`

RETROFITTING AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

OF THE REYNOLDS APPARATUS

SAMUEL JAY CACAO PASIA

2003-46400

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE COLLEGE OF

ENGINEERING AND AGRO-INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY,
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES LOS BAÑOS
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

FEBRUARY 2009
 ACCEPTANCE SHEET

The report attached hereto entitled RETROFITTING AND PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION OF THE REYNOLDS APPARATUS, prepared submitted by SAMUEL
JAY CACAO PASIA in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR
OF SCIENCE IN CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, is hereby accepted.

__________________________ __________________________ _________________________

DR. MANOLITO BAMBASE ENGR. JEANNE VALENCIA ENGR. AMELIA PARAO
Panel Member Panel Member Panel Member
__________________________ __________________________ _________________________
Date Signed Date Signed Date Signed

__________________________
ENGR. JERICO AGUILA
Adviser
________________________
Date Signed

_________________________
DR. JOVITA MOVILLON
Chair, Chemical Engineering Department

________________________
Date Signed

_____________________________
DR. ARSENIO N. RESURECCION
Dean
College of Engineering and Agro-Industrial Technology
University of the Philippines Los Baños

_________________________
Date Signed
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I never imagined myself taking up any course that requires a

deep understanding of mathematical concepts. I once dreamed to
be a journalist; I wanted to write in a wide-circulation
newspaper. I passed the UPCAT and I qualified for BA Journalism.
What took me to the BS Chemical Engineering program? It would
take another manuscript to explain. But then, I wanted to thank
some people who made it possible for me to survive the roller
coaster ride.

To my thesis adviser, Engr. Jerico Aguila, for suggesting the

topic to me. I really wanted to help the department, and I think
retrofitting the Reynolds Apparatus would be my own little way
of doing it. Thank you for your understanding during those times
that I am difficult to understand.

Ma’am Amy, I thank God for that instance when we shared the
same jeepney ride back to LB. Thank you for your significant and
major suggestion on how to retrofit the Reynolds Apparatus.
Words are not enough to express my gratitude.

To my panelists, Dr. Manolito Bambase, Engr. Jeanne

Michelle Valencia, and Engr. Amelia Parao, thanks for your
insights and comments on how to further improve my methodology.

To my academic adviser, Ma’am Monet, thanks for giving me

useful academic tips on how to make this journey enjoyable. You
were one of those few people whom I consult regarding my
academic progress since I transferred from Diliman. Thank you,
Ma’am. You might not even know it, but you were a great help.
To the rest of the faculty and staff of the Department of
Chemical Engineering, thank you for giving me sufficient
reason to continue the learning process. There were many times I
wanted to give up, but the constant challenge that you impose
gives my soul sufficient oxygen to continue breath.

To Nanang Aldrin, Karl, Carlo Cruz, and Miguel, thank you

for your presence during my test runs and actual
experimentation. Thank you for lending me a helping hand during
those times I needed it the most. I would not be able to do it
alone. I owe you a lot. Your mere presence made a big
difference.

To my batchmates in Upsilon Sigma Phi and Sigma Delta

Phi, you were among my first LB companions. Thank you for the
common ground, for the shared pains and joy, for the lessons,
for the defeats and triumphs.

To my UPLB Perspective AY 2006-2007 friends. You helped me

prove to the rest of the world that I can be an Engineering
student and a writer at the same time. Thanks for those
sleepless nights we shared. I learned how to deal with pressure
(aside from causing pressure) from you.

To my plant design mates, Meg and Xylene, thank you.

Batch 2007, thank you. Prove them wrong.  I hope I have

imparted enough. But I must admit, I also learned a lot. And for
that, thank you very much.
Jesica, thank you for always being there. You always believed
in me. During those times I needed the encouragement, you never
fail to inspire and motivate me to reach my aspirations.

Kuya Eugene, thank you for being a friend, a confidante, a

brother. This thesis would not be possible if you did not help
me. Those two days that you spared for me went a long way. It
gave me more reasons to strive harder and prove everyone that it
can be done. You have always helped me, even if at times, I do
not embody the kind of brother that you deserve. Your genuine
concern led me out of this chaotic journey. Thank you, kuya. May
the good Lord always bless you.

Nanay and Tatay, you always stood by my side. There are a lot
of instances in which I disappointed you, but still you stood by
me. You never failed to remind me of my priorities. And during
those times I felt disappointed of myself, you never made me
felt like I was a failure. Yes, I am a writer, but I just can’t
find the most appropriate words to express my gratefulness. You
never left me, even if at times, I abandoned your advice. Thank
you for loving me and always believing in me.

To all those people who took part in this manuscript,

especially those people whom I failed to mention, every single
letter printed herein, I owe to you.

And above all, to the Most Holy Noble Fellow of the

Universe who perfectly put everything into place. May we all
work towards following his Divine Will.

- Samuel Jay Cacao Pasia 2005

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page i
Acceptance Sheet ii
Acknowledgments iii
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
Abstract x
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 3
1.3 Objectives of the Study 4
1.4 Scope and Limitation 5
1.5 Date and Place of Study 5
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 6
2.1 Fluid Flow Overview 6
2.2. Reynolds Experiment 7
2.2.1 Reynolds Number 8
2.2.2 Flow Regime 11
2.3 Boundary Layer Formation 12
2.4 Flow Visualization Techniques 13
2.4.1 Addition of Foreign Material 15
2.4.2 Optical Techniques 16
2.5 Description of Existing Equipment 16
2.6 Design Equations 18
MATERIALS AND METHODS 23
3.1 Design Modifications 23
3.2 Retrofitting the Reynolds Apparatus 23
3.3 Performance Evaluation 26
3.3.1 Experimental Flow Rate Determination 26
3.3.2 Testing Proper 27
3.3.3 Post Testing Procedure 28
RESULTS AND DISCUSSSION 29
4.1 Design History 29
4.2 Equipment Added 30
4.2.1 Water Overflow Regulating Device 30
4.2.2 Pump Selection and Installation 31
4.2.3 Second Reservoir 32
4.2.4 Fluorescent Light 33
 4.3 Performance Evaluation of the Newly Retrofitted Reynolds Apparatus 34
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 47
RECOMMENDATION 50
REFERENCES 52
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Number Title Page

2.1 Variables necessary for the study of fluid mechanics 6

2.2 Entrance Length as computed by Manuzon in 1997 22
4.1 Theoretical maximum Reynolds Number at different water levels 34
4.2 Volumetric flow rates (in L/s) for different water levels (turbulent) 35
4.3 Fluid velocity (in m/s) for different water levels (turbulent) 35
4.4 Established Reynolds Numbers for the different water levels 37
4.5 Volumetric flow rates (in L/s) for different water levels (laminar) 41
4.6 Fluid velocity (in m/s) for different water levels (laminar) 42
4.7 Established Reynolds Numbers for the different water levels 43
(laminar)
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Number Title Page

