Calculating Fluid Friction in a Spiraling Tube of Varying Diameter and Shape

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ameriu
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fluid Friction
AI Thread Summary
Calculating fluid friction in a spiraling tube with varying diameter and shape is complex, particularly due to the need to account for changes in diameter and angle. The Navier-Stokes equation is suggested as a foundational approach, especially for analyzing the relationship between fluid pressure and speed. For gradual changes, dividing the pipe into segments and summing pressure drops is recommended, while abrupt changes may require evaluating minor losses. The Hazen-Williams formula can be useful for turbulent flow in continuously decreasing diameters. Understanding the roughness coefficient's dependence on the Reynolds number is also crucial for accurate calculations.
Ameriu
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Well, yes, this is my first post here, and I do hope I got it into the right section (And no, this is not homework, and although I was thinking of posting it there; I also considered posting it in the engineering forum, but I believe it would fit better in general physics forum).

Would it be possible to calculate fluid friction against the walls of the tube, if it is moving within a narrowing pipe/tube, which is laid in a fashion that resembles Archimedean Spiral?

I've been looking for the solution for past few days, yet most of the fluid friction topics describe drag friction, or contain very vague formulas for "water friction against pipes", but none of the really let me take into the account the decreasing diameter and increasing angle of piping.
Additionally, how would that friction change according to the cross-section of the tube/piping (square/oval etc.)

Any directions on where to look for the solution of this problem would be appreciated!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My first post too! I think you are more interested in the relationship between the pressure of the fluid and the speed of the fluid as the volume of the conatainer changes. I would check out the Navier-Stokes equation.
 
If the changes in the diameter and angle are not too steep you can solve it by diving the pipe length to few (the more the better) segments with diameter of the average diameter in that segment, and then find the pressure drop for this segment and after that sum the pressure drops of all the segments.
If the changes in the diameter and angle are abrupt you can try solving it as a series of minor losses of bends and gradual contraction. Check this link for example for the minor losses - http://udel.edu/~inamdar/EGTE215/Minor_loss.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Hazen-Williams empirical formula for turbulent flow in pipes (tubes) can be used for calculating the pressure drop in a continuously decreasing pipe diameter (using an iterative program like FORTRAN):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazen–Williams_equation

This is probably a reasonable approximation for an Archimedes spiral, as long as the radius of the bend is large compared to the pipe diameter a any point.

The roughness (friction) coefficient depends on the Reynolds number of the flow. See

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=54&ved=0CCgQFjADODI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fudel.edu%2F~inamdar%2FEGTE215%2FLaminar_turbulent.pdf&ei=5rZuTL71Do-isAOc6qmiCw&usg=AFQjCNGighgb2ILl0zNI-EzgHnGsc5zWww&sig2=HBiWDv42IUVNv9vX-Fo2GA

Bob S
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you, this seems like the right piece of information I needed!
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top