Fluid Mechanics: viscous flow in pipes

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the analysis of viscous flow in pipes, specifically focusing on the application of the Hagen-Poiseuille equation and the calculation of head loss in a fluid system. Participants are addressing a homework problem involving fluid mechanics, with an emphasis on laminar flow conditions and the relationship between flow rate, head loss, and friction factor.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the derivation of a specific expression for head loss and questions the substitution of the friction factor.
  • Another participant suggests writing a macroscopic force balance for the fluid in the tube to clarify the problem.
  • There is a mention of the relationship between the friction factor and Reynolds number, particularly for laminar flow, where f can be substituted with 64/Re.
  • A participant calculates a velocity based on the head loss and finds a Reynolds number that seems too high compared to the expected value from the textbook.
  • One participant identifies a potential error in the calculation related to the use of diameter in the equation, suggesting a factor of 500 may have been overlooked.
  • There is a discussion about the importance of carrying units throughout calculations to avoid mistakes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the application of the Hagen-Poiseuille equation for laminar flow and the significance of Reynolds number. However, there is no consensus on the specific calculations and methods used, as participants express differing views on the approach and the importance of unit consistency.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the challenges of carrying units in calculations and the potential for errors in the application of formulas. The discussion highlights the need for careful attention to detail in fluid mechanics problems, particularly when transitioning between laminar and turbulent flow conditions.

Feodalherren
Messages
604
Reaction score
6

Homework Statement


Untitled.png


Homework Equations


ρ=789, μ=.0012

The Attempt at a Solution


From the energy equation we get hf=0.9

We know that hf=f(L/D)(V^2)/(2g)
[sorry don't know how to use latex after they removed the bar on the right]

Now I can substitute V for Q, but I'm stuck with f and Q as unknowns and I only have one equation. The solutions manual did something weird :

128μLQ/πρgd^4

It looks like they substituted f for something, but I can't figure out what. I only know how to look up f in the Moody diagram or 64/Re for laminar flow. Did they iterate it somehow?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm confused over what you did. I assume hf is the head at the bottom of the 2 mm tube minus the head at the top of the 2 mm tube, correct? Can you write an overall macroscopic force balance for the fluid in the 2 mm tube? Let's see.

Chet
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Feodalherren
Feodalherren said:

Homework Equations


ρ=789, μ=.0012

Units, units, units! Always show the units!

The Attempt at a Solution


From the energy equation we get hf=0.9

We know that hf=f(L/D)(V^2)/(2g)
[sorry don't know how to use latex after they removed the bar on the right]

Now I can substitute V for Q, but I'm stuck with f and Q as unknowns and I only have one equation. The solutions manual did something weird :

128μLQ/πρgd^4

This expression is derived from Hagen-Poiseuille flow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagen–Poiseuille_equation

It's this equation which covers laminar flow conditions.

It looks like they substituted f for something, but I can't figure out what. I only know how to look up f in the Moody diagram or 64/Re for laminar flow. Did they iterate it somehow?

If you calculate the Reynold's Number for the flow, Re < 2300 indicates laminar flow, Re > 4000 indicates turbulent flow, and in between there is a transition zone as indicated on the Moody Diagram.

For Laminar flow, there is a direct relationship between f and Reynolds Number. :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Feodalherren
OK. I went through the derivation of the equations, and got the relationship you wrote down as well as the value of 0.9 m for hf. Now, for laminar flow, just substitute f = 64/Re into your equation, with Re = ρvD/μ, and then solve for v. This is basically what SteamKing is recommending. Then, as he says, once you know v, check the Reynolds number to see if the flow is laminar. If it is, then you're done. If not, then you are going to have to solve it by trial and error. To get you started, there are analytical approximations to f as a function of Re for the turbulent flow region that you can use to provide an initial guess.

Chet
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Feodalherren
Thanks guys! I'm still doing something wrong though,
this is what I get:

.9 = (64)(.0012)V / (789)(.002)(2)(9.8)

V = 362

Gives a WAY too high Reynold's number. The book has it listed at 795.
 
Feodalherren said:
Thanks guys! I'm still doing something wrong though,
this is what I get:

.9 = (64)(.0012)V / (789)(.002)(2)(9.8)

V = 362

Gives a WAY too high Reynold's number. The book has it listed at 795.
You should have a D^2 in the denominator, not a D. You're off by a factor of 500. Of course, if you had carried the units along with your calculation, you would have seen that immediately.

Chet
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Feodalherren
I usually carry units but it's just too much work when there are so many of them to take into account. Anyway, stupid mistake. Thank you again. I don't know what I'd do without this forum.
 
Feodalherren said:
I usually carry units but it's just too much work when there are so many of them to take into account. Anyway, stupid mistake. Thank you again. I don't know what I'd do without this forum.
I don't feel like it's too much work.

Chet
 
Feodalherren said:
I usually carry units but it's just too much work when there are so many of them to take into account. Anyway, stupid mistake. Thank you again. I don't know what I'd do without this forum.
Of course, if this problem were on a test, and you missed getting the correct answer becuz units ... :oops:
 
  • #10
I always include units on tests ;). I was trying to blast through this homework as I have a dynamics quiz due. I'll re-do everything in the weekend.
 

Similar threads

Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
19K