2.1 Equipment setup as designed by Manuzon in 1997 18

3.1 Additional overflow regulating devices 24
3.2 Before and after shots at the end of the transparent pipe 25
4.1 The original Reynolds Apparatus fabricated by Manuzon in 1997 29
4.2 Installation of the overflow regulating device at the first reservoir 31
4.3 The KPM ½ HP Volumetric Electric Booster Pump connected
to the first reservoir 32
4.4 The second reservoir is a drum with a gate valve 33
4.5 The Fluorescent light installed near the transparent tube
for better view 34
4.6 Volumetric Flow Rates vs Liquid Height in the Water Reservoir 36
4.7 Average Fluid Velocity vs Liquid Height 37
4.8 Turbulent Flow Regime at Liquid Level 5 (0.132 m) 39
4.9 Turbulent Flow Regime at Liquid Level 4 (0. 264 m) 39
4.10 Turbulent Flow Regime at Liquid Level 3 (0.396 m) 40
4.11 Turbulent Flow Regime at Liquid Level 2 (0.528 m) 41
4.12 Turbulent Flow Regime at Liquid Level 1 (0.66 m) 42
4.13 Volumetric Flow Rates vs Liquid Height in the Water Reservoir 42
(Laminar)
4.14 Average Fluid Velocity vs Liquid Height (Laminar) 43
4.15 Laminar Flow Regime at Liquid Level 5 (0.132 m) 44
4.16 Laminar Flow Regime at Liquid Level 4 (0. 264 m) 45
4.17 Laminar Flow Regime at Liquid Level 3 (0.396 m) 45
4.18 Laminar Flow Regime at Liquid Level 2 (0.528 m) 46
4.19 Laminar Flow Regime at Liquid Level 2 (0.66 m) 46
PASIA, SAMUEL JAY CACAO, Department of Chemical Engineering, College of
Engineering and Agro-Industrial Technology; University of the Philippines at Los Baños,
February 2009. Retrofitting and Performance Evaluation of the Reynolds Apparatus.

Adviser : Engr. Jerico R. Aguila

ABSTRACT

Several concerns to be addressed were identified in this study, namely: the

turbulence due to the form of the original dye injector, clarity of the glass pipe,
reproducibility and variability of the data, and water consumption. These concerns
were addressed accordingly. First, the dye injection system was replaced by glass
tubing connected by copper metal still assuming the same shape. This minimizes
the obstruction and provides a smoother provision for a more efficient visual
observation of liquid layers. In addition, the accumulated dye that hindered the
effective visual observation of different flow regimes was cleaned using detergent
and scrubbers. After sustaining the desired clarity of the glass pipe, the Reynolds
apparatus was ready again for visual observation. And lastly, the overflow
regulating devices gave provision for the variability of data that were observed.

The problem on excessive water consumption was addressed by using a

catch basin and placing it under the valve at the end of the transparent glass tube
and pumping back the water to the second reservoir. This lessens the consumption
of water by avoiding wastage of water. Despite the injection of the dye into the
water, the effect in terms of water color is negligible. In addition, a baffle was
installed to minimize the turbulence due to pumping of water.

For all sets of data, the main reservoir was first filled up to the highest
overflow regulating device (1: 0.66m height) just like in the manner used to
measure the volumetric flow rates. The water level was maintained at this point.
Then the chosen gate valve calibration (1 to 4, as shown in Figure 3.3) was used,
and this was maintained for each data set. Once the chosen gate valve calibration
was opened, the dye was allowed to freely flow out. Water was allowed to flow
through the transparent pipe, maintaining the water level until equilibrium was
reached. Once equilibrium level was reached, photo and video documentation was
done using a digital video camera.

For the first data set, all five flows are concluded to belong in the laminar
regime with Reynolds number of : 2007.53, 1736.74, 1653.43, 1280.60, and
868.98. For the second set of data, two belong to the turbulent flow with Reynolds
number of 5572.78 and 4093.45; one belong to the transition flow with the
Reynolds number of 2729.34; and two belong to the turbulent flow with Reynolds
number of 1830.66 and 1094.39. For the third data set, four data points belong to
the turbulent flow: 9956.34, 7977.08, 6578.42, and 5210.85; and one belong to
the transition flow with a Reynolds number of 2551.90. For the fourth set of data,
all data beong to the turbulent flow with Reynolds number of 23059.86, 21383.73,
20329.88, 14975.51, and 9985.83.

In comparison with Manuzon’s theoretically determined maximum

Reynolds number that the apparatus can accommodate, a percent difference of
44.16 % was obtained.

Documentation of the fluid flows was done using a Pixel 5 Megapixel

Digital Video camera. During the testing, only two people operated the newly-
retrofitted Reynolds Apparatus. Compared to the operation of the old apparatus
which needed at least 4 people, the newly-retrofitted apparatus is easier to operate
given that two people can run its operation. In addition, it gives precise
quantitative results.
 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Flows that are completely bounded by solid surfaces are called internal flows. Thus

internal flows include flows through pipes, ducts, nozzles, diffusers, valves, and fittings. These

flows may be either laminar or turbulent.

Osborne Reynolds (1842-1912) was the first person to distinguish between laminar and

turbulent flow and quantify when the flow transitioned from one flow regime to another. An

apparatus was used by Reynolds to view different flow regimes in his classic experiments

conducted in the 19th century.

The original apparatus as identified by Osborne Reynolds consists of a reservoir that

feeds into a long clear pipe. The flow rate through the pipe is controlled by the valve at the exit

of the pipe. A dye injection needle, located at the entrance of the pipe, feeds a thin ribbon of dye

into the flow. The reservoir contains screens and a bed of marbles to help dampen any upstream

disturbances. The objective of this experiment is to observe the characteristics of laminar and

turbulent flow and measure the Reynolds number range for the transition from laminar to

turbulent flow in a pipe (Curry et. al, 1998).

 Fluid flow can be extremely complex, thus idealized models which are relatively simpler

can be used to simplify our notion of such (Young & Freedman, 2004). An ideal liquid is a fluid

that is incompressible, or one that has a constant density, and has no internal friction.

Flow line is the path of an individual particle in a fluid undergoing motion. The nature of

flow of a given incompressible fluid is characterized by its Reynolds number. For large values of

Reynolds number, one or all of the terms in the numerator are large compared with the

denominator. This implies a large expanse of fluid, high velocity, great density, extremely small

viscosity, or combinations of these extremes. The numerator terms are related to the inertial

forces or forces set up by acceleration or deceleration of the fluid. The denominator term is the

cause of viscous shear forces. Thus, the Reynolds number parameter can also be considered as a

ratio of inertial to viscous forces.

Maxwell (1860) as cited by Manuzon (1997), derived Newton’s Law for Momentum

Transport stating that the stress applied to a part of the fluid is directly proportional to the strain

or the time rate of change of velocity or the absolute viscosity.

The acceleration produced by a net force on an object is directly proportional to the

magnitude of the net force, is in the same direction as the net force, and is inversely proportional

to the mass of the object (Hewitt, 2000). In relation, the microscopic or molecular transfer of

momentum results to the forces acting on a fluid, such as pressure and shear stress (Welty, 1969

as cited by Manuzon, 1997).

