HCBBS Forum (English)
Submit Chemical Projects / Find Solutions
Amplify Your Requirements on a Broader Chemical Platform *Engineering · Technology · Equipment · Solutions*
Submit Request

[Test Your Knowledge] Questions regarding Question 1 of Chemical Production Knowledge (59)

2010-01-22View Original

Thread Content

No one replied over there, so I’m posting this here. Please forgive me if there’s anything incorrect. The question number 1 in “Chemical Production Knowledge (59)” is as follows: Water with a constant flow rate flows in laminar flow within a circular straight pipe. If the inner diameter of the pipe is doubled, the flow resistance will be 1/8 of the original value. The original post can be found at: http://bbs.hcbbs.com/viewthread.php?tid=611340&highlight=%BB%AF%B9%A4%C9%FA%B2%FA%D6%AA%CA%B6. It’s obvious that this question is incorrect; both the person who created it and many of those who answered it gave the answer that the flow resistance would be 1/32 of the original value. However, my calculations show that it should be 1/16. Please let me know if I’m wrong or if the answer itself is incorrect. 1. In laminar flow, the friction loss in a straight pipe can be calculated using Poiseuille’s equation: hf = 32μl u/(ρd²). If the inner diameter of the pipe is doubled, the flow velocity becomes 1/4 of its original value; using the above formula, the resulting value is 1/16.

2. Using the general formula for friction loss in a straight pipe: hf = λl u²/(2d). Since the square of the flow velocity is 1/16, and dividing by twice the diameter gives 1/32. Don’t forget that there is also a friction coefficient involved. In laminar flow, the friction coefficient is inversely proportional to the Reynolds number, and it can be expressed as λ = 64/Re. If the diameter is doubled, the flow velocity becomes 1/4 of its original value, and the Reynolds number becomes 1/2 of its original value. As a result, the friction coefficient becomes twice its original value. Overall, the flow resistance remains 1/16 of its original value. I’m not sure where my calculation went wrong; please share your thoughts
Reply #22010-01-22
It should be 1/16. You’re right
Reply #32010-01-22
I also think it’s 1/16; it’s quite normal for the answer to be wrong

Submit a Project

**Looking for Chemical Technology, Equipment & Solutions?** No Registration Required Broader Platform Exposure | Global Chemical Service Provider Connections

Submit Request — Free Consultation

Disclaimer

This is an automated machine translation of the original thread. Some technical terms may have inaccuracies; the original text shall prevail. Click "View Original" at the top right to access the source page, which supports IP-based automatic real-time language translation. Please watch out for contact details and sales inducements to prevent fraud. All content and translations are for reference only, representing solely the poster's personal views. For enquiries, email service@hcbbs.com.