. 13.10 Potter and Wiggert

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.80

K 0.75

0.70

0.65

0.60
K Based on Adjusted Values of R
0.55
Published K (Potter and Wiggert)
0.50
1.00E+03 1.00E+04 1.00E+05 1.00E+06 1.00E+07
Re

Fig. 5. Values of the Orifice Coefficient vs Reynolds Number

(Based on Adjusted Values of R)

08/15/03 11
 References
1. Merle C. Potter and David C, Wiggert. Mechanics of Fluids, 2nd Ed. 1997.
Prentice-Hall.

8/15/2003 12