 At low flow, the dye pattern was regular and formed a single line of color. At high flow

rates, on the other hand, the dye became dispersed throughout the pipe cross-section because of

very irregular fluid motion.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Manuzon (1997) designed and fabricated a Reynolds apparatus that aims to further verify

the existence of such transition between laminar and turbulent flow via visual examination. An

efficient device is necessary for conducting experiments for visual observation, characterization

and classification of different flow regimes. Numerous observations were already conducted

regarding flow regimes. Stress membrane theory and the Prandtl mixing length theory are

existing models used to predict the nature and transition of flow, but an apparatus is necessary

for deeper understanding of such phenomena.

Manuzon was able to design, fabricate and test a Reynolds apparatus that was able to

show that there exists flow regimes such as laminar, transition state, and turbulent flow. He made

use of the Bernoulli equation in making the design. The apparatus was used to qualitatively

describe and observe the different flow regimes.

However, Manuzon’s Reynolds apparatus is more than a decade old. It is still being used

in Unit Operations I Laboratory (ChE 155), without any modification made on the original

design. However, several observed limitations have already been noted by those who were able

to use the apparatus. These limitations are addressed in this study. Likewise, the design was
evaluated in this study to develop a more efficient apparatus, capable of giving more accurate

observations.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The general objective of this study was to retrofit and evaluate the performance of the

Reynolds apparatus.

Specifically, the study aimed to:

(1) identify prevailing problems in the existing Reynolds apparatus originally designed

and fabricated by Manuzon at the Unit Operations Laboratory in 1997;

(2) modify the design of the original Reynolds apparatus to address the problems

identified;

(3) establish with the newly-retrofitted apparatus a more comprehensive procedure of

operation;

(4) visually enhance the observation of the different flow regime;

(5) draw pertinent correlation between liquid height and Reynolds number; and

(6) determine the upper bound value of Reynolds number that can be observed using the

refitted apparatus and compare it with the one theoretically determined by Manuzon

which is 15,996.
1.4 Scope and Limitation

The retrofitted Reynolds Apparatus will only be suitable for flow regime observation of

Newtonian fluids, specifically water. Only isothermal and adiabatic flow systems will be

considered in this study. All observations and measurements will be assumed to occur at steady

state conditions.

The proponent only enhanced the existing setup by installing additional equipment and

overflow regulating device. Generally, the consideration for every modification made was

Manuzon’s original Reynolds Apparatus design made in 1997.

During the testing, only the upper bound values were considered due to the consideration

on repeatability of procedure. Thus, the proponent only chose to set the control valve at the end

of the Pyrex glass tube to be fully opened.

1.5 Date and Place of the Study

Manuzon’s Reynolds apparatus can be located at the Unit Operations Laboratory,

Department of the Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering and Agro-Industrial

Technology (CEAT), University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB). The study which dealt on

the retrofitting and performance evaluation of the apparatus was done at the aforementioned

location, from October 2008 to February 2009.

 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Fluid Flow Overview

By definition, a fluid is a material continuum that is unable to withstand a static shear

stress. Unlike an elastic solid which responds to a shear stress with a recoverable deformation, a

fluid responds with an irrecoverable flow. Variables needed to define a fluid and its environment

are given in Table 2.1

Table 2.1 Variables necessary for the study of fluid mechanics

Quantity Symbol Object Units

pressure P scalar N/m2

velocity V vector m/s

density R scalar kg/m3

viscosity M scalar kg/m-s

body force B vector N/kg

time T scalar s

Examples of fluids include gases and liquids. Typically, liquids are considered to be

incompressible, whereas gases are considered to be compressible. However, there are exceptions

in everyday engineering applications.

2.2 Reynolds Experiment

 During the 1800s, Osborne Reynolds conducted an experiment that would determine

when two flow situations are similar. According to Streeter (1998), two cases of flow are similar

when: (1) the geometrical aspects are the same, thus, the flow cases’ corresponding linear

dimensions have a constant ratio; and (2) the corresponding force polygons have the same

geometrical aspects as well, or pressures at corresponding points have a constant ratio.

Reynolds inferred that dynamic similarity may be established when the general

differential equations that describing the fluid flow were identical. By using and manipulating

the units of mass, length and time in one set of equations and determining the conditions that

must be satisfied to make them identical to the original differential equations, Reynolds

discovered a dimensionless group that must be the same for both cases of flow. This is now

called the Reynolds number.

There are two known flow regimes. According to McCabe et. al (1993), Reynolds

marked a distinction between the two using his classic experiment in 1883. A glass tube held

parallel to the ground was immersed in a glass walled-tank filled with water. By opening a valve,

a controlled flow of water could be drawn through the tube. A provision was made and the

entrance to the tube was flared to introduce a fine filament of colored water from the overhead

flask into a stream at the tube entrance.

2.2.1 Reynolds number

The nature of flow, that is whether laminar or turbulent, and its relative position along a

scale indicating the relative importance of turbulent or laminar tendencies are indicated by the

Reynolds number.

Reynolds number is one of the named dimensionless groups whose magnitude is

independent of the units used, provided that the units are consistent. According to McCabe

(1993), additional observations have shown that the transition from laminar to turbulent flow

actually may occur over a wide range of Reynolds numbers. In a pipe, flow is always laminar at

Reynolds number below 2100, but laminar flow can persist up to Reynolds numbers of several

thousand under special conditions of well-rounded tube entrance and very quiet liquid in the

tank.

Under ordinary conditions, the flow in a pipe or tube is turbulent at numbers above about

4000. Transition region exists at Reynolds numbers between 2100 and 4000, wherein flow may

either be laminar or turbulent, depending upon conditions at the entrance of the tube and on the

distance of the entrance.

According to Perry (1997), fluid flow, be it compressible or incompressible, may be

classified by virtue of the ratio of the forces due to inertia to the forces due to inherent viscosity.

Reynolds number, a dimensionless number, mathematically represents this ratio. Laminar flow is
characterized by low Reynolds number, whereas turbulent flow is distinguished by its high

Reynolds number. Reynolds number for flow pipes is given by the equation

where is the fluid density, V is the fluid velocity, D is the pipe diameter, and is the fluid

viscosity.

Reynolds number is the criterion of dynamic similarity (Brown, 1973). The derivation of

this dimensionless quantity is absolutely general for all systems which involve relative motion

between fluids and solids except in the presence of appreciable gravitational or elastic effects.

Considered as a criterion, the Reynolds number is found to be of great utility in all types of fluid

flow problems and is significant when applied to geometrically similar systems.

Osborne Reynolds never fully realized the implications of the dimensionless number he

was able to develop, the Reynolds number. Reynolds merely considered the ratio as a criterion

for the critical velocity in pipe flow. It was Lord Rayleigh who has shown that it is a non-

dimensional factor governing all problems on fluid flow frictional resistance, and that similar

non-dimensional constants exist for many other natural phenomena

(http://hypertextbook.com/physics/matter/turbulence/).

