ORIFICE Turbulent flow Piping
How many times a day do we turn on a faucet? Do it now. First very slowly, and you will see glassy, orderly flow. If there is no wind or other disturbance, nothing will change. This is called laminar flow. A photo taken now will be identical to one taken half an hour later. Such a flow is deterministic; information about its future behavior is completely determined by specification of the flow at an earlier time. Now open the faucet to full on, or better still open a fire hydrant, or watch a smoke stack. Here, for this faster or larger scale motion, the flow pattern is changing all the time. Although its average motion is in one direction (sideways for the fire-hydrant, up for the smoke stack), within the flow there are irregularities everywhere. For example if you could train your eyes on a small speck of dust it would certainly move along but it would jitter as well, sometimes darting to one side, or up or down. Turbulent flow while proceeding in a particular direction, like laminar flow, has the added complexity of random velocity fluctuations. The flow patterns never repeat themselves. To convince yourself of this watch a smoke stack for a few minutes.
Fluid flow that is slow tends to be laminar. As it speeds up a transition occurs and it crinkles up into complicated, random turbulent flow. But even slow flow coming from a large orifice can be turbulent; this is the case with smoke stacks. Engineers and scientists don’t like to say “fast” or “slow” or “small” and “big” since there is no reference. Small compared to what? Big compared to what? Since turbulence is altogether a different type of fluid flow to laminar flow, it is desirable to be able to quantify under what conditions it occurs.
Let us re-do the faucet experiment in a more systematic way. We have shown that as the speed, V, increases, transition to turbulence will occur. Now, instead of using water in your pipes, replace it with honey. Assuming you could provide a large enough pressure, even for fast flow the motion would remain laminar. If you do not wish to do this experiment, stir a spoon rapidly in a cup of water and then at the same speed (working hard) in a cup of honey. Honey has a higher viscosity than water and the viscosity resists transition to turbulence: while the water is turbulent, the honey remains laminar at the same speed. Finally, put a nozzle on your tap and constrict the water flow into a fine glass capillary tube. Here too the flow can be made to go quite fast without it becoming turbulent. Our experiments suggest that laminar flow occurs for low speeds, small diameters, low densities and high viscosities, while turbulent flows occur for the opposite conditions: high speeds, large diameters, high densities and low viscosities. Now viscosity is a measurable fluid property (as is its density, temperature, etc.). We will discuss it more in a moment, but we often use the “kinematic viscosity,” which is the viscosity divided by the density. Its unit is m^2/s. Notice its dimensions are the same as a length multiplied by a velocity. If the fluid speed is V (m/s), the orifice diameter is d (m) then we can write the following dimensionless ratio
Re is the Reynolds number, named after Osborne Reynolds who did systematic experiments, of a similar type to those described above, one hundred years ago. Notice that if V or d (or both) are small and the viscosity is large, Re will be small. For this case the flow will be laminar. Increase d or V or decrease the viscosity, and Re will increase. Reynolds found that for flow in a pipe it did not matter which of the three particular parameters he varied in this dimensionless group: as long as Re was less than approximately 2300, the flow was laminar. Above this value, turbulence would invariably occur. This is a general result since it allows us to vary the type of fluid, flow speed and pipe diameter without having to use the words “large” or “fast”, etc. Moreover, since Re is dimensionless, it does not matter which system of units are used (S.I., Engineering, etc.) so long as they are the same throughout. We can now talk of high Reynolds number flow or low Reynolds number pipe flow, knowing that in this context low means somewhat less than 2000. The kinematic viscosity of water is approximately 10^{-6} m^2/s (that of honey is about 10^{-3} m^2/s, 1000 times greater than that of water). Thus if the pipe diameter is say 1 cm, the speed at which the Reynolds number is 2000, is 0.2 m/s or approximately 0.4 mph, a rather slow speed. Water undergoes transition to turbulence at low speeds. Most of the water flows we see, such as in streams and rivers, are indeed turbulent.
Air too is a fluid, its viscosity, \nu, is approximately 10^{-3} m^2/s. This is a higher viscosity than that of water. This rather counter-intuitive fact is due to the great differences in density of the two fluids. Water has a density of approximately 1000 kg/m^3; the air density is 1.2 \, kg/m^3. Thus part of the “viscous feeling” we have when we pull our fingers through water is really due to inertia — we are having to move the water away from our hands and this also provides resistance. For this reason we need to remember the difference between the dynamic viscosity and the kinematic viscosity. The dynamic viscosity of water is approximately 10^{-3} kg/(m s) while that of air is 1.2 \times 10^{-5} kg/(m s). Thus the dynamic viscosity of water is higher than that of air, in keeping with our intuitive notion.
