# Question about the characteristic length calculation

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

 October 21, 2012, 08:03 Question about the characteristic length calculation #1 Senior Member     Meimei Wang Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 494 Rep Power: 8 Hi When we need to calculate the Reynolds number, we need to know the characteristic length firstly. May i ask how to calculate the characteristic length? __________________ Best regards, Meimei

 October 21, 2012, 08:38 #2 Senior Member     Alex Pasic Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Croatia Posts: 185 Rep Power: 8 Characteristic length is the length of the obstacle in the flow field. The conventions vary from field to field so characteristic length can be: diameter of a cylinder around which fluid flows, length of a vehicle, length of the wheelbase of a vehicle, height of an obstacle etc. All in all, it's not really calculated, it's just a value you take as a factor because others years ago agreed on it. In fact, most of the time it's listed on what is the Re based such as "Reynolds number in relation to the height of the barrier", or a similar quotation with "length" or "diameter". manojkv likes this.

October 21, 2012, 15:00
#3
Senior Member

Meimei Wang
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 494
Rep Power: 8
Thanks. I have fluid flow through a cube. The length l_x is 100. The width is l_y=10. The height l_z=0.01. The fluid flow at y direction. May I ask what's the characteristic length for calculating the Re?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by scipy Characteristic length is the length of the obstacle in the flow field. The conventions vary from field to field so characteristic length can be: diameter of a cylinder around which fluid flows, length of a vehicle, length of the wheelbase of a vehicle, height of an obstacle etc. All in all, it's not really calculated, it's just a value you take as a factor because others years ago agreed on it. In fact, most of the time it's listed on what is the Re based such as "Reynolds number in relation to the height of the barrier", or a similar quotation with "length" or "diameter".
__________________
Best regards,
Meimei

 October 21, 2012, 15:35 #4 Senior Member     Alex Pasic Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Croatia Posts: 185 Rep Power: 8 If I've understood your problem correctly, you are interested in flow through a rectangular channel/pipe. In this case (and this only holds true for turbulent flow) you need to calculate the "equivalent hydraulic diameter" for which I've written the formula and drew a rough sketch in this picture: http://i.imgur.com/ImM4g.png I assume your units are meters (since they ought to be for calculating the Reynolds number), so just put in 0.02 in the . This is the basis for Re calculation in non-round hydraulic calculation of pipelines and again, it's only valid for turbulent flows. Convetion is (as far as I'm aware) that internal flows with Re<2300 are considered laminar, period between Re 2300 and 4000 can be laminar but can easily transition into turbulent flow, and for Re>4000 you can almost be sure when you say it's fully turbulent.

October 22, 2012, 09:01
#5
Senior Member

Meimei Wang
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 494
Rep Power: 8
Thank you very much for your answer. It's very helpful! The unit is actually micrometer. One question: we need to know the characteristic length firstly, then we can calculate the Re. Then we can know if it's turbulent flow or not. If I don't know whether it's turbulent or not beforehand, shall I still use this formula to detect the regime of the flow?

Thanks!

Quote:
 Originally Posted by scipy If I've understood your problem correctly, you are interested in flow through a rectangular channel/pipe. In this case (and this only holds true for turbulent flow) you need to calculate the "equivalent hydraulic diameter" for which I've written the formula and drew a rough sketch in this picture: http://i.imgur.com/ImM4g.png I assume your units are meters (since they ought to be for calculating the Reynolds number), so just put in 0.02 in the . This is the basis for Re calculation in non-round hydraulic calculation of pipelines and again, it's only valid for turbulent flows. Convetion is (as far as I'm aware) that internal flows with Re<2300 are considered laminar, period between Re 2300 and 4000 can be laminar but can easily transition into turbulent flow, and for Re>4000 you can almost be sure when you say it's fully turbulent.
__________________
Best regards,
Meimei

 October 22, 2012, 18:13 #6 Senior Member     Alex Pasic Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Croatia Posts: 185 Rep Power: 8 You can use this formula, but if the calculated Re is below 2300 then the validity of the result is "questionable".

October 23, 2012, 05:12
#7
Senior Member

Meimei Wang
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 494
Rep Power: 8
Quote:
 Originally Posted by scipy You can use this formula, but if the calculated Re is below 2300 then the validity of the result is "questionable".
It is below 2300. Is there a formula to calculate the characteristic length for laminar flow?
__________________
Best regards,
Meimei

Last edited by Anna Tian; October 23, 2012 at 07:07.