It is a practice in engineering design that when a large object such as a ship, airplane, or

building is to be made, a scale model is constructed and tested so that the performance of the

large object can be calculated from the test results of the scale model. Lord Rayleigh showed that
the scale model tests gave comparable results only when the non-dimensional factor of the model

is equal to that of the large object when working under its design conditions.

By equating the non-dimensional factor of the large object to that of the model, the test

speed of the model is obtained. This is known as the corresponding speed and the comparison of

the two conditions between the large object and the test results of a scale model at its

corresponding speed is known as the principle of dynamic similarity.

2.2.2 Flow regime

Laminar flow is defined as flow in which the fluid moves in layers, or laminas, one layer

gliding smoothly over an adjacent layer with only a molecular interchange of momentum. Any

tendencies toward instability and turbulence are damped out by viscous shear forces that resist

relative motion of adjacent fluid layers. It is also defined as an organized flow field that can be

described with streamlines. In order for laminar flow to be permissible, the viscous stresses must

dominate over the fluid inertia stresses.

Turbulent flow, however, has very erratic motion of fluid particles, with a violent

transverse interchange of momentum (Streeter, et. al, 1998). It can also be defined as a flow field

that cannot be described with streamlines in the absolute sense. However, time-averaged

streamlines can be defined to describe the average behavior of the flow. In turbulent flow, the

inertia stresses dominate over the viscous stresses, leading to small-scale chaotic behavior in the

fluid motion.
 Reynolds found out in his experiment that, at low rates of flow, a colored jet of water

flowed intact along with the mainstream and no cross mixing occurred. In laminar flow, the

behavior of the color band showed clearly that the water was flowing in parallel straight lines. As

the flow rate was increased and upon reaching the critical velocity, the thread of color became

wavy which gradually disappeared, as the dye was spread uniformly throughout the entire cross

section of the stream of water (McCabe, 1993).

On the other hand, Brown (1973) indicated that as the rate of flow is increased, the eddy

becomes larger and more complex, which results into a rather more turbulent flow. Flow lines

around a small particle are more likely to be characterized as laminar. Meanwhile, if the particle

is large, the liquid flow is likely to be turbulent accompanied by the formation of eddies and

vortices in the fluid behind the particle in motion. Likewise, fluid viscosity is an important

determinant and factor in calculating for the resistance and in the classification of the flow.

For low Reynolds numbers the behavior of a fluid depends mostly on its viscosity and the

flow is steady, smooth, viscous, or laminar and n = 1. For high Reynolds numbers the

momentum of the fluid determines its behavior more than the viscosity and the flow is unsteady,

churning, roiling, or turbulent and n = 2. For intermediate Reynolds numbers the flow is

transitional – partly laminar and partly turbulent

(http://hypertextbook.com/physics/matter/turbulence/).

2.3 Boundary Layer Formation

 Young and Freedman (2004) pointed out that a viscous fluid consistently tend to cling to

a solid surface in which it has a contact with. There always is a thin boundary layer of fluid near

the surface in which the fluid is nearly at rest with respect to the surface.

McCabe (1993) defines a boundary layer as a part of a moving fluid in which the fluid

motion is influenced by the presence of a solid boundary. Considering a straight thin-walled tube

with fluid entering at a uniform velocity, a boundary layer begins to form at the entrance to the

tube. As the fluid moves through the first part of the channel, the layer builds up and thickens.

On the other hand, a fully developed turbulence results at a point where the boundary

layer occupies the entire cross section of the stream flowing in the tube. In such a case, a fluid

has already progressed through a duct far enough in such a way that no further change takes

place in the velocity pattern through the duct or pipe (Foust, 1980).

Ludwig Prandtl first theorized in his paper “Über Flussigkeitsbewegung bei sehr kleiner

Reigbung” (“On the Motion of Fluid with Very Little Friction”), as cited by Anderson (2005),

that an effect of friction was to cause the fluid immediately adjacent to the surface stick to the

surface. In other words, Prandtl assumed that there exists a no-slip condition at the surface and

the frictional effects are experienced only in the boundary layer. He furthered that outside the

boundary layer, flow is inviscid.

Furthermore, Prandtl described the boundary layer by using a hypothesis of an adhesion

of the fluid to the walls, and consequently, a zero relative velocity between the fluid and the wall.
If the viscosity was very small and the fluid path along the wall is not too long, the fluid velocity

ought to resume its normal value at a very short distance from the wall. However, in the very thin

transition layer, the sharp changes in velocity, even with a small coefficient of friction, produce

marked results.

2.4 Flow Visualization Technique

Flow visualization is the study of methods to display dynamic behavior in liquids and

gases. The field dates back at least to the mid-1400, where Leonardo Da Vinci sketched images

of fine particles of sand and wood shavings which had been dropped into flowing liquids. Since

then, laboratory flow visualization has become more and more exact, with careful control of the

particulate size and distribution. Advances in photography have also helped extend our

understanding of how fluids flow under various circumstances. More recently, computational

fluid dynamics has extended the abilities of scientists to study flow by creating simulations of

dynamic behavior of fluids under a wide range of conditions (Ward, 1994).

Perry (1997) cites a number of techniques developed for the visualization of patterns of

velocity. Such techniques are useful for studies involving water-tunnel and wind tunnel.

Utilization of dye traces, the addition of aluminum flakes, glass spheres, plastic particles,

globules of equal density liquids (i.e. kerosene and dibutyl phatalate), and the use of polarized

light are commonly used in revealing liquid flow lines.

According to Prados and Peebles (1959), as cited by Perry (1997), the flow birefringence

involves the use of an electrolytic-tank analog or a conductive-paper analog with a suitable

combination of resistances, sources, and sinks to quantitatively map the velocity pattern for

laminar flow in two-dimensional system.

The hydrogen bubble technique, on the other hand, was proposed for visualization of

flow and velocity filed mapping in liquids. The bubbles were generated via periodic electrical

pulses running through wires. These were swept off and allowed to follow the flow. The bubbles

are made more visible by lighting at an oblique angle to the direction of view (Schaub, et. al,

1967 as cited by Perry, 1997).

As time progresses, researchers dealing with flows are using experimental setups to grasp

an impression of the properties and structures, to further improve related works, and to evaluate

existing models. Three basic types of experimental techniques can be distinguished

(http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/~helwig/diss/node10.htm ):

2.4.1 Addition of a foreign material

In order to visualize flow dynamics, dye is injected into the flowing liquid. Meanwhile, in

gaseous flows, smoke or oil droplets may be introduced. Only, a problem may be encountered

during the process of injecting the foreign material, for the material used to aid the observation

of the flow may actually influence the flow (http://kahuna.sdsu.edu/%7esharring/12ps.html).

Furthermore, generating hydrogen bubbles using electrolytic techniques within the flow

decreases these problems up to a certain level. Also, photochemical methods may be used, for

instance, generating dye within the flow with the use of laser beam. Applying tufts to the walls
of a flow simulation, or coating certain border surfaces of interest with some viscous material

like oil, visualizes flow behavior near objects within the flow, for example, flow close to aircraft

wings in a wind tunnel.

Dye can be used to mark and visualize particular regions of flow or individual fluid

streamlines. To mark streamlines adjacent to a test body, dye is injected from small ports on the

surface of the object.