While the transition from laminar to turbulent flow occurs at a Reynolds number of approximately 2300 in a pipe, the precise value depends on whether any small disturbances are present. If the experiment is very carefully arranged so that the pipe is very smooth and there are no disturbances to the velocity and so on, higher values of Re can be obtained with the flow still in a laminar state. However, if Re is less than 2300, the flow will be laminar even if it is disturbed. Thus 2300 is the value the Re below which turbulence will not occur in a pipe. Moreover, if the flow has a different geometry, such as flow in a square duct, or over a turbine blade, transition will occur at different values of Re. The essential point is that flows become turbulent at high Reynolds numbers where “high” means much greater than unity.
Air motion is invariably turbulent. Consider a smokestack (which to a first approximation is mostly air). If its diameter is say 3 m, then V must be less than 6.6 mm/s (0.015 mph) for it to be laminar! There is no such thing as a laminar smokestack. Clouds too are usually turbulent. Here we determine the Reynolds number using an approximate characteristic dimension of the cloud such as its height or width. Assuming the cloud dimension is say 500 m, and its characteristic internal motion is say 5 m/s, then taking the kinematic viscosity to be 10^{-5} m^2/s (it is approximately the same for water vapor as it is for air), the Re = (500 x 5)/10^{-5} = 2.5 x 10^8. A high value indeed. No wonder cumulus clouds always have a random, puffy looking turbulent structure (see also the plume generated by Mt. St. Helens in the picture above).
Turbulent Flow
When the flow is turbulent, the flow contains eddying motions of all sizes, and a large part of the mechanical energy in the flow goes into the formation of these eddies which eventually dissipate their energy as heat. As a result, at a given Reynolds number, the drag of a turbulent flow is higher than the drag of a laminar flow. Also, turbulent flow is affected by surface roughness, so that increasing roughness increases the drag.
Transition to turbulence can occur over a range of Reynolds numbers, depending on many factors, including the level surface roughness, heat transfer, vibration, noise, and other disturbances. To understand why this is so, and to appreciate the role of the Reynolds number in governing the stability of the flow, it is helpful to think in terms of a spring-damper system such as the suspension system of a car. Driving along a bumpy road, the springs act to reduce the movement experienced by the passengers. If there were no shock absorbers, however, there would be no damping of the motion, and the car would continue to oscillate long after the bump has been left behind. So the shock absorbers, through a viscous damping action, dissipate the energy in the oscillations and reduce the amplitude of the oscillations. If the viscous action is strong enough, the oscillations will die out very quickly, and the passengers can proceed smoothly. If the shock absorbers are not in good shape, the oscillations may not die out. The oscillations can actually grow if the excitation frequency is in the right range, and the system can experience resonance. The car becomes unstable, and it is then virtually uncontrollable.
In fluid flow, we often interpret the Reynolds number as the ratio of the inertia force (that is, the force given by mass x acceleration) to the viscous force. At low Reynolds numbers, therefore, the viscous force is large compared to the inertia force, and the flow behaves in some ways like a car with a good suspension system. Small disturbances in the velocity field, created perhaps by small roughness elements on the surface, or pressure perturbations from external sources such as vibrations in the surface or strong sound waves, will be damped out and not allowed to grow. This is the case for pipe flow at Reynolds numbers less than the critical value of 2300 (based on pipe diamter and average velocity), and for boundary layers with a Reynolds number less than about 200,000 (based on distance from the origin of the layer and the freestream velocity). As the Reynolds number increases, however, the viscous damping action becomes comparatively less, and at some point it becomes possible for small perturbations to grow, just as in the case of a car with poor shock absorbers. The flow can become unstable, and it can experience transition to a turbulent state where large variations in the velocity field can be maintained. If the disturbances are very small, as in the case where the surface is very smooth, or if the wavelength of the disturbance is not near the point of resonance, the transition to turbulence will occur at a higher Reynolds number than the critical value. So the point of transition does not correspond to a single Reynolds number, and it is possible to delay transition to relatively large values by controlling the disturbance environment. At very high Reynolds numbers, however, it is not possible to maintain laminar flow since under these conditions even minute disturbances will be amplified into turbulence.
Turbulent flow is characterized by unsteady eddying motions that are in constant motion with respect to each other. At any point in the flow, the eddies produce fluctuations in the flow velocity and pressure. If we were to measure the streamwise velocity in turbulent pipe flow, we would see a variation in time as shown in figure 14.
Figure Velocity at a point in a turbulent flow as a function of time.
