Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
9.1 Introduction
• Laminar channel flow was discussed in Chapter 6; many features of turbulent flow are
similar
• Chapter begins with the criteria for fully developed velocity and temperature profiles
• Chapter Focus: Analysis of fully developed flows
• Analysis is limited to the following general boundary conditions:
• (i) uniform surface temperature
• (ii) uniform surface heat flux
4Af
De =
P
where A f is the flow area and P is the wetted perimeter
m = ρu m A =
∫ρ 0
u (2πr )dr
∫ ∫
1 2
um = u (2π r )dr = u rdr (9.8)
π ro2 ro2
0 0
• The mean temperature in the duct is evaluated by integrating the total energy of the flow:
ro
mc p Tm =
∫
0
c p T u (2πr )dr
• Substituting (9.8) for the mass flow rate, and assuming constant specific heat,
ro
∫
0
T u rdr
Tm ≡
ro
∫ 0
u rdr
∫
2
Tm = T u r dr (9.9)
u m ro2
0
+ (ro − r )u *
y = r0+ −r = +
(9.11)
ν
• The velocity wall coordinate is the same as before:
u
u+ ≡ (8.49)
u*
• The friction velocity is the same
u* ≡ τ o / ρ (8.46)
• The friction factor is based on the mean flow velocity instead of the free stream velocity:
τo
Cf = (9.12)
(1 / 2) ρ u m2
• Therefore, the friction velocity can be expressed as:
u* = um C f / 2
1 ⎡ 1.5(1 + r / ro ) ⎤
u+ = ln ⎢ y + ⎥+B (9.18)
κ ⎣⎢ 1 + 2(r / ro ) 2 ⎦⎥
where the friction factor is based on the mean flow velocity C f ≡ τ o /(1 / 2) ρu m2
• Though less accurate and versatile than later correlations, this lead to the 1/7th Power
Law velocity profile
• Then rearranging:
τ o = 0.03326 ρ u m7 / 4 ro−1 / 4ν 1 / 4 (a)
• Assume a power law can be used to approximate the velocity profile:
q
u ⎛ y ⎞
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (b)
u CL ⎝ ro ⎠
with u CL representing the centerline velocity
• Assume that the mean velocity in the flow can be related to the centerline velocity as
u CL = (const )u m (c)
• Substituting (b) and (c) for the mean velocity in (a) yields
⎡ ⎛y −1 / q ⎤ 7 / 4
⎞
τ o = (const ) ρ ⎢ u ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎥ ro−1/ 4ν 1 / 4
⎢⎣ ⎝ ro ⎠ ⎥⎦
• This is simplified:
τ o = (const ) ρu 7 / 4 y ( −7 / 4 q ) ro( 7 / 4 q −1 / 4)ν 1 / 4 (d)
• Prandtl and von Kármán argued that the wall shear stress is not a function of the size
of the pipe, so the exponent on r0 should be zero
• Setting the exponent to zero, the value of q must be equal to 1/7, leading to the
classic 1/7th power law velocity profile:
1/ 7
u ⎛ y⎞
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (9.20)
uCL ⎝ ro ⎠
• Experimental data shows that this profile adequately models velocity profile through
a large portion of the pipe and is frequently used in models for momentum and heat
transfer (recall Section 8.4.3)
• Limitations
• Accurate for a narrow range of Reynolds numbers: (104 to 106)
• Yields an infinite velocity gradient at the wall
• Does not yield a gradient of zero at the centerline
• Nikuradse (a student of Prandtl’s) measured velocity profiles in smooth pipe over a wide
range of Reynolds numbers, and reported that the exponent varied with Reynolds
number:
n
u ⎛ y ⎞
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (9.21)
u CL ⎝ ro ⎠
• Table 9.1 lists Nikuradse’s measurements, including measurement of pipe friction factor
of the form
C
Cf = (9.22)
Re1D/ m
• Nikuradse’s results show that the velocity profile becomes fuller as the mean velocity
increases
2 1 ⎛ yu Cf ⎞
= ln⎜ m ⎟+B
u
(9.23)
