1965
DOI: 10.1007/bf00411560
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Finite difference analysis of viscous laminar converging flow in conical tubes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

1973
1973
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This was done in two ways-the first is using the ANSYS-FLUENT software, and PHYSICAL REVIEW E 91. 043001 (2015) the second is using the numerical method of Sutterby [25]; the results Irom the two procedures are in agreement. The inertial terms are included in the flow computation due to the variation in the wall diameter.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 76%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This was done in two ways-the first is using the ANSYS-FLUENT software, and PHYSICAL REVIEW E 91. 043001 (2015) the second is using the numerical method of Sutterby [25]; the results Irom the two procedures are in agreement. The inertial terms are included in the flow computation due to the variation in the wall diameter.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…The first was by using a n s y sf l u e n t 13.0.0 in order to determine the modification of the flow and pressure profiles due to tube deformation. The second was by using the finite-difference formulation of Sutterby [25] for axisymmetric flows. It was verified that there is good agreement between the predictions of the two simulations for the developing flow in a tube starting with a plug flow at the inlet, and the maximum difference in the velocity is less than 1 % for the grid resolutions used here.…”
Section: A Base-state Fluid Flowmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The transition Reynolds number in Shankar & Kumaran (2000, 2001a was calculated for a parabolic velocity profile. However, the flow in a converging tube is much flatter than the parabolic profile (Sutterby 1965;Shankar & Kumaran 1999), and the velocity gradient at the wall is higher than the value of (2U max /R) for a parabolic flow, where U max is the maximum velocity and R is the tube radius. If α is the slope of the tube wall, there is a significant departure from a parabolic profile when Re α > 1, even when the slope α is small.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…It was reported that the drag force in a flexible-walled tube is higher than that for a laminar flow for Reynolds numbers as low as 700. However, there has been a subsequent study by Yang et al (2000), using a simulation method developed by Sutterby (1965), which suggested that the higher drag force in Krindel & Silberberg (1979) could be due to a slow convergence of streamlines, rather than a dynamical instability. The low-Reynolds-number instability in the flow past a soft polyacrylamide gel was demonstrated by Kumaran & Muralikrishnan (2000) and Muralikrishnan & Kumaran (2002), and hysteresis and oscillations were also reported by Eggert & Kumar (2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%