We see that the velocity has a time-averaged value \bar U and a fluctuating value u’, so that \bar U is not a function of time, but u’ is.
The eddies interact with each other as they move around, and they can exchange momentum and energy. For example, an eddy that is near the centerline of the pipe (and therefore has a relatively high velocity), may move towards the wall and interact with eddies near the wall (which typically have lower velocities). As they mix, momentum differences are smoothed out. This process is superficially similar to the action of viscosity which tends to smooth out momentum gradients by molecular interactions, and turbulent flows are sometimes said to have an equivalent eddy viscosity. Because turbulent mixing is such an effective transport process, the eddy viscosity is typically several orders of magnitude larger than the molecular viscosity. The important point is that turbulent flows are very effective at mixing: the eddying motions can very quickly transport momentum, energy and heat from one place to another. As a result, velocity differences get smoothed out more effectively than in a laminar flow, and the time-averaged velocity profile in a turbulent flow is much more uniform than in a laminar flow (see figure 4).
As a result of this mixing, the velocity gradient at the wall is higher than that seen in a laminar flow at the same Reynolds number, so that the shear stress at the wall is correspondingly larger. This observation is in agreement with the fact that the losses in a turbulent flow are much higher than in a laminar flow, and therefore the pressure drop per unit length will be greater, which is reflected in a larger frictional stress at the wall




This is default description text on Padangan Themes, of course you can change this text via you profile administration.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
High-Reynolds number pipe circuit
For turbulent pipe flow experiment at high Reynolds number (up to 500,000) a closed circuit with water as fluid is available. Following the flow direction the main parts of the system are: on the roof of the building a constant-head tank (about 20 m3), a PVC pipe downwards to the lab on the first floor, at the entrance of a long horizontal pipe a swirl generator, the piping system itself with one or two measurement sections, a flow meter, and it ends in a storage tank in the basement.
The fluid is returned to the constant-head tank by means of a centrifugal pump. The diameter of the piping system, consisting of smooth brass pipe, is 70 mm and the length is about 18 m. The long pipe is composed of several sections of different length and the measurement sections can be mounted at almost any desired position. The test section is isolated from the pump vibrations by means of two rubber bellows.
The main technique that is capable of accurately measuring rapidly fluctuating velocities in water flows is Laser-Doppler Velocimetry (LDV). A two-component reference beam system of the 55X-series of Dantec is available. The complete three-dimensional mean flow field and also the second-order moments of the velocity fluctuations can be obtained by subsequent measurements at different orientations (angles) of the LDV system. A suitable LDV traversing system is available for this purpose.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Orifice Plate Calibration
From the data collected in the Orifice Plate Calibration Test, the height of the water in each chamber at any point was calculated from the wave probe calibrations taken. It was found that the calibration factors for the wave probes attached to the side of the tanks in these tests were considerably lower than the values determined in previous test. This was believed to be as a result of the probes’ position against a wall of the boxes which may cause interference of the electric fields emitting from the probes.
Plotting water height against time for each test conducted allowed the useful section of the data to be determined and a best fit line to be applied to determine the equation of the line, see example below.
Small 10mm
It was found that a 2 nd order polynomial was the most representative, with linear regression correlation values (R 2 ) greater than 0.999 for most tests. Differentiating the equation of the line gave an expression for the velocity of the water and hence knowing the cross sectional area of each test model the actual flowrate passing through the orifices could be calculated. This was divided by the theoretical flowrate for the pressure at that point to give a value of Cd for each time step.
To simplify the [test procedure] the working fluid used was water. Therefore, to allow comparison of the test results with the conditions in the actual model, where air is the working fluid, the calculated values of Cd were plotted against Reynold’s Number ( Re ), which was calculated as follows:
Formula
Parameters
The plots of the coefficient of discharge against Reynold’s Number for each chamber with the respective orifice plates of interest, determined from the results of the Impedance Matching Test [link to Impedance Matching Test Results], are shown in the following graphs.
Small Chamber
Middle Chamber
Big Chamber
The results for the small chamber show a relatively constant coefficient of discharge with varying values of Re. Values of Cd between 0.7 and 0.8 for the small chamber are higher than the predicted values of around 0.6. This is could be due a relatively high aspect ratio of the small chamber.
The results for middle chamber show an increase in Cd with Re for each holes size. If the trend of the lines were to be projected back to lower values of Re values of Cd greater than 1 would be predicted. This is obviously not possible and suggests a flaw in the testing for this chamber. Unfortunately time and tank availability did not allow the test to be repeated.