um Cf κ ⎜ ν 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
• Assume that the equation holds at any value of y; evaluate the expression at the
centerline of the duct, y = ro = D / 2 , where u = u CL , by substituting these and the
Reynolds number:
u CL 2 1 ⎛ Re Cf ⎞
= ln⎜ D ⎟+B (9.24)
um Cf κ ⎜⎝ 2 2 ⎟
⎠
• By looking at the Law of the Wall, one can obtain a functional relationship for the
friction factor, though unfortunately a relationship for u CL / u m is unknown
• To evaluate the mean velocity, u m , substitute the velocity profile (8.58) into an
expression for the mean velocity, equation (9.10):
ro ro
∫ ∫
1 2
um = u (2π r )dr = u (ro − y )dy (9.25)
π ro2 ro2
0 0
where y = ro − r
• Performing the integration, the mean velocity becomes:
⎡ 1 ⎛ r u* ⎞ 3 ⎤
u m = u ⎢ ln⎜ o ⎟ + B −
*
⎥ (9.26)
⎢⎣ κ ⎜⎝ ν ⎟⎠ 2κ ⎥
⎦
• Making substitutions again
C f ⎡ 1 ⎛ Re D Cf ⎞ ⎤
um = um ⎢ ln⎜ ⎟+B− 3 ⎥ (9.27)
2 ⎢κ ⎜ 2 2 ⎟ 2κ ⎥
⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦
• u m cancels out of the equation; however u CL does not appear either, so the above
expression can be used directly to find an expression for C f by rearranging and
substituting κ = 0.40 and B = 5.0
1
Cf /2
(
= 2.44 ln Re D C f / 2 − 0.349)
• The expression is not yet complete, as it was assumed that the Law of the Wall is
accurate everywhere and ignores the presence of a viscous sublayer or wake region
• The constants are adjusted to fit the experimental data, yielding
1
Cf /2
(
= 2.46 ln C f / 2 D C f / 2 + 0.29,) (Re D > 4000 ) (9.28)
• This is Prandtl’s universal law of friction for smooth pipes; it is also known as the
Kármán-Nikuradse equation
• Despite the empiricism of using a curve fit to obtain the constants in (9.28), using a
more theoretical basis to develop the function has given the result a wider range of
applicability than Blasius’s correlation
• Equation (9.28) must be solved iteratively for C f
• This equation is also suitable for non-circular ducts with the Reynolds number
calculated using the hydraulic diameter
1 ⎡ Re D f 1 / 2 ⎤
≈ 2.0 log10 ⎢ 1/ 2 ⎥
− 0 .8 (9.30)
f 1/ 2 ⎣1 + 0 . 1( k / D ) Re D f ⎦
where it is common to use the Darcy friction factor
f = 4C f (9.31)
1 ⎛k/D 2.51 ⎞
1/ 2
= −2.0 log10 ⎜⎜ + 1/ 2
⎟
⎟ (9.32)
f ⎝ 3.7 Re D f ⎠
• Representative roughness values presented in Table 9.2
• This function appears in the classic Moody chart (Fig. 9.3)
du (ro ) ∂T (ro )
μ =τo, k = q o′′ (9.34c)
dr ∂r
where qo′′ is assumed to be into the flow (in the negative r-direction)
• By normalizing the variables as:
u T − Ts x r
U= ,θ= , X = , and R = ,
um Tm − T s L ro
it can be shown that both governing equations and boundary conditions are identical
in form
q o′′ ⎛ u m (Ts − Tm ) ⎞
⎜ ⎟=
(C f / 2)(u m / uCL )2
ρ u m c p (Ts − Tm ) ⎜⎝ u CL (Ts − TCL ) ⎟⎠ u Cf ⎧ ⎡ 5Pr + 1⎤ ⎫
1+ 5 m ⎨( Pr − 1) + ln ⎢ ⎥⎬
u CL 2 ⎩ ⎣ 6 ⎦⎭
where
2
C f is defined in terms of the mean velocity C f = τ o / 12 ρ u m
The terms q o′′ / ρ u m c p (Ts − Tm ) collectively are the Stanton number for
pipe flow
• Simplifying yields von Kármán Analogy for pipe flow:
⎛ T − Tm ⎞ (C f / 2)(u m / u CL )
St D ⎜⎜ s ⎟⎟ = (9.37)
⎝ Ts − TCL ⎠ ⎛u ⎞ Cf ⎧ ⎡ 5 Pr + 1 ⎤ ⎫
1 + 5⎜⎜ m ⎟⎟ ⎨( Pr − 1) + ln ⎢ ⎥⎬
⎝ u CL ⎠ 2 ⎩ ⎣ 6 ⎦⎭
• Estimates for the ratios (u m / u CL ) and (Ts − Tm ) / (Ts − TCL ) are found using the
definition of mean temperature, equation (9.9):
th
• u m and Tm are estimated using the 1/7 Law profiles, which for a circular pipe are:
