The Reynolds Analogy.

Both heat transfer and fluid friction in

turbulent flow have béen treated empirically, whereas their streamline-

flow equivalents may be studied theoretically with reasonable accuracy.

Turbulent flow is of greater importance to industry, yet this empiricism

exists because of the lack of simple mathematics by which derivations

might be obtained. As early as 1874, however, Osborne Reynolds’

pointed out that there was probably a relationship between the transfer

of heat and the fluid friction between a hot fluid and a surface. .

There are several advantages which might accrue from an equation

relating heat transfer and fluid friction. For the most part fluid-friction

experiments are simpler to perform than are heat-transfer experiments,

and the understanding of both fields could be increased by experimenta—

tion in either. The fundamentals of the mechanism of both might also

be better understood if they were directly related. The analogy between

the two is made possible by the fact that the transfer of heat and the

transfer of fluid momentum can be related. A simplified próof follows.

Referring to Fig. 3.12 a fluid in amount W lb/hr and specific heat C

flows through a tube of radius r. In the section of the pipe between L and
L + dL the temperature of the fluid is T, and the temperature at the

inside surface of the pipe wail is ti,. Of the total fluid flow along the
axis

of the pipe, assume that m lb/(hrXft2) impinges on the pipe wall where

its velocity falls to zero and its temperature approaches the temperature

of the pipe wail, ti,. Each particle of BUM which thus contacts the wall

gives up its axial momentum and upon returning to the main body of the

fluid ha its axial momentum renewed at the expense of the energy of the

main stream. The constant loss and renewal of momentum are the

cause of the pressure drop. The traction or drag on unit area of the pipe

wall is obtained by equating the dr,g on unit length of pipe wall to the

product of the pressure gradient and the cross-sectional area of the pipe,

which reduces to
EQ 3.48
where tow is the drag. Since the drag is assumed to be equal to the loss of

momentum of the fluid,

EQ 3.49
The rate of heat transfer between the &id and the wall is given by
EQ 3.50
or from Eqs. (3.49) and (3.5O)

EQ 3.51
In simple terms the last two members of Eq. (3.51) state

FORMULA
Rewriting Eq. (3.50) to include the heat-transfer coefficient,
EQ 3.52

EQ 3.53
or in dimensionless form,
FORMULA
It is interesting to note in Eq. (3.53) that an equation has been obtained

for the heat-transfer coefficient which involves the friction factor and

which can he determined from an experiment in which no heat was trans

ferred. Like most derivations which require a number of assumptions,

the use of Eq. (3.53) applies only to a small range of fluids, particularly

permanent gases.

It was Reyno1d as quoted by Stanton’ who predicted that the coefl-.

oient of heat transfer obtained from Eq. (3.53) should be affected by the

ratio of the thermal conductivity and viscosity of a specific fluid. While

the presence of the thermal conductivity suggests the influence, of con

duction, it was observed experimentally that the entire cross section of a

fluid in turbulent flow is not turbulent. Instead it has been found that

a laminar layer exists near the pipe wail through which conduction must

occur. Prandtl2 and Taylora independently included this layer. If it

is assumed that the layer has a thickness b and that the temperature

of its inner circumference is t’, the heat flow per square foot of layer is

given by
EQ 3.54
where k is the mean conductivity for the layer. A.ssume that the transfer

of heat and momentum. is carried through this layer by molecular motion

without disturbing its laminar flow. The inner surface of the layer moves

with a velocity u’ in streamline flow, and writing (u — u’) for u in Eq.

(3.53),

EQ 3.55
From the definition of viscosity given by Eq. (3.4),
EQ 3.56
where p. is the viscosity of the fluid in the layer. From Eq. (3.54),
EQ 3.57
And from Eq. (3.55),
EQ 3.58
Combining Eqs. (3.57) and (3.58),
EQ 3.59
The corrected value of h,1 becomes
EQ 3.60
Substituting r’ for the ratio UI/u and eliminating T by means of Eq.
(3.48),
EQ 3.61
or in dimensionless form using c for C and h for h as usually given in the

literature,
EQ 3.62
Equation (3.61) is the Prandtl modification of the Reynolds analogy,

which is sometimes called the Prandil analogy. The dimensionless

Prandtl group cWk has appeared earlier in this chapter, and when it is

numerically equal to 1.0, Eq. (3.61) reduces to Eq. (3.53). This is

approximately the case for permanent gases. While Eq. (3.61) is a

notable exf1ension of the Reynolds analogy, it too has definite limita

tions. Modern theory now presumes that the distribution of velocities

no longer ends abruptly at the laminar layer but that there is instead a

buffer layer within the laminar layer in which the transition occurs.

Other extensions of the analogies also appear in the literature.