The values of Cd for orifice plates placed in the large chamber decrease with decreasing values of Re. For a given value of Re the value of Cd varies considerably with orifice hole size. The 40mm hole size was achieved by not attaching any orifice plates to the top of the model and simply using the 40mm holes cut into the top sheet of Perspex. The difference in thickness and material roughness between the aluminium orifice plates and the Perspex could explain the lower value of Cd predicted.
Examining the results from the Impedance Matching Tests the peak values of Reynold’s Number occurring in the orifices in each chamber under actual testing were calculated.
The variation in Re occurring in the small chamber orifices of 10 to 20 mm were found to be in the range of 4000 to 5000. Projecting the values obtained from the calibration tests back to this range would suggest the value of Cd for the orifice plates should be in the region of 0.8.
The middle chamber was found to have values of Re in the range of 4300 to 6500 occurring in the orifice plates. As the calibration test results for the middle chamber were found to be void no value of Cd could be assigned.
The peak values of Re in orifices on the big chamber vary between 4000 and 9500. From the calibration test results this suggests the values of Cd for the orifices varies between 0.5 and 0.7, with the 40mm hole with no orifice attached would be considerably lower in the region of 0.4.
Discussions
If more time was available the Group would have repeated the orifice calibration tests for the middle chamber as the values predicted are clearly inaccurate.
The only variable measured in the tests was water height in the chambers therefore the accuracy of the results was entirely reliant upon the wave probes accuracy. As mentioned previously the positioning of the probes against the wall of the chambers affected the calibration factor and it is possible that the performance of the wave probes were affected in other ways.
The coefficient of discharge (Cd) of a fluid passing through an orifice will vary with the fluid’s Reynolds’s Number. When fluid flow is fully turbulent variation in Cd will be minimal and conversely Cd will vary greatest in laminar flow conditions. In the transitional period between laminar and turbulent flow the effects on Cd are difficult to predict.
The flow of air in an oscillating water column varies (approximately) sinusoidally so will change from laminar to turbulent cyclically when passing through the orifices on the test model. This makes it difficult to assign a particular value of Cd to the orifice plates and hence accurately calculate the flowrate in the chambers and power of the air flow. Due to the scale of the test model and the small wave amplitudes used the velocities of the air flow in the chambers is relatively slow. Therefore, turbulent conditions in which Cd is relatively constant will take longer to reach affecting the accuracy of the results.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Feedback Control of Turbulent Boundary Layers for Drag Reduction
Different approaches to feedback control of turbulent boundary layers for drag reduction are being explored through numerical experiments. In this representation we will report results obtained by two new approaches: a suboptimal procedure and the Goore scheme. First, using a suboptimal theory we derived the optimal blowing and suction at the wall dependent on the wall pressure or spanwise wall-shear stress by minimizing cost functions involving either mean-squared wall pressure gradient in the spanwise direction or mean-sqaured spanwise wall shear stress. Both schemes resulted in about 20% drag reductin in turbulent channel flow. Simpler versions of these two control laws, which use only the local information of wall pressure or spanwise shear stress, are derived. They produced almost the same reduction. Second, an idea borrowed from the Goore scheme, which finds an optimum percentage of voters that produce the best result for a given probability distribution, is applied to our drag reduction problem. The wall blowing and suction was chosen as a function of local shear stress with unknown weights. An optimum distribution of the weights was sought to produce lower drag. Depending on the resuting drag in response to random variations of the weights, a favorable direction of the weight modification (i.e., drag reduction) was chosen with a higher probability. This reinforcement learning, although it takes many iterations to reach the best result, reduced drag by about 20% in our numerical experiments.
November 26th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
The Effect of Periodic Excitation on Orifice Plate Flow Meter Turbulence
Inaccuracies in flow metering can be caused by the selective frequency response to pulsation of the large-scale structures naturally ocurring downstream of an orifice plate. To our knowledge, no previous published experimental research has included flow visualization and almost none of it considered the existence of large-scale structures. Some of the knowledge gained in other large-scale structure research is applied here to define regimes of nondimensional frequency where meter error is expected. Characteristic instabilities that have previously been found in shear layers, jets, and reattaching flows are shown to also exist in the orifice plate flow. Experimental results are presented from a test rig built exclusively to use smoke-wire flow visualization to study the physics leading to meter error. Pressures, velocities, and flow rate are measured to calculate the error in discharge coefficient corresponding to each photograph. A series of four pressure sensors are used to calculate the amplitude of pulsation at the orifice plate. The greatest meter error overpredicts the flow rate when the jet and reattaching flow structures are excited.