2.4.2 Optical techniques

Optical methods are a practical means to minimize flow disturbances. Optical properties

like light refraction change at places within the flow where there are big local differences in flow

density. Working with a light beam, images are generated with shadows and caustics. Another

visual property which changes in regions of high density gradients, is the phase of light rays.

Interferometry is an example of a technique which exploits such phase shifts

(http://kahuna.sdsu.edu/%7esharring/12ps.html).

2.5 Description of the Original Equipment

The existing apparatus consist of a Pyrex glass pipe [A] with the following specifications:

diameter of 0.1016m (4in), length of 1.219m (4ft), and thickness of 0.003m (0.012in). Pressure

tap provisions [B] are found at the end of the glass pipe. These allow the measurement of

pressure drop. The pipe is also connected to the steel reservoir [C] where the fluid under study is

stored prior to observation. The reservoir has 0.6mx0.6mx1.2m dimension. A piping system
controls the water flow rate. This system consists of a control valve [D] (globe valve). The flow

was abruptly converged from 4 in to 1.5 in diameter.

Several accessories were also present in the Reynolds apparatus. An overflow [E] was

installed to maintain the water level at a height that would ensure enough potential energy by

virtue of gravity. A white background [F] was provided at the viewing area to clearly see the jet

of dye to be observed in the flowing water. Dye injector accessories [G] were installed for the

easy operation. Dye injector accessories include a large container, a control valve, and a holding

structure. Veins [H] at the entrance of the glass pipe were utilized to minimize disturbance

effects at the entrance. The setup includes a drain for the easy removal of water and dirt that may

be accumulated during the process of using the apparatus. A catch basin [J] which is located near

the globe valve discharge was used to avoid flooding in the working area.

According to Manuzon (1997), a limitation was discovered with respect to the design of

the existing apparatus that he fabricated. Since the glass pipe is a smooth tube, head loss across

the glass pipe was observed to be negligible. In the course of testing the fabricated apparatus,

Manuzon observed that open tube manometer readings at both ends of the 4 ft glass pipe indicate

no significant difference in head. He was able to verify this analytically via theoretical

calculations with the use of friction loss equation.

At the onset, Manuzon was also able to note several factors that may have caused errors

in the visual examination. He noted that dye diffusion in the liquid under study may hinder
proper flow regime observation. In addition, as cited by Foust (1980), aeration of the fluid is

another source of turbulence. This was verified by the occurrence of air bubbles in the glass pipe.

Figure 2.1 Equipment setup as designed by Manuzon in 1997

2.6 Design Equations

A value beyond the upper critical Reynolds number for circular pipes, which is 4000, was

set by Manuzon (1997) to make the original design of the existing Reynolds apparatus. Friction

losses were accounted for in the computations, and the flow was assumed to be similar to that of

a real fluid.
 White (1994) provided that the Bernoulli equation is applicable for the design of the

equipment since the apparatus involves bounded fluid flow through ducts:

(2.1)

where g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.807 m/s2)

is the change in altitude or height (m/kg)

is the kinetic energy correction factor

is the change in the square velocity ([m/s]2/kg)

P is the pressure on the system (N/m2)

is the change in the molar volume of the system (m3/kg)

is sum of all losses due to friction (J/kg), and

W is the total work (J/kg).

In the fabrication, the assumptions used were:

1. isothermal and adiabatic flow (T=k, Q=0);

2. only incompressible Newtonian fluid behavior would be considered (ΔU=0);

3. measurements were done at steady-state conditions;

4. the flow is real, such that and ; and

5. there is no shaft work involved in the process, Ws=0.

Thus, the equation can be simplified into:

(2.2)

However, it must be noted that the design is limited by any of the following:
 1. Entrance length effects, since the length of the pipe was preset with the diameter

following the commercial specification given by the manufacturer;

2. Pipe roughness and nominal thickness of the viscous sublayer, since the empirical

friction factor equations would depend from the absolute roughness of the pipe

surface.

For flow of real fluids, velocity is expressed in terms of volumetric flow rate since the

former is the one which will actually be measured empirically.

(2.3)

for cylindrical tubes and

(2.4)

for rectangular tubes where Q is the volumetric flow rate (m3/s)

D is the diameter of the tube (m), and

L is the length of the side of the tube.

Thus, equation 2.2 becomes

[( ) ( ) ] (2.5)

where = 1+2.7f, f is the friction factor.

For , the major loses due to skin friction are given by Daugherty (as cited by

Manuzon, 1997):
 (2.6)

where L is the length of the pipe

Rh is the hydraulic radius and

V is the fluid velocity.

McCabe (1993) as cited by Manuzon (1997) states that in the entrance region, there exists

such a length necessary for the boundary layer to reach the center of the tube for fully developed

or established flow to occur called the transition length.

For laminar flow, the transition length can be determined by the equation:

(2.7)

For turbulent flow, the value of transition length is given by the equation:

(2.8)

According to Manuzon (1997), the following are the values for the transition length for

both laminar and turbulent flow. Values within the transition region are included in both

calculations, the rationale behind which, according to Manuzon, is to compare the values.
 Table 2.2 Entrance Length as computed by Manuzon in 1997

Laminar and Transition Turbulent and Transition

Flow Rate Entrance Flow Rate Entrance
(mL/s) NRe Length (m) (mL/s) NRe Length (m)
20 288 1.68 150 2187 0.48
30 432 2.53 200 2906 0.52
40 582 3.4 250 3642 0.55
50 782 4.25 259 3766 0.55
60 888 5.19 300 4364 0.57
70 1018 5.95 321 4660 0.58
79 1154 6.74 330 4798 0.59
91 1321 7.71 340 4948 0.59
111 1607 9.39 350 5086 0.59
120 1747 10.21 400 5815 0.61
150 2187 12.78 430 6257 0.63
200 2906 16.98 611 8881 0.68
250 3642 21.27 700 10184 0.71
259 3766 22.08 810 11779 0.73
1073 15594 0.79

2.7 Retrofitting

Retrofitting refers to the addition of new technology or features to older systems.

Principally, the process of retrofitting describes the measures taken in the manufacturing industry

to allow new or updated parts to be fitted to old or outdated assemblies. The production of

retrofit parts is necessary in manufacture when the design of a large assembly is changed or

revised.

If, after the changes have been implemented, a customer (with an old version of the

product) wishes to purchase a replacement part then retrofit parts and assembling techniques will
have to be used so that the revised parts will fit suitably onto the older assembly

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrofit).
 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Design Modifications

The first step undertaken was inspecting the original apparatus. After evaluating factors

that would directly affect the efficiency and the main purpose of the apparatus, modifications

were carefully considered.

Thus, several changes were implemented to improve the overall performance of the

existing Reynolds apparatus in the Unit Operations Laboratory of the Department of Chemical

Engineering, College of Engineering and Agro-Industrial Technology (CEAT), University of the

Philippines Los Baños (UPLB).

