Transitional Reynolds Number When Analysing Flow Through Orifices

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on calculating flow rates through orifices, focusing on the coefficient of discharge and the transitional Reynolds number as defined in "Hydraulic Control Systems" by Herbert E. Merritt. There is confusion regarding the transitional Reynolds number being defined as 9, while it is typically between 2300 and 3500 for fully developed pipe flow. Participants clarify that the transitional Reynolds number can vary significantly depending on the flow conditions, with different values applicable to boundary layers and non-fully developed flows. The conversation emphasizes that the commonly cited 2300 value is not a universal standard and that lower Reynolds numbers can still represent distinct flow regimes. Understanding these nuances is crucial for accurately analyzing flow through orifices.
WhiteWolf98
Messages
89
Reaction score
8
TL;DR Summary
I'm looking at laminar flow through an orifice, and a textbook I'm using has defined the transitional Reynolds number in a fashion I don't understand.
Greetings,

I need to work out the flow rate of of a flow through an orifice, where the size of the orifice and differential pressure are varied. The primary unknown in working out flow rate is the coefficient of discharge. A textbook I've been using to help me is "Hydraulic Control Systems" by Herbert E. Merritt. In it, he talks about both laminar and turbulent flow through orifices, and defines the coefficient of discharge for both.

From my understanding, the coefficient of discharge only varies when the flow is laminar, and is a constant for turbulent flow. What I'm confused about is a way in which the transitional Reynolds number is defined in the textbook, right at the end of the section on laminar flow.

Orifice Laminar 1.png
Orifice Laminar 2.png
Orifice Laminar 3.png

It can be seen on page 45, the transitional Reynolds number is defined by 3-42. And it doesn't make any sense. Well, it does and it doesn't at the same time. How is it possible to have a transitional Reynolds number of 9, when the transitional Re number is generally between 2300 and 3500. Maybe I am being very dumb, but can someone else see what is going on here? Perhaps I am missing something crucial.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
WhiteWolf98 said:
How is it possible to have a transitional Reynolds number of 9
By definition, a very tiny velocity in a very tiny orifice?

Also, it is specified that equation 3-38 was found by analyzing flows with ##R \lt 10##, thus values in that region should be expected for equation 3-42 to be valid.
 
  • Like
Likes WhiteWolf98
WhiteWolf98 said:
TL;DR Summary: I'm looking at laminar flow through an orifice, and a textbook I'm using has defined the transitional Reynolds number in a fashion I don't understand.

Greetings,

I need to work out the flow rate of of a flow through an orifice, where the size of the orifice and differential pressure are varied. The primary unknown in working out flow rate is the coefficient of discharge. A textbook I've been using to help me is "Hydraulic Control Systems" by Herbert E. Merritt. In it, he talks about both laminar and turbulent flow through orifices, and defines the coefficient of discharge for both.

From my understanding, the coefficient of discharge only varies when the flow is laminar, and is a constant for turbulent flow. What I'm confused about is a way in which the transitional Reynolds number is defined in the textbook, right at the end of the section on laminar flow.

View attachment 353226View attachment 353224View attachment 353225
It can be seen on page 45, the transitional Reynolds number is defined by 3-42. And it doesn't make any sense. Well, it does and it doesn't at the same time. How is it possible to have a transitional Reynolds number of 9, when the transitional Re number is generally between 2300 and 3500. Maybe I am being very dumb, but can someone else see what is going on here? Perhaps I am missing something crucial.
What constitutes a reasonable value for transition Reynolds number depends on the problem. The 2300 you cite is specifically for fully developed pipe flow. You are not currently studying fully developed pipe flow, so your scalings are all different.

For a boundary layer, a reasonable transition Reynolds number might be ##10^6##. It's a failing of most mechanical engineering curricula that so many engineers finish fluid mechanics courses thinking that ##Re_{tr}=2300## is some kind of universal rule for transition.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes jack action and WhiteWolf98
jack action said:
By definition, a very tiny velocity in a very tiny orifice?

Also, it is specified that equation 3-38 was found by analyzing flows with ##R \lt 10##, thus values in that region should be expected for equation 3-42 to be valid.
Yes I saw this, that is a very tiny Reynolds number. The smallest Re number I'm dealing with is about 320. It's just bizarre to me to be talking about different flow regimes at such tiny values.

So depending on the conditions, are we saying that it's possible to get different flow regimes even at low Reynolds numbers?
 
boneh3ad said:
What constitutes a reasonable value for transition Reynolds number depends on the problem. The 2300 you cite is specifically for fully developed pipe flow. You are not currently studying fully developed pipe flow, so your scaling are all different.

For a boundary layer, a reasonable transition Reynolds number might be ##10^6##. It's a failing of most mechanical engineering curricula that so many engineers finish fluid mechanics courses thinking that ##Re_{tr}=2300## is some kind of universal rule for transition.
Think you've answered my question there as I was typing it.

I'll be honest, I did think that. Thank you for your response
 
  • Like
Likes boneh3ad, jack action and berkeman
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...
Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved. He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been...
Back
Top