# pressure losses in pipes

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

 February 1, 2007, 07:32 pressure losses in pipes #1 lottie Guest   Posts: n/a Sponsored Links Hi I am trying to calculate the k factor from my fluent model from the pressure losses in pipes and the density and velocity of the fluid in a pipe. The k factors I have calculated are larger than those calculated theoritically. Does anyone have any ideas what I am doing wrong or ideas to try. Thanks

 February 2, 2007, 06:54 Re: pressure losses in pipes #2 gurion Guest   Posts: n/a You should check that your Fluent model reconstructs your theoretical calculation: laminar or turbulent flow isothermal or adiabatic walls entrance and exit boundary conditions It would help if you stated this data in your post.

 February 2, 2007, 10:42 Re: pressure losses in pipes #3 lottie Guest   Posts: n/a I am working with laminar flow and aim to use turbulent once the laminar is sorted. I am not using either isothermal or adiabatic walls. I have an entrane boundary condition of velocity of which I change. I have not set any exit boundary conditions. What would be going wrong? thanks lottie

 February 5, 2007, 13:33 Re: pressure losses in pipes #4 Andy R Guest   Posts: n/a K factors as reported in engineering literature are based on tests which include long upstream sections. Thus regardless of whether the flow is laminar or turbulent, it will be FULLY DEVELOPED. If you apply a fixed constant velocity profile (as I suspect you have) you will not be duplicating the conditions upon which K was determined. My own analyses of pipe components with fully turbulent flow is that the fixed velocity condition results in about a 10% overprediction of the delta p and thus K. I am not sure if that would not be an even larger effect for simple pipe flow You can A. Figure out from pipe flow equations the distance required for fully developed flow and add that to your model B. Use the repeating boundary condition on a small pipe model using your grid spacing. When this converges you can export this as a profile and apply it to your detailed model. If you are doing straight pipe you can use this BC directly on your grid. Ultimately I would not expect to get much closer than +/- five percent to a K-factor from something like Crane. Small details in a fitting which result in gaps and steps can have an observable effect on the DP at least of the CFD solution. You would need the detailed drawings of the component in question to model to. Additionally how was the measurement taken? A single wall static tap may give a different value than if a series of taps around the circumference are averaged, or piped to a common manifold. Also remember that those K factors are the result of many tests possibly on different geometries which have been manipulated to be a single value. I would only look for very close matches for A. Problems that have a well defined closed form solution with only limited empirical constants B. A test where you know all the details of the geometry and how it was performed. Good Luck - Andy R

 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 cdevalve FLUENT 3 January 14, 2012 01:11 engahmed Main CFD Forum 0 June 13, 2010 15:34 engahmed FLUENT 0 June 13, 2010 15:33 tania FLUENT 11 March 23, 2004 09:51 Jan CFX 0 May 14, 2002 07:33