3.2 Retrofitting the Reynolds Apparatus

Four additional holes, one inch in diameter each were bore at the back of Reynolds

apparatus, particularly, the first reservoir. The distance in between the centers of the circular

holes was 13.2 cm. The four additional holes have 1 X 3 inch nipple and an hc-201 1 in brass

ball valve. These serve as the overflow regulating device. These define the water levels

maintained throughout the experiment.

 Figure 3.1 Additional overflow regulating devices

A pump was installed to drive in additional water supply to maintain the desired water

level. Particularly, the pump mounted in the newly retrofitted Reynolds Apparatus was a KPM ½

HP Volumetric Electric Booster Pump operating at 230 volts and 60 Hz. It is the most suited for

the purpose, since only water is handled at ambient temperature.

The second reservoir that was used is a steel drum equipped with a two pieces of 1 X 3 in

nipple and an hc-201 1 in brass ball valve. This serves as the temporary storage of water that was

used in the first reservoir. The second reservoir is connected to the pump and the first reservoir

by 2 pieces of 1-in diameter 0.75 m long hose.

A fluorescent bulb was installed near the white background for a clearer view on the flow

regime in the course of the performance evaluation. Flow regimes were documented using a

Pixel 5 Megapixel digital camera. Documentation types were both photo and video.
 To mark streamlines within the fluid, dye was continuously released from a thin needle

aligned to the local flow. In the latter case care must be taken to minimize disruption to the

existing flow field.

In addition, minor repairs were done to the connection between the flow regulating

device and the Pyrex glass tube. The connector was replaced and sealed. In addition, it was

covered by strips long strips of rubber (see Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2 Before and after shots at the end of the transparent pipe

The dye injection was also modified. The metal was partially replaced by a glass tubing

shaped somewhat like an L following the entrance length calculation made by Manuzon. This

eliminates the turbulence due to form since the rubber tube in which the dye passes was no

longer coiled around the metal which used to hold the dye injecting device.
 A baffle was also installed with the dimension 0.09m X 0.7m. This was placed 0.2 m

away from the opening in which the water was pumped. The baffle minimizes the turbulence due

to the force of the incoming water pumped by the 0.5 HP pump.

3.3 Performance Evaluation

The performance evaluation was a three-step process. The test for the repeatability was

determined by the experimental flow rate determination. This stage also served as the

quantitative observation part. The qualitative observations were done in the Testing Proper.

Lastly, maintenance and checks were done in the Post-Testing Proper.

3.3.1 Experimental Flow Rate Determination

During the performance evaluation, the water flow rates were established and measured

at different water levels. The first and second reservoirs were completely filled with water until

such time the water flow out of the first overflow level. The pump was then turned on in order to

maintain the desired liquid height.

Four sets of data were considered in the observation of the different flow regimes. Each

set had five data, each corresponding the height of the overflow regulating device: (1: 0.66m, 2:

0.53m, 3: 0.40m, 4: 0.26m, 5: 0.13m). The data sets are varied by the opening of the gate valve

calibration as shown below, 0 corresponding to fully closed and 4 corresponding to fully opened

globe valve as shown in Figure 3.3.

 4 Fully open

2
0 1

Fully close
Figure 3.3. Graduation placed at the gate valve to ensure reproducibility of data

For all sets of data, the main reservoir was first filled up to the highest overflow

regulating device (1: 0.66m height). The water level was maintained at this point. Then the

chosen gate valve calibration (1 to 4, as shown in Figure 3.3) was used, and this was maintained

for each data set. Water was allowed to flow through the transparent pipe, maintaining the water

level until equilibrium was reached.

After the equilibration, the control valve at the end of the Pyrex glass tube was fully

opened. At this point of the study, the overflow regulating device will not only serve as outflow

device, but a marker that corresponds to a certain measured volumetric flow rate, and hence, a

corresponding Reynolds number.

3.3.2 Testing Proper

The dye reservoir was filled with bromophenol blue (1% w/v) before the tank is filled

with water. The dye injector was tested for leaks since this will affect the view with the valve for
the dye ejector closed. Bromophenol blue is an acid-base indicator its useful range lies between

pH 3.0 and 4.6. It changes from yellow at pH 3.0 to purple at pH 4.6; this reaction is reversible.

At neutral pH as that of water, it maintains a blue color. It has a molar mass 669.96 g mol−1 and

its molecular formula is C19H10Br4O5S. This, aside from being an economical dye to use, is much

safer than the one used by Manuzon in 1997, potassium permanganate. The potassium

permanganate exposed its user to health hazard like permanent infertility and a level of toxicity.

Since the flow rates were already established, the next task was to document the flow

regime. A Pixel 5 megapixel digital video (DV) camera to shoot the actual flow.

For all sets of data, the main reservoir was first filled up to the highest overflow

regulating device (1: 0.66m height) just like in the manner used to measure the volumetric flow

rates. The water level was maintained at this point. Then the chosen gate valve calibration (1 to

4, as shown in Figure 3.3) was used, and this was maintained for each data set. Once the chosen

gate valve calibration was opened, the dye was allowed to freely flow out. Water was allowed to

flow through the transparent pipe, maintaining the water level until equilibrium was reached.

Once equilibrium level was reached, photo and video documentation was done using a digital

video camera.

Several trials were done for the documentation each height of the overflow regulating

device. After executing this for each height of the overflow regulating device, then the next gate

valve calibration can be chosen. In the end, twenty photographs of flow regimes were chosen to

illustrate and visualize each data point.

3.3.3 Post-Testing Procedure

The remaining water at the first reservoir was drained. Excess water at the work area is

swept out of the working area in the laboratory.

 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Design History and Modifications

Roderick Manuzon (1997) designed, fabricated and tested the Reynolds apparatus to

show the existence of the laminar, transition and turbulent flow regimes of the flow. The

Bernoulli equation was used in the design. The apparatus mainly aimed to qualitatively describe

the flow regime by testing the transition from laminar to turbulent flow. In his test runs, he used

potassium permanganate as dye which was injected using a gage 23 X 1 ½ “ hypodermic needle.
 Figure 4.1 The original Reynolds Apparatus fabricated by Manuzon in 1997

For eleven years, the Reynolds Apparatus fabricated by Manuzon is being used as an

equipment for instruction to give the students of ChE 155 – Unit Operations Laboratory I a

concrete notion of the flow regimes. Since the fabrication, no major modification or retrofitting

was done on the apparatus to improve its performance.

In the process of inspection, several concerns to be addressed were identified namely: the

turbulence due to the form of the original dye injector, clarity of the glass pipe, reproducibility

and variability of the data, and water consumption.

These concerns were addressed accordingly. First, the dye injection system was replaced

by glass tubing connected by copper metal still assuming the same shape. This minimizes the

obstruction and provides a smoother provision for a more efficient visual observation of liquid

layers. In addition, the accumulated dye that hindered the effective visual observation of

different flow regimes was cleaned using detergent and scrubbers. After sustaining the desired

clarity of the glass pipe, the Reynolds apparatus was ready again for visual observation. And

lastly, the overflow regulating devices gave provision for the variability of data that were

observed.