 October 23, 2012, 13:34 #8 Senior Member     Paolo Lampitella Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Italy Posts: 601 Blog Entries: 17 Rep Power: 20 Just some facts: Re is a non-dimensional number -> you just need to use consistent units. If the length is based on micrometers than you just have to add 1e-6 factor or use consistent units for the other quantities. Re number and its effects exist independently from the state of the flow. For incompressible isothermal flows, Re number is the only parameter affecting the flow (actually you can define many of them based on different length scales). If for certain ducts with a certain roughness the transition is established around some Re number... well than that's it. You compute that Re number and, according to its value you know if you are turbulent or not. It's completely non sense to discard the Re number if it comes out to be below some treshold value. At most, if it's in the transitional regime you can have some doubts about the flow being laminar or not, but the Re number is definetely remaining with the same value. Hydraulic diameter is just a reference length. There is no way for it to become invalid in defining a Re number just because it comes out too low. Bai Hu and soriyoshi like this.

October 23, 2012, 17:10
#9
Senior Member

Meimei Wang
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 494
Rep Power: 8
My purpose is to know whether my flow is laminar or turbulent. Do you mean i can completely use hydraulic diameter as the characteristic length to calculate Re to know my regime?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sbaffini Just some facts: Re is a non-dimensional number -> you just need to use consistent units. If the length is based on micrometers than you just have to add 1e-6 factor or use consistent units for the other quantities. Re number and its effects exist independently from the state of the flow. For incompressible isothermal flows, Re number is the only parameter affecting the flow (actually you can define many of them based on different length scales). If for certain ducts with a certain roughness the transition is established around some Re number... well than that's it. You compute that Re number and, according to its value you know if you are turbulent or not. It's completely non sense to discard the Re number if it comes out to be below some treshold value. At most, if it's in the transitional regime you can have some doubts about the flow being laminar or not, but the Re number is definetely remaining with the same value. Hydraulic diameter is just a reference length. There is no way for it to become invalid in defining a Re number just because it comes out too low.
__________________
Best regards,
Meimei

 October 23, 2012, 18:36 #10 Senior Member     Paolo Lampitella Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Italy Posts: 601 Blog Entries: 17 Rep Power: 20 Long story short: YES. More correct way to express my way of thinking: "if you have some rule (based on experimental evidence or whatever) which tells you that, for a certain flow, when Re (based on a certain length, which can be the hydraulic diameter, it usually is but depends on the rule) is below some number then the flow is laminar" that rule is necessarily valid for all the values which can possibly come out from the Re number defined above. Does this sentence makes sense to you: "if Re is above X the flow is turbulent, otherwise i don't know"? And this one:" if Re is above X the flow is turbulent; if Re is below Y the flow is laminar; if Re is between Y and X the flow is transitional"? If the last one makes sense to you (i hope so), do you expect the "Re" appearing in it being defined always in the same way all the times it appears in the sentence, or i should have written something like: " if Re1 is above X the flow is turbulent; if Re2 is below Y the flow is laminar; if Re3 is between Y and X the flow is transitional"? I imagine my point is clear now. Going to your problem, that rule of thumb exists for duct flows and is based on the hydraulic diameter. Do i expect it to be accurate enough independently from the real shape of the duct section and its roughness? Hell no, it's a rule of thumb based on pure experimental evidence, not a theory.

January 20, 2013, 15:15
#11
Senior Member

Meimei Wang
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 494
Rep Power: 8
Quote:
 Originally Posted by sbaffini Long story short: YES. More correct way to express my way of thinking: "if you have some rule (based on experimental evidence or whatever) which tells you that, for a certain flow, when Re (based on a certain length, which can be the hydraulic diameter, it usually is but depends on the rule) is below some number then the flow is laminar" that rule is necessarily valid for all the values which can possibly come out from the Re number defined above. Does this sentence makes sense to you: "if Re is above X the flow is turbulent, otherwise i don't know"? And this one:" if Re is above X the flow is turbulent; if Re is below Y the flow is laminar; if Re is between Y and X the flow is transitional"? If the last one makes sense to you (i hope so), do you expect the "Re" appearing in it being defined always in the same way all the times it appears in the sentence, or i should have written something like: " if Re1 is above X the flow is turbulent; if Re2 is below Y the flow is laminar; if Re3 is between Y and X the flow is transitional"? I imagine my point is clear now. Going to your problem, that rule of thumb exists for duct flows and is based on the hydraulic diameter. Do i expect it to be accurate enough independently from the real shape of the duct section and its roughness? Hell no, it's a rule of thumb based on pure experimental evidence, not a theory.

Thank you. May I ask you another question?

If I have a very complex geometry and I have no experience about the relation between Re and the flow regime, then how to decide whether laminar model, or turbulent mode, should be used for this case?

Thank you very much!
__________________
Best regards,
Meimei

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post Madhukar FLUENT 1 July 24, 2007 03:51 KEVIN FLUENT 8 March 25, 2004 09:33 maryam FLUENT 0 January 10, 2004 02:22 CFD MAN FLUENT 0 August 19, 2002 21:40 Thomas P. Abraham Main CFD Forum 2 April 20, 1999 17:16

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:29.