Laminar flow in strongly curved tubes

Nunge, Richard J.; Lin, Tsyh-Shyong

doi:10.1002/aic.690190638

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An exception is the perturbation solution of Topakoglu (1967) which does not invoke Dean's approximation but is limited to small Reynolds numbers. Austin & Seader (1973) obtained finite difference solutions with curvature ratio as large as 0.2; Nunge & Lin (1973) investigated the large curvature ratio effect by using a Fourier series method for small Dean numbers and the boundary layer approximation of Ito (1969) for large Dean numbers, but they were somewhat frustrated in attempting to join these two solutions smoothly; Nandakumar & Masliyah (1982) presented some finite difference solutions for δ = 0.1; Soh & Berger (1987) solved the full Navier-Stokes equation from δ = 0.01 to δ = 0.2 using a finite difference method; they found that the δ-dependence of the flow resistance increases as the Dean number increases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fully developed viscous and viscoelastic flows in curved pipes

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some h-p finite element computations have been carried out to obtain solutions for fully developed laminar flows in curved pipes with curvature ratios from 0.001 to 0.5. An Oldroyd-3-constant model is used to represent the viscoelastic fluid, which includes the upper-convected Maxwell (UCM) model and the Oldroyd-B model as special cases. With this model we can examine separately the effects of the fluid inertia, and the first and second normal-stress differences. From analysis of the global torque and force balances, three criteria are proposed for this problem to estimate the errors in the computations. Moreover, the finite element solutions are accurately confirmed by the perturbation solutions of Robertson & Muller (1996) in the cases of small Reynolds/Deborah numbers.Our numerical solutions and an order-of-magnitude analysis of the governing equations elucidate the mechanism of the secondary flow in the absence of second normal-stress difference. For Newtonian flow, the pressure gradient near the wall region is the driving force for the secondary flow; for creeping viscoelastic flow, the combination of large axial normal stress with streamline curvature, the so-called hoop stress near the wall, promotes a secondary flow in the same direction as the inertial secondary flow, despite the adverse pressure gradient there; in the case of inertial viscoelastic flow, both the larger axial normal stress and the smaller inertia near the wall promote the secondary flow.For both Newtonian and viscoelastic fluids the secondary volumetric fluxes per unit of work consumption and per unit of axial volumetric flux first increase then decrease as the Reynolds/Deborah number increases; this behaviour should be of interest in engineering applications.Typical negative values of second normal-stress difference can drastically suppress the secondary flow and in the case of small curvature ratios, make the flow approximate the corresponding Poiseuille flow in a straight pipe. The viscoelasticity of Oldroyd-B fluid causes drag enhancement compared to Newtonian flow. Adding a typical negative second normal-stress difference produces large drag reductions for a small curvature ratio δ = 0.01; however, for a large curvature ratio δ = 0.2, although the secondary flows are also drastically attenuated by the second normal-stress difference, the flow resistance remains considerably higher than in Newtonian flow.It was observed that for the UCM and Oldroyd-B models, the limiting Deborah numbers met in our steady solution calculations obey the same scaling criterion as proposed by McKinley et al. (1996) for elastic instabilities; we present an intriguing problem on the relation between the Newton iteration for steady solutions and the linear stability analyses.

show abstract