CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Main CFD Forum

What's the meaning of the Reynolds number

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   September 19, 2012, 02:02
Default What's the meaning of the Reynolds number
  #1
Senior Member
 
Nick
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 120
Rep Power: 6
Nick R is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I've heard a lot, especially in cfd context, that the Reynolds number is the ratio between the inertial to viscous forces. Now what I understand from inertial force is (mass times acceleration) so if this is correct then for pipe flow where the velocity profile doesn't change there must be zero acceleration for fluid particles and yet we define a Reynolds number. What am I missing?

Nick
Nick R is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 19, 2012, 03:43
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,601
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick R View Post
Hi,

I've heard a lot, especially in cfd context, that the Reynolds number is the ratio between the inertial to viscous forces. Now what I understand from inertial force is (mass times acceleration) so if this is correct then for pipe flow where the velocity profile doesn't change there must be zero acceleration for fluid particles and yet we define a Reynolds number. What am I missing?

Nick

no, "inertial" refers to the lagrangian (convective) term, not to the eulerian (time derivative) term! is the ratio between convective and diffusive fluxes
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 19, 2012, 04:10
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Nick
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 120
Rep Power: 6
Nick R is on a distinguished road
by the convective term you mean (u.del) u where u is the velocity right? well this is also zero for pipe flow for instance where velocity doesn't change on a streamline
Nick R is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 19, 2012, 04:31
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,601
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick R View Post
by the convective term you mean (u.del) u where u is the velocity right? well this is also zero for pipe flow for instance where velocity doesn't change on a streamline
I mean the ratio of the fluxes, the convective flux is rho * u^2
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 19, 2012, 05:57
Default
  #5
Member
 
SergeAS's Avatar
 
Serge A. Suchkov
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 73
Blog Entries: 5
Rep Power: 5
SergeAS is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to SergeAS
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
I mean the ratio of the fluxes, the convective flux is rho * u^2
rho * u^2 has the dimension of pressure) may be just rho * u ?
SergeAS is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 19, 2012, 07:10
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,601
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeAS View Post
rho * u^2 has the dimension of pressure) may be just rho * u ?
no, not at all, the ratio is
[convective flux]/[diffusive flux] = rho*u^2/ (mu * u/L) = rho*u*L/mu = Re
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 19, 2012, 07:57
Default
  #7
Member
 
Marco
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Spain
Posts: 41
Rep Power: 5
msatrustegui is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick R View Post
Hi,

I've heard a lot, especially in cfd context, that the Reynolds number is the ratio between the inertial to viscous forces. Now what I understand from inertial force is (mass times acceleration) so if this is correct then for pipe flow where the velocity profile doesn't change there must be zero acceleration for fluid particles and yet we define a Reynolds number. What am I missing?

Nick
You can define it as Re=Dh*V/visc

where:

Dh=Hydraulic diameter of the transversal area
V= Velocity of the fluid
visc = Cinematic viscosity of the fluid
msatrustegui is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 19, 2012, 08:24
Default
  #8
Member
 
SergeAS's Avatar
 
Serge A. Suchkov
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 73
Blog Entries: 5
Rep Power: 5
SergeAS is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to SergeAS
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
no, not at all, the ratio is
[convective flux]/[diffusive flux] = rho*u^2/ (mu * u/L) = rho*u*L/mu = Re
I guess it is term misunderstanding (math vs phys). The Reynolds number it is ratio of forces (inertial vs viscous). Term momentum flux has force (per volume unit) dimention for momentum equation.

Last edited by SergeAS; September 19, 2012 at 08:41.
SergeAS is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 19, 2012, 12:34
Default
  #9
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,601
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
the meaning of the Re number is even more general ... for example, it can stand for the ratio between the convective to the diffusive time scales...
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 19, 2012, 21:41
Default
  #10
Senior Member
 
Nick
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 120
Rep Power: 6
Nick R is on a distinguished road
I guess you don't see my point. Take a control volume in a pipe where velocity profile is not changing with distance. Now if we compute the convective fluxes over the ENTIRE control volume, it is ZERO because the right and left surfaces cancel each other out and there's no flux thru the top and bottom surfaces. On each side (say the right surface of the control volume) the momentum convective flux is Integral of (u ro u.dA )/A , this is non-zero. So at each cross-section the rate of momentum is that Integral (u ro u.dA) which in dimensional analysis is ro u^2 but I don't like the name "the inertial force" it doesn't make much sense to me. Since inertial suggests acceleration. Unless someone has a better physical interpretation for me. Also, for the same example, the lagrangian convective term is actually zero since the velocity of a fluid particle don't change as they convect downstream.
Nick R is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 20, 2012, 03:11
Default
  #11
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,601
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick R View Post
I guess you don't see my point. Take a control volume in a pipe where velocity profile is not changing with distance. Now if we compute the convective fluxes over the ENTIRE control volume, it is ZERO because the right and left surfaces cancel each other out and there's no flux thru the top and bottom surfaces. On each side (say the right surface of the control volume) the momentum convective flux is Integral of (u ro u.dA )/A , this is non-zero. So at each cross-section the rate of momentum is that Integral (u ro u.dA) which in dimensional analysis is ro u^2 but I don't like the name "the inertial force" it doesn't make much sense to me. Since inertial suggests acceleration. Unless someone has a better physical interpretation for me. Also, for the same example, the lagrangian convective term is actually zero since the velocity of a fluid particle don't change as they convect downstream.
u^2/L is actually an acceleration .... as well as mu*u/rho/L^2 ... the ratio is again the Re number... Note that in channel the surface integral of the mass flux (rho*u) is zero over the volume, not the mass flux alon ... the same comment is valid for the integral of the convective flux, not for the single flux ....
So I do not understand your doubt
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 20, 2012, 03:30
Default
  #12
Senior Member
 
