Laminar flow

Context
When we are examining how fluid moves through a circular pipe, often we tend to come
across terms such as laminar flow or turbulent flow. In laminar flow, the fluid that moves
through the pipe tend to have a streamline flow, where the velocity, pressure, and other flow
properties at each point in the fluid remain constant. In contrast, the fluid in turbulent flow
moves through the pipe in highly disordered fashion and fluctuations. A method to classify
whether a flow through a circular pipe is laminar or turbulent is governed by the Reynold’s
𝜌𝑉𝐷
number, which has this equation: 𝑅𝑒 = where 𝜌: density of the fluid, 𝑉: velocity of the
𝜇

fluid, 𝐷: diameter of the pipe and 𝜇: viscosity of the fluid. If 𝑅𝑒 falls below 2300, we can
classify the flow of the fluid as laminar. Reynold’s number is a dimensionless number which
is applied in fluid mechanics to determine whether the flow in a body is laminar or turbulent.
In Figure 1, it shows the formation of a Poiseuille flow, which is assumes that the liquid
moving through a long circular pipe of constant cross section is incompressible and
Newtonian. It is used to calculate the pressure drop of the liquid between two ends of the
pipe. This is an example of how the properties of laminar flow of fluid is applied in Poiseuille
flow.

Figure 1: Poiseuille Flow

Solution
For the calculation of the velocity with the analytical formula, I have taken the velocity of the
flow when L = 35m. Reason behind is because I want to calculate the velocity of a fully
developed flow, hence I have calculated the entrance length, which comes up to be
approximately 30m. To have more accurate results, I chose to use the velocity values when
at 35m. The velocity measured will be from the center of the pipe to the wall, which will be
the radius of the pipe. 𝐷 = 0.5𝑚 , 𝜇 = 0.001003𝑁𝑠𝑚−1 , 𝑉 = 0.002𝑚𝑠 −1 , 𝜌 = 998.2𝑘𝑔𝑚−3
 𝜌𝑉𝐷 (998.2)(0.002)(0.5)
𝑅𝑒 = = = 995.2143569
𝜇 0.001003
𝐿𝑒
≈ 0.06𝑅𝑒 → 𝐿𝑒 ≈ (0.5)(0.06)(995.2143569) ≈ 29.85643071𝑚
𝐷

Graph of Axial Velocity vs Radius of Pipe Graph of Static Pressure vs Length of

0.0035 Pipe
1.00E-02
Axial Velocity (m/s)

0.003
0.0025

Static Pressure (Pa)

8.00E-03
0.002 y = -0.0002x + 0.0091
Axial Velocity 6.00E-03
0.0015 (ANSYS)
4.00E-03
0.001 Axial Velocity
0.0005 (Theoretical) 2.00E-03
0 0.00E+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 10 20 30 40 50
-2.00E-03
Radius of Pipe (m) Length of Pipe (m)

Figure 2: Mesh Horizontal 20 Vertical 4

Graph of Axial Velocity vs Radius of Pipe Graph of Static Pressure vs Length of Pipe
0.005 1.40E-02
Axial Velocity (m/s)

1.20E-02
Static Pressure (Pa)

0.004
1.00E-02
0.003 8.00E-03 y = -0.0003x + 0.0113
Axial Velocity
0.002 (ANSYS) 6.00E-03
Axial Velocity 4.00E-03
0.001
(Theoretical) 2.00E-03
0 0.00E+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
-2.00E-03 0 10 20 30 40 50
Radius of Pipe (m) Length of Pipe (m)

Figure 3: Mesh Horizontal 200 Vertical 40

Graph of Axial Velocity vs Radius of Pipe Graph of Static Pressure vs Length of Pipe
0.005 1.40E-02
Axial Velocity (m/s)

1.20E-02
0.004
Static Pressure (Pa)

1.00E-02
0.003 y = -0.0003x + 0.0112
Axial Velocity 8.00E-03
0.002 (ANSYS) 6.00E-03
Axial Velocity 4.00E-03
0.001
(Theoretical) 2.00E-03
0 0.00E+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
-2.00E-03 0 10 20 30 40 50
Radius of Pipe (m) Length of Pipe (m)

Figure 4: Mesh Horizontal 1000 Vertical 200

 Graph of Axial Velocity vs Radius of Pipe Graph of Static Pressure vs Length of Pipe
0.005 1.40E-02
1.20E-02
Axial Velocity (m/s)

0.004

Static Pressure (Pa)

1.00E-02
0.003
Axial Velocity 8.00E-03 y = -0.0003x + 0.0111
0.002 (ANSYS) 6.00E-03
Axial Velocity 4.00E-03
0.001
(Theoretical) 2.00E-03
0 0.00E+00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
-2.00E-03 0 10 20 30 40 50
Radius of Pipe (m) Length of Pipe (m)

Figure 5: Mesh Horizontal 2000 Vertical 400

Grid Independence
Comparing the four figures above, we can see that the coarsest mesh of horizontal division
20 and vertical division 4 differs from the other mesh definition. For Figure 3, 4 and 5, there
is grid independence because the velocity at the centre of the pipe and the pressure at the
inlet of the pipe is approximately the same for Figures 3, 4 and 5. So if in real life, we would
just mesh to a definition of horizontal division 200 and vertical division 40 to save the
computing time needed. Another reason why we choose the lower definition is also to cut
down the computing cost.

Observation
Generally, for all mesh sizes, the velocity will be the maximum at the centre of the pipe
because it has the least resistance from the wall because it is the furthest away from the wall.
As we move nearer to the walls, the velocity will begin to drop because of the presence of the
wall. When at the wall, the velocity is zero because of the no-slip condition. So if the wall is
not moving, then the velocity of the fluid at the wall will also be zero to satisfy the no-slip
condition.

Figure 6: Velocity Distribution

For the pressure, the highest pressure would be at the inlet and as the flow goes along the
length of the pipe, the pressure drops.

Figure 7: Pressure Distribution

Verification
1 𝑑𝑝 2
𝑢(𝑟) = (𝑟 − 𝑅 2 )
4𝜇 𝑑𝑧
Applying the above equation, with dP/dz being the gradient of the pressure vs length graph
in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5, we can get the theoretical solution for the flow. Plotting it against the
same graph as we generated from ANSYS, we find that the theoretical values are higher than
the simulation values. One reason why this could have happened is that ANSYS did take into
account the entrance losses and exit losses. When we are doing the analytical solution, we
did not take into account the entrance and exit losses, which caused the values for the
theoretical method to be higher than the simulation values.

https://www.engineersedge.com/fluid_flow/mass_flow_rate.htm

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Bernoulli.html

https://byjus.com/reynolds-number-formula/

https://www.britannica.com/science/laminar-flow