Undergrad Assumptions for Navier Stokes equations in this system

Click For Summary
Using Cartesian coordinates in the Navier-Stokes equations is valid for small gaps between the cylinder and pipe because, at this scale, the flow resembles that between two infinite parallel plates, minimizing the effects of curvature. The pressure gradient, dP/dz, remains constant under steady-state, fully developed flow conditions, allowing for the relationship dP/dz = (Patm - PL2) / L1. To find PL2, the pressure at the entrance to the gap, one must consider both hydrostatic and pipe flow pressure drops, leading to the equation PL2 = Pin - ρgL2 - (64/Re)(L2/2R)(ρUavg^2/2). The flow dynamics involve a combination of drag flow and pressure flow, where inertial and gravitational effects can often be neglected in small gaps. This analysis provides a comprehensive approach to solving the steady flow problem in this context.
dor040101
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
Why is it true to use cartesian coordinates for NS equations in the small gaps? How to find ##P_2##?
There is a cylinder which is held by a rope, inside a pipe. Fluid is flowing (laminar) in the direction of Q. I'm trying to calculate the velocity profile in the gaps between the pipe and cylinder, using Navier Stokes.

First question is, if ##\frac{R_1-R}{R_1}<<1##, which means the gap width is very small compared to the cylinder, is it okay to use cartesian coordinates in NS equations? why?

Also need to find ##\frac{dP}{dz}##, assuming the pressure is constant along every horizontal plane ##P=P(z)## (##z## is up).

I know that ##\frac{dP}{dz}=const## if the flow is steady state, fully developed and constant ##\mu##. So ##\frac{dP}{dz}=\frac{P_{atm}-P_{L_2}}{L_1}##

Given everything in the diagram, how to find ##P_{L_2}##? (pressure at entrance to the gap).

1741450963383.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dor040101 said:
TL;DR Summary: Why is it true to use cartesian coordinates for NS equations in the small gaps? How to find ##P_2##?

There is a cylinder which is held by a rope, inside a pipe. Fluid is flowing (laminar) in the direction of Q. I'm trying to calculate the velocity profile in the gaps between the pipe and cylinder, using Navier Stokes.

First question is, if ##\frac{R_1-R}{R_1}<<1##, which means the gap width is very small compared to the cylinder, is it okay to use cartesian coordinates in NS equations? why?
To an observer at the scale of the gap, it appears like the flow is between two infinite parallel plates. The curvature of the cylinders has little effect on the flow and pressure variation.
dor040101 said:
Also need to find ##\frac{dP}{dz}##, assuming the pressure is constant along every horizontal plane ##P=P(z)## (##z## is up).

I know that ##\frac{dP}{dz}=const## if the flow is steady state, fully developed and constant ##\mu##. So ##\frac{dP}{dz}=\frac{P_{atm}-P_{L_2}}{L_1}##

Given everything in the diagram, how to find ##P_{L_2}##? (pressure at entrance to the gap).

View attachment 358256
Inertial effects can be neglected (and probably gravitational effects also, if the gap is very small and the pressure drop significantly exceeds ##\rho g h##).

So what you are dealing with is a linear combination of drag flow between parallel plates and a superimposed pressure flow parallel to the plates. Do you know how to solve this kind of steady flow problem?
 
Chestermiller said:
To an observer at the scale of the gap, it appears like the flow is between two infinite parallel plates. The curvature of the cylinders has little effect on the flow and pressure variation.

Inertial effects can be neglected (and probably gravitational effects also, if the gap is very small and the pressure drop significantly exceeds ##\rho g h##).

So what you are dealing with is a linear combination of drag flow between parallel plates and a superimposed pressure flow parallel to the plates. Do you know how to solve this kind of steady flow problem?
I'm not sure because everyone makes different assumptions in fluid mechanics in this level... this is a question from an exam, the professor didn't neglect gravity. The NS equation is:
##0=- \frac{dP}{dz} + \mu \frac{d^2u}{d^2y} -\rho g##
where ##u## is the velocity at ##z## direction.
For the pressure difference, he actually assumed that the pressure drop in the entrance to the gap, is a combination of hydrostatic and pipe flow pressure drop:

##P_2=P_{in}-\rho g L_2 - \frac{64}{Re} \frac{L_2}{2R} \frac{\rho U_{avg}^2}{2} ##
Where we use Darcy–Weisbach equation for the pipe pressure drop.

Maybe your solution is above this level?
 
dor040101 said:
I'm not sure because everyone makes different assumptions in fluid mechanics in this level... this is a question from an exam, the professor didn't neglect gravity. The NS equation is:
##0=- \frac{dP}{dz} + \mu \frac{d^2u}{d^2y} -\rho g##
where ##u## is the velocity at ##z## direction.as
For the pressure difference, he actually assumed that the pressure drop in the entrance to the gap, is a combination of hydrostatic and pipe flow pressure drop:

##P_2=P_{in}-\rho g L_2 - \frac{64}{Re} \frac{L_2}{2R} \frac{\rho U_{avg}^2}{2} ##
Where we use Darcy–Weisbach equation for the pipe pressure drop.

Maybe your solution is above this level?
I assumed that the lower section was not supported mechanically from below, and, instead was sliding downward relative to the top plug. This would give it a downward velocity, and would result in a drag flow component downward. Otherwise, I would have gotten the same result as your professor. Basically, the flow contribution to the pressure change can be gotten as follows:

If Q is the volumetric flow rate in the gap, then the mean upward velocity is $$U_{ave}=\frac{Q}{2\pi R \delta}$$where ##\delta## is the gap opening. For flow between parallel plates, the shear rate at the wall is $$\gamma=\frac{6U_{ave}}{\delta}$$The shear stress at the wall is then equal to the viscosity times the shear rate: $$\tau=\mu \gamma$$ And the pressure difference solely due to the flow plus the pressure difference due to gravity is $$\Delta P=\rho g (L_1+L_2)+2\tau \frac{L_1}{\delta}$$
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
2K