Nick
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 120
Rep Power: 6
Nick R is on a distinguished road
so again..here's the problem ..saying the reynolds number is the ratio of inertial FORCES to viscous forces is misleading ...here's why I think this is so.... look...from what inertial force means in dynamics : it is the mass times acceleration right? what else could it mean? so when fluid particles DO NOT ACCELERATE (like in a pipe where velocity profile is constance over distance) there is NO inertial forces...but we have a Reynolds number ..so saying that Re is the ratio of inertial to viscous forces is not accurate...hope that makes sense.
Nick R is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 20, 2012, 03:49
Default
  #13
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,601
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick R View Post
so again..here's the problem ..saying the reynolds number is the ratio of inertial FORCES to viscous forces is misleading ...here's why I think this is so.... look...from what inertial force means in dynamics : it is the mass times acceleration right? what else could it mean? so when fluid particles DO NOT ACCELERATE (like in a pipe where velocity profile is constance over distance) there is NO inertial forces...but we have a Reynolds number ..so saying that Re is the ratio of inertial to viscous forces is not accurate...hope that makes sense.
The classical physics of a rigid body expresses the Newton law as m*a = F, this is a Lagrangian framework wherin a is the total acceleration. Here you see the inertial term...
In fluid dynamics the total acceleration is decomposed in
a = du/dt + u*grad u

du/dt is the Eulerian acceleration
u*grad u is the "lagrangian" acceleration

u*grad u can be written as div * (u u) using the mass equation.

Therefore, we define the Reynolds number as ratio of "partial" acceleration, without involving the eulerian acceleration du/dt. The non-dimensional number that takes into account for this acceleration is the Strohual number.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 20, 2012, 04:41
Default
  #14
Senior Member
 
Nick
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 120
Rep Power: 6
Nick R is on a distinguished road
Yeah u.grad u is zero if.velocity doesn't change with distance.like a pipe situation yet we have Reynolds number
Nick R is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 20, 2012, 07:05
Default
  #15
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,601
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
but you don't use u *grad u ... you take a characteristic velocity of the problem, for example the averaged velocity U, a characteristic lenght of the problem, that means a lenght in the direction where the velocity changes (in channel where u=u(y) you take L = height).

Then [rho*U^2/H] / [mu* U /L^2] = Re
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 20, 2012, 08:39
Default
  #16
Senior Member
 
Nick
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 120
Rep Power: 6
Nick R is on a distinguished road
I know how.to.calculate the Reynolds number ..my problem was that the term inertial force is not accurate because inertia is zero in that example. I've said this a few times now inertial force is zero if velocity doesn't change with distance.. saying that Reynolds is the ratio between inertial and viscous forces is not accurate
Nick R is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 20, 2012, 08:48
Default
  #17
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,601
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick R View Post
I know how.to.calculate the Reynolds number ..my problem was that the term inertial force is not accurate because inertia is zero in that example. I've said this a few times now inertial force is zero if velocity doesn't change with distance.. saying that Reynolds is the ratio between inertial and viscous forces is not accurate

we simply do not agree on that definition of inertial, no problem

Note that, rigorously, in channel flow the motion is driven by the pressure gradient Delta P/L, therefore:

P/L = O(rho*U^2/L) that balance the viscous term. Maybe using the "pressure force" is more appealing for you
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 20, 2012, 08:56
Default
  #18
agd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 191
Rep Power: 8
agd is on a distinguished road
Just a quick question for my own edification - if the velocity is not changing with distance, then aren't the viscous forces also zero? Wouldn't the whole flow system become trivial, rendering the Reynolds number moot?
agd is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 20, 2012, 09:07
Default
  #19
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,601
Rep Power: 23
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by agd View Post
Just a quick question for my own edification - if the velocity is not changing with distance, then aren't the viscous forces also zero? Wouldn't the whole flow system become trivial, rendering the Reynolds number moot?
In channel flow the velocity changes with distance y alone if the flow is fully devoloped ... however, channel flow can be also the case in which the inviscid velocity inlet (for example a plug profile) develops into a boundary layer... then u = u(x,y). In all cases the Re definition can be suitably introduced
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 20, 2012, 10:08
Default
  #20
Senior Member
 
Nick
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 120
Rep Power: 6
Nick R is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
we simply do not agree on that definition of inertial, no problem

Note that, rigorously, in channel flow the motion is driven by the pressure gradient Delta P/L, therefore:

P/L = O(rho*U^2/L) that balance the viscous term. Maybe using the "pressure force" is more appealing for you
How do you define inertial force? You.previously said that it is the convective term in the navier stokes equations..that term is zero for.the.described channel flow.
Nick R is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Particle Reynolds number calculation in Lagrangian tracking? jiejie OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 5 July 6, 2012 04:47
Reynolds Number and Heat transfer Coefficient panos_metal FLUENT 0 January 7, 2011 07:37
Low Reynolds Number k-epsilon formulation CFX 10.0 Chris CFX 4 December 8, 2009 00:51
Reynolds Number Matt CFX 0 February 25, 2009 06:40
BlockMeshmergePatchPairs hjasak OpenFOAM Native Meshers: blockMesh 11 August 15, 2008 07:36


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:21.