Fluid mechanics: finding friction factor, should be simple

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around calculating the friction factor for water flowing through a brass tube. The initial calculations yielded a friction factor of 0.0075, which was incorrect according to the textbook answer of 0.0185 and the Moody diagram. Participants clarified that for Reynolds numbers above 2,500, the Moody diagram should be used to determine the friction factor rather than the laminar flow equation. The correct approach involves recognizing the transition from laminar to turbulent flow and utilizing the appropriate resources for accurate results. Ultimately, the user confirmed they obtained the correct answer by consulting the Moody diagram.
musicmar
Messages
95
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Given: water at 20°C flows through a 3cmID smooth brass tube at 0.002 m^3/s.

Homework Equations


V=Q/A
f=64/Re
Re=VD/(nu)

The Attempt at a Solution


V=Q/A=(0.002 m^3/s)/((∏/4)*(0.03 m)^2) = 2.829 m/s

Re=VD/(nu)
= (2.829 m/s)*(0.03 m)/(1x10^-6 m^2/s)=84882.64

f=64/Re=0.0075


I know this is wrong for two reasons:
1. The numeric answer is in the back of the book: 0.0185
2. Looking at the Moody Diagram: there is no f value on the chart below 0.008.

Any help in finding my mistake would be appreciated.
Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Out of interest I've had a look at this, but I've not touched fluid flow since I was a student.

Here is a very similar example: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071223185604AAiTXv9

How does your working compare? I see you haven't explicitly used density. (BTW, you've lost one of the 0's from your ƒ.)

Here's a Moody diagram http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moody-diagram-d_618.html

https://www.physicsforums.com/images/icons/icon2.gif It seems to indicate that for Reynold's numbers up to about 2,500 the flow is laminar, the graph is a straight line so the Darcy–Weisbach friction factor formula ƒ=Re/64 applies. But for Re exceeding about 2,500 the flow is turbulent and you must consult the Moody diagram. If you do, I think you'll get your 0.018 figure. :cool:

How have I done? :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We had another problem that explicitly told us to use the Moody Diagram, so I guess I didn't realize it would be necessary, but you are right. I didn't use density because it is included in the kinematic viscosity, nu(didn't bother to find a symbol for it). I did get the right answer from the Moody diagram.
Thank you.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top