- #1

- 102

- 3

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Mohankpvk
- Start date

- #1

- 102

- 3

- #2

FactChecker

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 6,181

- 2,388

A compressible fluid will not follow that equation since more can be squeezed into a smaller area.

- #3

Ranger Mike

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 2,167

- 227

- #4

Chestermiller

Mentor

- 20,975

- 4,604

- #5

- 102

- 3

- #6

- 102

- 3

Ok.For compressible fluids, A1V1=A2V2 will not hold.But in carburetors, till the throat they apply the continuity equation for incompressible fluids(air is the fluid). The throttle valve will be below the throat. At the throttle valve(air fuel mixtureis the fluid), in most of the books they would not apply A1V1=A2V2.Does air becomes compressible because of fuel addition?A compressible fluid will not follow that equation since more can be squeezed into a smaller area.

- #7

FactChecker

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 6,181

- 2,388

Air is always compressible. In some circumstances, the equations for incompressible fluids may give a good enough approximation.in carburetors, till the throat they apply the continuity equation for incompressible fluids(air is the fluid). The throttle valve will be below the throat.

The addition of fuel, with evaporation and cooling, may have an effect. I am not familiar enough with this subject to say more.At the throttle valve(air fuel mixtureis the fluid), in most of the books they would not apply A1V1=A2V2.Does air becomes compressible because of fuel addition?

- #8

- 275

- 211

- #9

cjl

Science Advisor

- 1,873

- 444

- #10

- 102

- 3

So, the continuity equation doesnt hold for a throttle valve (i.e. when applied for two points one before and the other after the valve along the flow) because it alters the nature of flow by sudden reduction in cross sectional area.Is this conclusion right?

- #11

FactChecker

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 6,181

- 2,388

I don't think that is what he is saying, but you bring up a good point that may be very significant. All the Bernouli-related results are talking about smooth, steady-state flow. A throttle that introducesSo, the continuity equation doesnt hold for a throttle valve because it alters the nature of flow by sudden reduction in cross sectional area.Is this conclusion right?

- #12

- 102

- 3

Ok. So the continuity equation cannot be applied for two points one before and the other after the valve along the flow, because it alters the nature of flow(makes the flow turbulent) by sudden reduction in cross sectional area.Is this conclusion right?I don't think that is what he is saying, but you bring up a good point that may be very significant. All the Bernouli-related results are talking about smooth, steady-state flow. A throttle that introducesturbulent flow is completely different.

Last edited:

- #13

FactChecker

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 6,181

- 2,388

I would say that it is not just the reduction in the cross sectional area -- it's the non-aerodynamic way it is done. But otherwise, I think that is right. That being said, I would defer to those who know more about this subject.Ok. So the continuity equation cannot be applied for two points one before and the other after the valve along the flow, because it alters the nature of flow(makes the flow turbulent) by sudden reduction in cross sectional area.Is this conclusion right?

- #14

Chestermiller

Mentor

- 20,975

- 4,604

No, it is because the density has to be present in the relationship. If the density is present, the continuity equation will apply even if the flow is turbulent. The continuity equation (in the for I specified) will be correct at steady state provided there is no additional gas added to the flowOk. So the continuity equation cannot be applied for two points one before and the other after the valve along the flow, because it alters the nature of flow(makes the flow turbulent) by sudden reduction in cross sectional area.Is this conclusion right?

- #15

FactChecker

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 6,181

- 2,388

My thinking is that turbulent flow through a restricted area would have flow forward, backward, and crosswise, so that it would be equivalent to a net non-turbulent flow at a lower velocity. (or through a smaller area) -- No, I don't think either of those can be correct.No, it is because the density has to be present in the relationship. If the density is present, the continuity equation will apply even if the flow is turbulent. The continuity equation (in the for I specified) will be correct at steady state provided there is no additional gas added to the flow

I'm trying to find an equivalence to the situation of an airplane wing where the airflow has separated from the upper wing surface. There is turbulanceon the top surface and the usual Bernouli calculations do not apply.

