Shell balances in cylindrical coordinates

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the setup of shell balances in cylindrical coordinates, specifically for fluid flow in a vertical pipe. The key point of confusion is the calculation of the cross-sectional area of an annular shell, where the book uses the expression (2πrΔr) for momentum balance, omitting the negligible term (Δr)². Additionally, the division of the balance equation in cylindrical coordinates differs from Cartesian coordinates, leading to questions about the exclusion of the radius r in the denominator. Ultimately, the discussion clarifies that both approaches yield equivalent results.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of cylindrical coordinates in fluid mechanics
  • Familiarity with momentum balance principles
  • Knowledge of the Transport Phenomena textbook by BSL
  • Basic calculus for integration and limits
NEXT STEPS
  • Review chapter 2 of BSL's Transport Phenomena for detailed examples of shell balances
  • Study the derivation of cross-sectional areas in cylindrical coordinates
  • Explore the implications of neglecting higher-order terms in fluid dynamics
  • Learn about the differences between Cartesian and cylindrical coordinate systems in momentum equations
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in fluid mechanics, particularly those studying transport phenomena and momentum balances in cylindrical geometries.

MexChemE
Messages
237
Reaction score
54
Hello, PF! I have some doubts about setting up shell balances in a cylindrical geometry. Consider a fluid flowing down a vertical pipe. In order to perform the momentum balance, we take a cylindrical (annular) shell of length L and width Δr. The analysis of such system can be found in chapter 2 of BSL's Transport Phenomena (section 2.3).

Now, in the book, the rate of momentum entering the shell in the axial direction through z = 0 is given by
(2\pi r\Delta r) \left. \phi_{zz} \right|_{z=0}
Where apparently 2\pi r\Delta r is the cross-sectional area of the annular shell. This confuses me; if I calculate the area by integrating over the annular cross-section, I get this
A = \int_r^{r+ \Delta r} \int_0^{2 \pi} r \ d \theta dr = \pi (2r \Delta r + (\Delta r)^2)
I don't understand why was the (\Delta r)^2 term left out from the area expression in the book.

Also, after setting up a shell balance in cartesian coordinates, we have to divide the entire balance equation by the entire volume of the shell (see section 2.2 of BSL). Apparently, this is not the case in cylindrical coordinates. Instead of dividing by 2πrΔrL, the authors divided by 2πΔrL; why did they leave out r?

Thanks in advance for any input!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
MexChemE said:
Hello, PF! I have some doubts about setting up shell balances in a cylindrical geometry. Consider a fluid flowing down a vertical pipe. In order to perform the momentum balance, we take a cylindrical (annular) shell of length L and width Δr. The analysis of such system can be found in chapter 2 of BSL's Transport Phenomena (section 2.3).

Now, in the book, the rate of momentum entering the shell in the axial direction through z = 0 is given by
(2\pi r\Delta r) \left. \phi_{zz} \right|_{z=0}
Where apparently 2\pi r\Delta r is the cross-sectional area of the annular shell. This confuses me; if I calculate the area by integrating over the annular cross-section, I get this
A = \int_r^{r+ \Delta r} \int_0^{2 \pi} r \ d \theta dr = \pi (2r \Delta r + (\Delta r)^2)
I don't understand why was the (\Delta r)^2 term left out from the area expression in the book.
They are looking at a thin annular region where the ##(\Delta r)^2## is going to be negligible. They are going to be dividing by 2πΔrL and letting Δr approach zero, so the ##(\Delta r)^2## contribution will drop out anyway.
Also, after setting up a shell balance in cartesian coordinates, we have to divide the entire balance equation by the entire volume of the shell (see section 2.2 of BSL). Apparently, this is not the case in cylindrical coordinates. Instead of dividing by 2πrΔrL, the authors divided by 2πΔrL; why did they leave out r?

Thanks in advance for any input!
Maybe they liked the form of the resulting equation better. It doesn't really matter. If they divided by r, the resulting equation would be equivalent.

Chet
 
Chestermiller said:
They are going to be dividing by 2πΔrL and letting Δr approach zero, so the ##(\Delta r)^2## contribution will drop out anyway.
Got it. I did think that at first, but the limit had not been taken at that point, so the confusion arised.
Chestermiller said:
Maybe they liked the form of the resulting equation better. It doesn't really matter. If they divided by r, the resulting equation would be equivalent.
I checked for myself and the equations ended up being the same. Personally, I prefer dividing by the whole volume because it makes more sense to me.

Thanks for your input, Chet!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
15K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
20
Views
5K