The problem on excessive water consumption was addressed by using a catch basin and

placing it under the valve at the end of the transparent glass tube and pumping back the water to

the second reservoir. This lessens the consumption of water by avoiding wastage of water.

Despite the injection of the dye into the water, the effect in terms of water color is negligible.
4.2 Equipment Added

4.2.1 Water Overflow Regulating Devices

By theory, fluid flow rate varies with different elevations due to differences in the

potential energy contained within the system, thus, were installed four additional water overflow

regulating devices below the original overflow with 13.2 cm space in between. Manuzon (1997)

stated that since the system can be considered to occur as a gravity flow, all the energy comes

from the potential energy in the reservoir. Thus, it is necessary to maintain the water level in the

reservoir. This was done by installing an overflow up to the level in which the height is going to

be maintained.

The additional overflow devices consisted of a 1x3 inch nipple and an hc-201 1 in brass

ball valve. These overflow devices dictated the desired liquid level that was maintained in order

to vary liquid flow rate levels.

 Figure 4.3 Installation of the overflow regulating device at the first reservoir

4.2.2 Pump selection and installation

According to Perry (1997), whenever pump selection is deemed necessary for any

service, it is necessary to determine and identify what types of liquids are to be handled, the total

dynamic head, and in majority of cases, the temperature, liquid viscosity, pressure of the vapor,

and the governing specific gravity. Perry (1997) further added that in chemical industry, the task

is further complicated by the presence of solids in the liquid and the liquid corrosion

characteristics requiring special materials of construction.

However, in the case of Manuzon’s Reynolds apparatus, such complications are

unnecessary since it is to handle water at ambient temperature. The water level needed to be

pumped, considering the upper bound volume of 0.6 X 0.6 X 0.132 m or 0.04752 cubic meters,
which is considerably small, the pump with the minimum pumping capacity was chosen to serve

the purpose.

Figure 4.4 The KPM ½ HP Volumetric Electric Booster Pump connected to the first reservoir

The particular pump purchased was a KPM ½ HP Volumetric Electric Booster Pump

operating at 230 volts and 60 Hz. It is appropriately used for clean liquids without abrasives,

without suspended solids, non-explosives, non-aggressive for the pump materials, with a

maximum temperature limit of 60OC.

4.2.3 Second Reservoir

Thus, the installation of a second reservoir, apart from the 0.6 X 0.6 X 1.2 m steel

reservoir, became necessary so that there will be a definite source of liquid supply for the steel

reservoir. For this purpose, the proponent added a steel drum equipped with two pieces of 1 X 3

in nipple and an hc-201 1 in brass ball valve to serve as the second reservoir. This is connected to
the KPM ½ HP Volumetric Electric Booster Pump, which in turn was connected with the steel

reservoir through 2 pieces of 0.75m of 1-in diameter hose. The hose is connected to the steel tank

via an inlet consisting of a 0.75 X 3-in nipple and an hc-201 0.75-in brass ball valve.

Figure 4.5 The second reservoir is a drum with a gate valve

4.2.4 Baffle Installation

According to www.haywardgordon.com/documents/baffles.pdf , baffles are necessary in

almost all mixing operations. In order to aid in choosing baffle size in terms of width, Figure 4.5

shows a chart that correlates baffle width with water viscosity, in this case that of water.
 Figure 4.6 Baffle width as a function of fluid viscosity

For systems that employ four baffles, Figure 4.5 is directly applicable. For three-baffle

systems, the baffle width is 20% wider than that of four-baffle systems. For two-baffle systems,

the baffle width is likewise 20% wider than that of three-baffle systems. And one-baffle systems

employ baffle width 20% wider than that computed in the two baffle systems. The baffle

extends vertically assuring that the entire liquid height was covered.

4.2.5 Fluorescent Light

In order to enhance the view of the flow regime for the documentation of the testing and

performance evaluation, a fluorescent light was installed near the white background. The

fluorescent light consumes 20 watts.

 Figure 4.5 The Fluorescent light installed near the transparent tube for better viewing of the dye jet

4.3 Performance Evaluation of the Newly Retrofitted

The proponent first analytically proved that there is a significant different difference in

Reynolds number given that only the water level height is varied and everything else is held

constant. Table 4.1 shows the maximum theoretical Reynolds number that can be achieved at

different heights of water in the first reservoir of the Reynolds Apparatus. However, the

following calculations do not consider losses due to pipe friction since the pipe used was a glass

tube that is internally smooth, therefore, it is valid to assume that there is no loss due to pipe

friction.
 There were four data sets each set containing five data points. Each data set correspond to

the gate valve calibration, 1 corresponding to the smallest gate valve opening and 4

corresponding to having an fully opened gate valve.

Table 4.2 shows the liquid velocity, Reynolds number, and the flow regime

corresponding to each liquid height in the main reservoir for the smallest gate valve opeining.

Table 4.2 Liquid velocity, Reynolds number, and flow regime for gate valve calibration #1

Liquid Fluid Visual Observation

Height Velocity Theoretical (Direction: )
(m) (L/s) Re Regime

0.66 0.02 2007.53 Laminar

0.53 0.01 1736.74 Laminar

0.40 0.01 1653.43 Laminar

0.26 0.01 1280.60 Laminar

 0.13 0.01 868.98 Laminar

After plotting the Reynolds number vs liquid height in the reservoir, a linear equation

was derived as shown in Figure 4.6. The Pearson’s product correlation coefficient R2 was

likewise determined (also shown in Figure 4.6). An R2 value close to one implies highly linear

relationship between the two variables being considered. For the first set of data, R2 = 0.954.

y = 2070.6x + 689.48
R² = 0.954

Figure 4.6 Correlation between Reynolds number vs liquid height (meters), first data set

Table 4.3 shows the liquid velocity, Reynolds number, and the flow regime

corresponding to each liquid height in the main reservoir for gate valve calibration #2.
Table 4.3 Liquid velocity, Reynolds number, and flow regime for gate valve calibration #2

Liquid Visual Observation

Height Fluid Velocity (Direction: )
(m) (L/s) Re Regime

0.66 0.08 9956.34 Turbulent

0.53 0.07 7977.08 Turbulent

0.40 0.06 6578.42 Turbulent

0.26 0.04 5210.85 Turbulent

0.13 0.02 2551.90 Transition

 After plotting the Reynolds number vs liquid height in the reservoir, a linear equation

was derived as shown in Figure 4.12. For the second set of data, R2 = 0.978.

y = 8499.7x - 301.75
R² = 0.9784

Figure 4.12 Correlation between Reynolds number vs liquid height (meters), 2nd data set

Table 4.4 shows the liquid velocity, Reynolds number, and the flow regime

corresponding to each liquid height in the main reservoir for gate valve calibration #3.
Table 4.4 Liquid velocity, Reynolds number, and flow regime for gate valve calibration #3

Liquid Visual Observation

Height Fluid Velocity (Direction: )
(m) (L/s) Re Regime

0.66 0.05 5572.78 Turbulent

0.53 0.03 4093.45 Turbulent

0.40 0.02 2729.34 Transition

0.26 0.02 1830.66 Laminar

0.13 0.01 1094.39 Laminar

 After plotting the Reynolds number vs liquid height in the reservoir, a linear equation

was derived as shown in Figure 4.18. For the third set of data, R2 = 0.984.