Last edited:

- #16

Chestermiller

Mentor

- 20,975

- 4,604

I have no idea what this means. At each and every cross section, if the flow is steady, irrespective of whether it is turbulent, the mass flow must be ##\dot{m}=\rho v A##, where ##\dot{m}## is the (constant) mass flow rate, and v is the normal velocity averaged over the cross section.My thinking is that turbulent flow through a restricted area would have flow forward, backward, and crosswise, so that it would be equivalent to a net non-turbulent flow at a lower velocity. (or through a smaller area) -- No, I don't think either of those can be correct.

- #17

FactChecker

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 6,181

- 2,388

How can steady flow include turbulance? They are not compatible.I have no idea what this means. At each and every cross section, if the flow is steady, irrespective of whether it is turbulent, the mass flow must be ##\dot{m}=\rho v A##, where ##\dot{m}## is the (constant) mass flow rate, and v is the normal velocity averaged over the cross section.

- #18

cjl

Science Advisor

- 1,873

- 444

- #19

FactChecker

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 6,181

- 2,388

Ok. I'll buy that. I have gotten well out of my area of knowledge and will bow out.

- #20

Chestermiller

Mentor

- 20,975

- 4,604

More important is the time scale for the turbulence. We chemical engineers learned our fluid mechanics from the classical text Transport Phenomena by Bird, Stewart, and Lightfoot, and they were very clear in emphasizing that, if the flow is averaged over the very short time scale typically encountered with turbulence, it is manifestly valid to consider the flow steady.

- #21

cjl

Science Advisor

- 1,873

- 444

- #22

- 102

- 3

Ok.But if mass flow rate is constant, how will the valve reduce the rate of air fuel mixture flowing through it?I have no idea what this means. At each and every cross section, if the flow is steady, irrespective of whether it is turbulent, the mass flow must be ##\dot{m}=\rho v A##, where ##\dot{m}## is the (constant) mass flow rate, and v is the normal velocity averaged over the cross section.

Even in case of flow control valves in hydraulic circuits(in case of piston cylinder arrangement), the speed of the piston movement can be controlled by controlling the flow rate.Here incompressible hydraulic oils are used.In this case if we apply continuity equation( i.e. if we assume the flow rate to be constant),how can the speed of the piston movement be changed?

- #23

FactChecker

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 6,181

- 2,388

Looking at the mass flow rate only, it looks as though the velocity can just go to infinity as the valve area decreases. But kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared, so the limited energy limits the mass flow for smaller valve areas. Consider a bucket of water with a small hole in the bottom. The energy available to push water through the hole is coming from the potential energy of the water level in the bucket. There is a balance point of the velocity through the hole where that potential energy reduction equals the kinetic energy of the water going through the hole. That is what limits the flow out of a smaller hole. Smaller the hole => the greater the velocity => the greater the velocity squared and the kinetic energy of the fluid going through the hole per unit of mass flow => so the mass flow must be reduced to keep the kinetic energy matching the potential energy reduction (which is only proportional to velocity, not velocity squared).

Last edited:

- #24

Chestermiller

Mentor

- 20,975

- 4,604

When I said that the mass flow rate is constant, it was implicit that I was talking about "constant with respect to spatial position within the control volume." When you use a valve to control the mass flow rate, you are changing the mass flow rate by increasing the resistance to flow (but this only affects the mass flow rate with respect to time, not spatial position at a given mass flow rate). The speed of the piston movement can change by applying more or less "oomph" to the piston (higher force).Ok.But if mass flow rate is constant, how will the valve reduce the rate of air fuel mixture flowing through it?

Even in case of flow control valves in hydraulic circuits(in case of piston cylinder arrangement), the speed of the piston movement can be controlled by controlling the flow rate.Here incompressible hydraulic oils are used.In this case if we apply continuity equation( i.e. if we assume the flow rate to be constant),how can the speed of the piston movement be changed?

- #25

cjl

Science Advisor

- 1,873

- 444

Share:

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 654