Fluid Flow & Aerodynamics
why things fly, and why the usual explanation is wrong
Series

Internal flow — the series

3 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. The chart, with one exact line on it. The friction factor of a pipe against Reynolds number, for five relative roughnesses. Every curve here except one is Colebrook's correlation, solved by iteration rather than read off a chart. The exception is the short straight line at the left: f = 64/Re is the laminar solution and it is exact. The curves flatten to the right because once the roughness pokes out of the viscous layer the Reynolds number has nothing left to change.

    The roughness a wall cannot feel

    A rough pipe and a polished one carry the same flow for the same pressure over three decades of Reynolds number, and then suddenly they do not. What changed is not the pipe. It is the thickness of the film of fluid at the wall, which is the only part of the flow that can see the roughness at all.

    part 1 · applied
  2. The box, and the one thing assumed about it. The control volume across a sudden enlargement. Mass and momentum crossing the two ends are known exactly. The only modelling statement in the whole derivation is written on the annular step: the pressure there is taken to be the upstream pressure, because the fluid in the corner is nearly stationary. Measurement supports it well. Nothing else is assumed, and in particular nothing at all is assumed about the eddy that lives in that corner — which this figure therefore does not draw.

    A loss with no viscosity in it

    Where a pipe suddenly widens, energy is destroyed. The amount is exact, it has been known since 1766, and the derivation never mentions viscosity, Reynolds number or roughness — because momentum does not care where the energy went, only that it left.

    part 2 · applied
  3. A factor of 1.8 between the extremes. The same numbers as a bar. The spread is exactly 96 over 160/3, which is 1.8 — and it is a spread in a quantity that a single correlation using the hydraulic diameter treats as a constant. A rectangle twenty times as wide as it is deep is 78 per cent more resistant than a circle of the same hydraulic diameter.

    A number that is only the shape of the hole

    The friction factor times the Reynolds number for laminar flow in a duct is a pure number that depends on the cross-section's shape and on nothing else — not the fluid, not the size, not the flow rate. It is exactly 64 for a circle and exactly 96 for a slot, and the correlation that treats them as the same is wrong by a third.

    part 3 · applied

All series