1/ 7
u ⎛ y ⎞
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (9.20)
u CL ⎝ ro ⎠
• Similar to (8.111) for a flat plate:
1/ 7
T − Ts ⎛ y⎞
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (9.38)
TCL − Ts ⎝ ro ⎠
• Substituting these models into (9.8) and (9.9), it can be shown that
um
= 0.817 (9.39)
u CL
Tm − T s
= 0.833 (9.40)
TCL − Ts
Nu D = 0.023Re D4 / 5 Pr 1 / 3 (9.41)
• The Dittus-Boelter correlation is an empirical correlation based on the Colburn analogy:
Nu D = 0.023Re D4 / 5 Pr n (9.42)
where n = 0.4 for heating ( Ts > Tm ) and n = 0.3 for cooling
• Simplicity and the fact that this analogy compares well with experimental data make
it popular
• In recent years its accuracy, along with that of the Colburn analogy, have been
challenged
• Models by Petukhov and the Gnielinski correlation (see Section 9.8) are preferred for
their improved accuracy and range of applicability
• Analogies remain a common way to model heat transfer in pipes; there are models
developed specifically for pipe flows
• For duct flow, the friction velocity u * is defined in terms of the mean velocity, so
substituting the above into (9.43) for q o′′ and invoking the definitions of the Reynolds
and Prandtl numbers:
Re D Pr C f / 2
Nu D = (9.45)
Tm+
• There are several ways to proceed from here:
• One approach: evaluate Tm+ using a dimensionless version of (9.33):
ro+
∫
2
Tm+ = T + u + (ro+ − y + ) dy + (9.46)
u m+ ro+ 2
0
+ Prt +
TCL = ln y CL + 13Pr 2 / 3 − 7 (9.48)
κ
• As was done for the flat plate, substitute the Law of the Wall velocity profile
+
(8.59) for ln y CL :
+ 1 +
u CL = ln y CL +B (9.49)
κ
• Substituting these into the Nusselt number relation:
Re D Pr C f / 2 (Ts − TCL )
Nu D =
[ +
Prt (u CL − B ) + 13Pr 2/3
]
− 7 (Ts − Tm )
(9.50)
+
• Expressions are needed for u CL and (Ts − TCL ) /(Ts − Tm ) :
• For the centerline velocity, use the definition of u + for pipe flow
+ u CL u CL 2
u CL = = (9.51)
u* um Cf
• Mean velocity and temperature are needed, so, the 1/7th power law is used to
avoid the complexity of the logarithmic velocity and temperature profiles
• From the previous section, the 1/7th power law yields:
um T − Ts
= 0.817 and m = 0.833
u CL TCL − Ts
• Using the definition of Stanton number, St D = Nu D /( Re D Pr ) , and selecting
Prt = 0.9 and B = 5.0, equation (9.50) is rearranged:
Cf /2
St D = (9.52)
(
0.92 + 10.8 Pr 2/3 − 0.89 C f / 2 )
• A first approximation suggests this model be limited to ReD < 1 x 105
• The ultimate test is to compare this model to experimental data
• This compares well to experimental data over a wide range of Prandtl and Reynolds
numbers
• The following model was used for the friction factor:
Cf
= (2.236 ln Re D − 4.639) −2 (9.54)
2
• Note the similarity between Petukhov’s relation (9.53) and the algebraic result, equation
(9.52)
• In 1976, Gnielinski modified Petukhov’s model slightly, extending the model to include
lower Reynolds numbers:
( Re D − 1000) PrC f / 2 ⎛ 0.5 ≤ Pr ≤ 2000 ⎞
Nu D = , ⎜⎜ 6⎟
(
1 + 12.7 Pr 2/3 ) 3 ⎟
− 1 C f / 2 ⎝ 3 × 10 < Re D < 5 × 10 ⎠
(9.55)
• Pethkhov’s friction model can be used in (9.55) for the friction factor
• For the above models, properties should be evaluated at the film temperature
• These correlations are reasonable for channels with constant surface temperature as well
as constant heat flux; the flows are relatively insensitive to boundary conditions