, 6 min, 1103 words
Tags: fire-stuff physics
Yet another pump operations/water flow post, sorry folks! If only it weren't so darn interesting...
This is another "Zeph convinces themself that the book is right" post, this time on a statement about laminar versus turbulent flow in hoses:
The pressures in hose are typically high enough to cause turbulent flow.
If you're interested in a demonstration of this, buckle in and come along! If not, might I suggest different reading material?
Okay, first, some definitions:
Two major things affect the boundary between laminar and turbulent flow: viscosity (how "thick" a liquid is – envision honey versus water), which damps out turbulence; and velocity, which encourages it by making everything move faster. The balance between these two components is expressed in a unitless value called the Reynolds number (no apostrophe). It's defined like so:
$$ \text{Re} = \frac{v L}{\nu} $$
where $v$ is the fluid's velocity, $L$ is a characteristic length (for round pipes or hoses, it's the inner diameter), and $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid.1
The cool thing about the Reynold's number is that we can say pretty reliably whether the flow of a fluid will be turbulent just by looking at this one value. In general, if $\text{Re}$ is less than 2300, flow will be laminar, and if $\text{Re}$ is more than 2900, it'll be turbulent. The in between area is a bit of a transitional space, with properties of both laminar and turbulent flow present at the same time.
At this point, I'm interested in understanding how much water flow we can have through a hose before the flow becomes particularly turbulent. We'll say that $Q_1$ is the flow rate at which $\text{Re}$ hits 2300 and the flow starts to get turbulent, and we'll call $Q_2$ the flow rate where the flow is conclusively turbulent at $\text{Re}=2900$.
Now, if we want to express the Reynolds number in terms of total volumetric flow $Q$,2 we just have to remember that the total volume flowing is the water's speed times the hose's cross sectional area $A$, or $Q=vA$:
$$ \text{Re} = \frac{Q L}{\nu A} $$
Let's say the inner diameter of the hose is $D$, and substitute in the hose's cross sectional area $A=\frac{\pi D^2}{4}$:
\begin{align} \text{Re} &= \frac{4 Q D}{\pi\nu D^2}\\ &= \frac{4 Q}{\pi \nu D} \end{align}
Of the values in here, the only two that can vary are flow rate $Q$ – by increasing the gallonage on a combination nozzle, for instance – and the hose diameter $D$. If we want to solve for $Q$, we can rearrange a bit:
\begin{align} Q &= \frac{\text{Re}\ \pi\nu D}{4}\\ &= \text{Re}\frac{\pi\nu}{4} D \end{align}
Now let's stick in some values for our constants $\pi$ and $\nu$
\begin{align} Q &= \text{Re}\frac{\pi\nu}{4} D\\ &= \text{Re}\frac{(3.14)\cdot\left(1.0\cdot 10^{-6}\frac{\text{m}^2}{\text{s}}\right)}{4} D\\ &= 7.85\cdot10^{-7}\cdot\text{Re}\cdot D \cdot\frac{\text{m}^2}{\text{s}}\\ \end{align}
Now for my favorite part of all this: more unit conversion.
\begin{align} Q &= 7.85\cdot10^{-7}\cdot\text{Re}\cdot D \cdot\frac{\text{m}^2}{\text{s}}\\ &= 7.85\cdot10^{-7}\cdot\text{Re}\cdot D \cdot\frac{\text{m}^2}{\text{s}} \left(\frac{\text{m}}{\text{m}}\right) \left(\frac{60\ \text{s}}{\text{min}}\right)\\ &= 4.7\cdot10^{-5}\cdot\text{Re}\cdot\frac{D}{\text{m}}\frac{\text{m}^3}{\text{min}}\\ &= 4.7\cdot10^{-5}\cdot\text{Re}\cdot\frac{D}{\text{m}}\frac{\text{m}^3}{\text{min}} \left(\frac{264\ \text{gal}}{\text{m}^3}\right)\\ &= 0.012\cdot\text{Re}\cdot\frac{D}{\text{m}}\frac{\text{gal}}{\text{min}} \end{align}
In words: the flow rate (in gallons per minute) that produces a Reynolds number of $\text{Re}$ in a pipe or hose of diameter $D$ is the diameter in meters multiplied by the Reynolds number multiplied by 0.012. What that means for some standard hose diameters:
Hose diameter $\ \ \ $ | Flow rate for turbulence $(\text{Re} = 2300-2900)$ |
---|---|
1.75 inch | 1.2-1.6 gpm |
2.5 inch | 1.8-2.2 gpm |
5 inch | 3.5-4.4 gpm |
In other words, with a 5-inch supply hose, if you're flowing fewer than 3.5 gallons per minute, you're likely in laminar flow. Fun fact: you're never going to do that (think more like 500-1000 gpm). So the textbook is right! We can pretty safely assume that all water flow through fire hose is fully turbulent.3
In summary:
There is a difference between kinematic viscosity $\nu$ and dynamic viscosity $\mu$, but I don't entirely follow it, and for our purposes it's basically a constant (in practice it varies a tiny bit with water temperature, but I'll be using values for around 20 degrees Celsius and leaving it at that.)
(not to be confused with mass flow rate, which measures the mass of a fluid passing a point over time, so something more like $\text{kg}/{\text{m}^3}$)
I don't, however, buy their statement about this being because of the pressure in fire hose. From what I understand, pressure has basically no bearing on turbulence; what matters is viscosity and velocity.