y = 24664x + 8180.1
R² = 0.915

Figure 4.18 Correlation between Reynolds number vs liquid height (meters), 3nd data set

Table 4.5 shows the liquid velocity, Reynolds number, and the flow regime

corresponding to each liquid height in the main reservoir for gate valve calibration #4.
Table 4.5 Liquid velocity, Reynolds number, and flow regime for gate valve calibration #4

Liquid Visual Observation

Height Fluid Velocity (Direction: )
(m) (L/s) Re Regime

0.66 0.19 23059.86 Turbulent

0.53 0.18 21383.73 Turbulent

0.40 0.17 20329.88 Turbulent

0.26 0.13 14975.51 Turbulent

0.13 0.08 9985.83 Turbulent

 After plotting the Reynolds number vs liquid height in the reservoir, a linear equation

was derived as shown in Figure 4.24. For the third set of data, R2 = 0.915.

y = 13314x + 1182.4
R² = 0.9845

Figure 4.24 Correlation between Reynolds number vs liquid height (meters), 4th data set

In general, visual observations conform to the theoretical regime for which they should

belong. However, several observations have been noted and needs to be further explained.

In laminar flow regimes, single dye jet were observed at the onset, however, due to

diffusion, towards the end of the dye jet, a certain degree of turbulence was observed.
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In the process of inspection, several concerns to be addressed were identified:

1) the turbulence due to the form of the original dye injector;

2) clarity of the glass pipe;

3) reproducibility and variability of the data; and

4) water consumption.

The original dye injection system consist of a hypothermic needle attached to a rubber

tubing coiled to a metal shaped somewhat like an “L.” This was replaced by glass tubing

connected by copper metal still assuming the same shape. This minimizes the obstruction and

provides a smoother provision for a more efficient visual observation of liquid layers.

After eleven years of operation, the Pyrex glass tube has accumulated dye that hindered

the effective visual observation of different flow regimes. The transparent pipe was cleaned

using detergent and scrubbers. After sustaining the desired clarity of the glass pipe, the Reynolds

apparatus was ready again for visual observation.

Manuzon (1997) determined analytically the theoretical Reynolds number that the

Reynolds Apparatus he designed and fabricated can accommodate, which is 15996. Comparison
was made with the average maximum Reynolds number obtained experimentally in this study,

and a percent difference of 44.16% was obtained.

For the first data set, all five flows are concluded to belong in the laminar regime with

Reynolds number of : 2007.53, 1736.74, 1653.43, 1280.60, and 868.98. For the second set of

data, two belong to the turbulent flow with Reynolds number of 5572.78 and 4093.45; one

belong to the transition flow with the Reynolds number of 2729.34; and two belong to the

turbulent flow with Reynolds number of 1830.66 and 1094.39. For the third data set, four data

points belong to the turbulent flow: 9956.34, 7977.08, 6578.42, and 5210.85; and one belong to

the transition flow with a Reynolds number of 2551.90. For the fourth set of data, all data beong

to the turbulent flow with Reynolds number of 23059.86, 21383.73, 20329.88, 14975.51, and

9985.83.

Given that photographs for all flow regimes, namely: laminar, transition and turbulent

flows were observed clearly using the newly-retrofitted device, it can be concluded that the entry

length calculated by Manuzon can be retained as is. In addition, the entry length was computed

by Manuzon with reference to the dimensions of the apparatus he originally fabricated. Since

there were no adjustments in the apparatus’ dimensions, it can therefore be retained. Also, his

calculations were evaluated using literature equations and no difference were seen.
 Furthermore, since photographs of distinct laminar and turbulent flow were taken using

the newly-retrofitted device, therefore, it is effective for visual observation of the different flow

regimes.
 RECOMMENDATIONS

It was found out in this study that, indeed, at different levels of water at the reservoir,

there exists significant differences in the volumetric flow rate, and consequently, the fluid

velocity and Reynolds number. However, some aspects still need to be further studied and some

concerns still need to be addressed. The following are the recommendations of this study:

 Use of a more efficient tracing mechanism (e.g. tracing dye), which is of the same

density and viscosity of the medium being studied so as not to alter the fluid flow

within the pipe. Also an alternative to a tracing dye is using a computer software that

will illustrate the flow. It is now offered in the industry, however it does not offer

actual visual observation, but it reflects much accurate results.

 Replacement of the Pyrex glass tube to eliminate the minor leaks left after the

retrofitting of the Reynolds Apparatus. Likewise, reducing the transparent pipe

diameter may be desirable to adjust the value of L/D ratio. However, this will also

require changing the entrance length and other design considerations.

 Installation of a fluid flow meter so that the errors that may have been incurred using

the conventional method of measuring the flow rate would be eliminated.

 REFERENCES

ANDERSON, J. D. “Ludwig Prandtl’s Boundary Layer.” www.physicstoday.org. December

2005. Physics Today. Date of access: 10 July 2008.

<http://www.aps.org/units/dfd/resources/upload/prandtl_vol58no12p42_48.pdf>.

BROWN, G.G. 1973. Unit Operations. Modern Asia Edition. John Wiley and Sons Book Co.

New York.

ELERT, G. “Flow Regimes.” The Physics Hypertextbook™. 2008. Date of access: 08 July

2008. <http://hypertextbook.com/physics/matter/turbulence/>.

FOUST, A.S., et. al. 1980. Principles of Unit Operations. 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons Book

Co. New York.

HEWITT, P.G. 2000. Conceptual Physics. 3rd edition. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

New York.

LOFFELMANN, H. “State of the Art - Flow Visualization.” November 1998. Date of access:

08 July 2008. <http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/~helwig/diss/node10.htm>.

MANUZON, R. Design and Performance Evaluation of a Reynolds Apparatus. Undergraduate

Thesis, University of the Philippines Los Baños, 1997.

MCCABE, W.L., SMITH, J.C. and HARRIOT, P. 1993. Unit Operations of Chemical

Engineering. 5th edition. McGraw Hill Book Co. New York.

“Retrofitting.” Wikipedia. 07 July 2008. MediaWiki. Date of access: 08 July 2008.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrofit>.

PERRY, R.H. and GREEN, D.W. 1997. Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook. 7th edition.

McGraw Hill Book Co. New York.

STREETER, V.L. 1966. Fluid Mechanics. 3rd edition. McGraw Hill Book Co. New York

WARD, M. “Flow Visualization.” October 1994. Computer Science Department WPI. Date of

access: 08 July 2008. <http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~matt/courses/cs563/talks/flowvis/flowvis.html>.

WELTY, J.R. 1969. Fundamentals of Momentum and Mass Transfer. 2nd edition. John Wiley

and Sons Inc. New York.

YOUNG, H.D and FREEDMAN, R.A. 2004. Sears and Zemansky’s University Physics with

Modern Physics. 11th edition. Pearson Education South Asia Pte Ltd. Jurong, Singapore.