Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Pressure drop does not match theory

  1. Jul 18, 2016 #1
    I've modeled a U-Pipe with laminar flow. The pressure drop from Fluent is about 3 kpa , but by theory it should be about 6 kpa (checked several times and I'm sure)
    My mesh is very fine and boundary conditions are vel-inlet and pre-outlet and wall. Would you please help me with the problem?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 18, 2016 #2

    boneh3ad

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Based on which theory?
     
  4. Jul 18, 2016 #3
    Darcy. The formula :
    Delta P = f * (L/D) * (V^2/2) * rho
     
  5. Jul 18, 2016 #4

    boneh3ad

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That likely suggests that your estimate for ##f## is incorrect, since the other values are pretty straightforward.
     
  6. Jul 18, 2016 #5
    Since in laminar flow f = 64/Re and Re=rho*V*D/dynamic viscosity ,f is also easy to calculate. And I'm sure about my theoretical answer.I think there must be some kind of special setting or algorithm & method change in Fluent I should take care of.
     
  7. Jul 18, 2016 #6

    boneh3ad

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The most obvious culprit with Fluent is that it is allowing the flow to be turbulent while your model assumes laminar flow. However, this would produce an error in the opposite direction. You'd expect a higher pressure drop in the turbulent case. In other words, if Fluent was modeling the flow as turbulent, you should see a higher calculated pressure drop, and your answer would tend to be higher than theory (if the theory is correct).

    On the other hand, it is possible that, for a U-bend in the pipe, there would be additional losses associated with the bend that aren't accounted for in the Darcy-Weisbach equation. However, this again would tend to mean that your predictions get worse than they already are, not better. In other words, if all of your parameters in the Darcy-Weisbach equation were correct and the problem was leaving out losses associated with the bend, then you would expect that theory again is predicting less than Fluent (assuming your Fluent is correct).

    The next best bet is that your friction factor is not estimated properly for the geometry that you put into Fluent or that something was wrong with your Fluent simulation. I don't know what to tell you there. Maybe your estimated your Reynolds number incorrectly or turned the wrong bells and whistles in Fluent.
     
  8. Jul 18, 2016 #7
    What do you get if you run Fluent for a straight pipe of the same length?
     
  9. Jul 18, 2016 #8
    Thank you for you answer dear friend. The velocity is 0.585 m/s and D=0.01905 m, density= 992.3 kg/m^3, Dyn. viscosity=0.058 Pa.s . So Re number is about 190 and certainly it is laminar flow.
    About loss for bend. Yes you are right and I have also considered and calculated them. They are very small compared with the main loss though since it's low Re problem. So makes not much difference. And as you said it makes the problem even worse.
     
  10. Jul 18, 2016 #9
    I also tried this way. The same results come out. Still the fluent pressure drop is half the theoric amount.
    I even tried CFX to model it. Again the same results were achieved.
     
  11. Jul 19, 2016 #10
    Let's see your hand calculation.
     
  12. Jul 19, 2016 #11
    e1a289f3ad.jpe
     
  13. Jul 19, 2016 #12

    boneh3ad

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What is your source for estimating viscosity? To me it looks like you are off by several orders of magnitude there.
     
  14. Jul 19, 2016 #13
    I confirm your hand calculation of the pressure drop. So the error must be in the implementation of the Fluent calculation. It sounds like you did not use the correct tube length. Is that possible? Did you only use half the U?
     
  15. Jul 19, 2016 #14
    They are reported in a project of experimental work. I also tried with another case and material which had the viscosity of 0.108 Pa.s
    The results were in the same manner. If you mean my viscosity amount is not normal what should be the range of normal viscosity?
     
  16. Jul 19, 2016 #15

    boneh3ad

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Did you check his value for viscosity? Assuming the working fluid is water (based on the density value he used), then his viscosity should be in the ballpark of 0.65×10-3 Pa⋅s, quite a bit lower than what he has used.

    What is your working fluid here?
     
  17. Jul 19, 2016 #16
    No I checked it several times. The lengths are all correct and the U-piep is modeled completely.
     
  18. Jul 19, 2016 #17
    It's hard to imagine that Fluent would get such a calculation incorrect. This would have been their first validation check. Is the fluid non-Newtonian, with shear rate dependence? Is the difference exactly a factor of 2?
     
  19. Jul 19, 2016 #18
    I also tried the same geometry by water. The results were not correct. There was fault by almost 40 percent. My material here is a nanofluid of SN 500/CuO which is being modeled as a one-phase fluid, just like in experimental project.
     
  20. Jul 19, 2016 #19
    No it is Newtonian. But If it is more comfortable and confident let's go on with water. I think if the results with water become correct, the problem would be solved for my fluid too.
     
  21. Jul 19, 2016 #20
    Let me solve the model with water one more time and tell you the exact theoric and Fluent answers. So we won't have to worry about the material anymore.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Pressure drop does not match theory
  1. Pressure Drop (Replies: 7)

  2. Air Flow Pressure Drop (Replies: 4)

Loading...