Fluid Mechanics Development Length

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of development length in fluid mechanics, particularly in relation to turbulent and laminar flow. Participants explore theoretical and empirical formulas for calculating development lengths and share insights from laboratory experiments involving head loss measurements in a pipe system.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that turbulent flow has a lower Darcy friction factor and suggests it has a shorter development length compared to laminar flow.
  • Another participant explains that the developed length is the distance required for the velocity profile to stabilize, emphasizing that turbulent flows take longer to reach a fully developed state.
  • A participant presents calculations for development lengths using given Reynolds numbers, finding results that align with their data but seem inconsistent with general theory.
  • One participant questions whether the Re=2000 flow is truly laminar, suggesting it may be close to transitional flow and that imperfections could lead to turbulence.
  • Another participant points out that the formulas for laminar and turbulent flow development lengths intersect at a Reynolds number of approximately 200, prompting questions about the implications of this intersection.
  • Some participants assert that the formulas are based on empirical relations derived from experimental data.
  • There is a discussion about the appropriateness of using turbulent flow formulas at specific Reynolds numbers, particularly around the transitional region.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of development lengths for laminar and turbulent flows, particularly regarding the implications of Reynolds numbers and the validity of the formulas used. No consensus is reached on the relationship between development lengths and flow types.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of the transitional flow regime and the empirical nature of the formulas presented. The discussion also highlights the dependence on specific conditions and assumptions related to flow characteristics.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and professionals interested in fluid mechanics, particularly those exploring the nuances of flow development in pipe systems and the implications of Reynolds numbers on flow behavior.

Enzo
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
Hey all

I wasn't 100% sure whether to ask this in the general forums or the homework forums, it's more of a theory question rather than straight-up calculation question. If this is the wrong forum, please notify me and I'll repost this in the homework forum.

I've recently done a fluid mechanics laboratory where we measured the different head losses of oil in a pipe system, taking readings of head loss at 18 intervals. We did this test 5 times, varying the velocity at which the fluid travels, thus altering the Reynolds number.

A discussion question for this report is to discuss the development length of the fluid over the 5 tests.

My data leads me to the conclusion that turbulent flow (or namely, high Re flow), which has a lower overall darcy friction factor, has a significantly shorter development length than laminar flow.

Intuitively, I would say that the fluids development length would be greater when it's turbulent flow rather than laminar, seeing that turbulent flow would require more force?

I guess the question that I'm asking is, what do they specifically mean by development length in terms of turbulent flow? I imagine development length in terms of laminar flow would mean how much length would the flow need to stabilize itself into wholly laminar flow?

The formulas for theoretical development lengths are:
Laminar: L' = Re*0.06*Diameter(pipe)
Turbulent: L' = Re^(1/6)*4.4*Diameter(pipe)

Thanks for any help!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
The developed length is the length of pipe required for the velocity profile to establish and maintain relatively unchanged. Assuming that the pipe geometry or surface does not change, the velocity profile is now only a function of radial distance from the pipe centerline.

Turbulent flows take much longer to reach fully developed flows.
 
FredGarvin said:
Turbulent flows take much longer to reach fully developed flows.

Understood

But given the formulas:

Laminar: L' = Re*0.06*Diameter(pipe)
Turbulent: L' = Re^(1/6)*4.4*Diameter(pipe)

And two values for reynolds numbers: Re=2000, Re=5000

I'm left with:

Laminar L' = (2000)*0.06*0.02m= 2.4m
Turbulent L' = (5000^1/6)*4.4*0.02 = 0.36m

Which matches roughly the data I have, but doesn't agree with the general theory?
 
I would venture a guess that your Re=2000 flow is not as "low" of a Reynolds number flow as you think. I would think that there are a couple of things that can be argued:

1) The Re=2000 is, depending on your rule of thumb followed, is awfully close to transitional flow. When someone talks about "low Reynolds numbers" they are usually referring to numbers like 100, 500 or so.

2) There is nothing saying that, even though you are at a Re=2000, that you can't have turbulent flow. Imperfections in the pipe, etc... can all cause wrinkles in the perfect set up.

I would suggest running your lower Reynolds number case at a much lower number and see if the theory starts to agree.
 
Those two formulas "cross" at Re of about 200 (wait...OK, at Re = 173). So, for Re>200 we see the formula for laminar flow is higher than the turbulent one. What does that mean? What's the basis for these formulas?
 
In turbulent flows, boundary layer grows faster & hence flow develops faster. Your results are based on formulas which are empirical relation, & are correct.
 
gmax137 said:
Those two formulas "cross" at Re of about 200 (wait...OK, at Re = 173). So, for Re>200 we see the formula for laminar flow is higher than the turbulent one. What does that mean? What's the basis for these formulas?
Most relations like that are based on experience and a lot of experimental data.
 
gmax137 said:
Those two formulas "cross" at Re of about 200 (wait...OK, at Re = 173). So, for Re>200 we see the formula for laminar flow is higher than the turbulent one. What does that mean?

It means that you don't use the formula for turbulent flow at Re=200:wink:
 
ank_gl said:
It means that you don't use the formula for turbulent flow at Re=200:wink:

Exactly - I was kind of hoping that Enzo, the OP, would fill in that blank.
 
  • #10
Thanks for the help fellas, definitely makes things a lot clearer. I guess I was just having trouble understanding why the gradient for development length for laminar flow was greater than the one for turbulent. And once again, physics forum clears things up :smile:
 

Similar threads

Fully Developed Flow: Laminar vs Turbulent
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Question about fluid flowing into branching pipes
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
Why is the flow rate reversing in this fuel delivery system?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Minor head loss for turbulent vs. laminar fluid flow
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
17K
Predicting flow rates of a pressure driven system
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Pressure loss pipe system: Conversion from known fluid1 to fluid2
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Construction of a model of a hydraulic damper
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
Fluid flow over part of an aircraft wing
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Bernoulli equation and parallel pipe branch
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
Which Pump Can Safely Circulate Fluid with Glass Spheres?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K