Comparing pressure loss to Blasius

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isabella F
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Loss Pressure
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on comparing pressure loss in a turbulent pipe flow simulation to the Blasius and Darcy-Weisbach equations. The user has conducted a CFD simulation and obtained a straight negative gradient for static pressure versus distance. It is noted that the Blasius equation is not suitable for turbulent pipe flow, while the Darcy-Weisbach equation is appropriate for this scenario. The conversation emphasizes calculating the friction factor from the pressure drop and using it alongside the Darcy-Weisbach equation to estimate theoretical pressure loss for comparison. Overall, the focus is on applying the correct equations for accurate analysis of pressure loss in turbulent flow.
Isabella F
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone. i have done a CFD smulation in fluent for a turbulent pipe flow and have plotted static pressure against distance x. from the graph i get a straight negtive gradient. i have been told that you should compare the pressure loss to Blasius equation and Darcy equation. How do i compare the pressure loss to this. thank you. the fluid is water, diameter is 50mm, inlet velocity is 1m/s and reynolds number 49760.
heres is the xy plot i get.

s63xox.jpg
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Well that seems awfully silly to compare to Blasius because (A) it is pipe flow, so Blasius is not representative, and (B) it is turbulent, so Blasius doesn't apply.

Comparing to Darcy-Weisbach should be straightforward though.
 
The Blasius friction factor f=0.079/(Re^0.25).
Is there a way to calculate friction factor from the presure drop? that is what i think i need to do and then compare to blasius friction.
 
Ah, I thought you were referring to the Blasius boundary layer. My mistake.
 
How do i do this then. I am a bit confused.
 
Just look up the Darcy-Weisbach equation. It is very straightforward. Use it and the Blasius correlations to approximate the theoretical pressure loss (head loss) and compare to your results.
 
Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved. He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been...
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...
Back
Top