Osborne Reynolds Experiment: The Transition from Laminar to

Turbulent Flow
Abstract: The objective of this experiment was to determine the interval of
the Reynolds number where flow through an idealized straight, smooth pipe
with constant pressure transitioned from laminar flow to turbulent flow. This
experiment was carried out utilizing a model similar to Reynolds own design.
Dye was injected into a stream of water flowing through a clear pipe and out
into a reservoir to demonstrate if there were any disturbances within the
flow. Water exiting the bottom valve was collected in a one liter graduated
cylinder for a period of about thirty seconds and the accompanying volume
and exact time was recorded. The Reynolds number was calculated for three
different flow rates around the transition which was noted by the movement
of the dye in the flow and whether it was a straight or windy and broken up
line. The collection of many volume and time datum allowed for an average
volume flow rate that was more representative of the actual volume flow rate
than one set of data could have produced, leading to more accurate results.
The accepted Reynolds number of 2300 was within the experimental interval
of calculated Reynolds numbers for the transition from laminar to turbulent
flow.

CEE 171L Lab Report

Group 3
Lab Section 1A
1 | Page

Monday Lab, 9-11 am

Table of Contents:
1. Introduction &
Hypothesis..
Page 3
2. Methods
...Page 4
3. Analysis of
Results..
..Page 5
4. Interpretation of Results & Conclusions.
.....Page 7
5. Appendix
..Page 8
6. Works
Cited
...Page 9

2 | Page

Introduction and Hypothesis:

Liquids do not always flow in a perfect, smooth stream. Once velocity
increases past a certain threshold (determined by the diameter of the pipe,
density and viscosity of the liquid, and velocity), puffs begin to develop in the
liquid and produce turbulence. A smooth flow of liquid is called laminar while
an uneven flow is called turbulent.
The first person to mention that there may be in fact two types of
viscous flows was an engineer named G.H.L Lagen in 1839. He deduced an
equation that described the difference in pressure, taking into account the
entrance effects and some unknown constant.
p= ( const )

LQ
+entrance effects( 351)
4
R

He observed that after increasing the volume flow rate in a pipe past a
certain point, his equation no longer held true. What he did not know is that
the constant in his equation related to the viscosity of the liquid.
In 1883, an engineering professor by the name of Osborne Reynolds
discovered that the constant in Lagens equation was in fact:
=

Vd

This is the equation for what we now call the Reynolds number. The
experiment he used to determine this is what was duplicated to generate the
results presented in this report.
The significance of the Reynolds number is that it relates given values
(density, velocity, length/diameter, and viscosity) to the type of flow that the
liquid will experience. The larger the Reynolds number, the more turbulent
the flow. The accepted Reynolds number for transition from laminar to
turbulent flow in a smooth, circular pipe is 2300 (White 352).

3 | Page

Methods:
In order to reproduce Reynolds experiment, we were provided with an
apparatus that was comprised of a reservoir of room temperature water, a
pump, a large container over a thin, smooth, cylindrical pipe, and two exits
for the liquid (one spillover tube at the top of the container and one at the
bottom of the pipe), as well as necessary tools such as a timer and a one
liter graduated cylinder. There were two valves to control the flow of the
water over the duration of the experiment; one was located at the bottom to
control the flow of water from the reservoir to the container and the other
was located at the
junction of the pipe exit
and one of the tubes.
The pump was
turned on to transfer the
water in the reservoir at
the bottom of the
apparatus to the
container at the top and
adjusted the valves to
let in as much water to
where there was a small
amount of spillover from
the top tube while
maintaining a constant
water level in the
container to sustain a
constant pressure, and
therefore, constant flow
rate, during data
collection. We gathered
Set Up of Reynolds Experiment
water exiting from the
tube connected to the
pipe exit for a time of about thirty seconds in order to calculate the volume
flow rate. Data was collected over a spectrum of flows ranging from laminar
to turbulent.
4 | Page

In the data shown in the Analysis of Results section, it should be noted

that discrepancies of the collection time exist because it was impossible for
human reflexes to stop the timer at exactly thirty seconds each time. There
is also human error in the amount of liquid collected in the graduated
cylinder since one person was operating the timer and another person was
observing the amount of water exiting into the graduated cylinder and
removing the cylinder at the thirty second mark.

Analysis of Results:
Constants:

Temperature of Water: 15C

Diameter of Pipe: 0.0045m
Density of Water [1]: 1001 kg/m3
Viscosity of Water [2]: 0.00115 kg/ms

Table of Collected Data & Calculations:

Time (s)

Volume
of Liquid
(L)

30.44

0.288

30.33

0.280

30.19

0.280

30.12

0.280

30.29

0.280

30.52

0.369

30.23

0.358

30.33

0.360

30.25

0.368

30.22

0.367

Volume
Flow
Rate, Q
(m3/s)

Velocity,
V [4] (m/s)
[3]

Reynolds Descripti
Number,
on of
[5]
Re
Flow

9.4612E-06

0.595

2328

9.2318E-06

0.580

2271

9.2746E-06

0.583

2282

9.2961E-06

0.585

2287

9.244E-06

0.581

2274

1.209E-05

0.760

2975

1.1843E-05

0.745

2914

1.1869E-05

0.746

2920

1.2165E-05

0.765

2993

1.2144E-05

0.764

2988

LaminarTransitional
LaminarTransitional
LaminarTransitional
LaminarTransitional
LaminarTransitional
TransitionalTurbulent
TransitionalTurbulent
TransitionalTurbulent
TransitionalTurbulent
TransitionalTurbulent
5 | Page

30.03
30.42
30.03
30.08
30.13

0.463
0.464
0.455
0.461
0.460

1.5418E-05
1.5253E-05
1.5152E-05
1.5326E-05
1.5267E-05

0.969
0.959
0.953
0.964
0.960

3793
3753
3728
3771
3756

Turbulent
Turbulent
Turbulent
Turbulent
Turbulent

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

: Refer to Appendix for Calculations

Statistical Analysis:
In order to calculate the following values, only the values for the LaminarTransitional description were implemented.

Mean Critical Reynolds Number: 2289

Standard Deviation of the Critical Reynolds Number: 20.42

The Mean Critical Reynolds Number gives us the average of our calculated
values. The standard deviation gives us how much, on average, the data set
deviates from the mean. Based upon these calculations, I conclude that 2300
is a valid value for the Reynolds number for the transition from laminar to
turbulent flow in a smooth, cylindrical pipe (otherwise known as the critical
Reynolds number).

6 | Page

Interpretation of Results & Conclusions:

Discussion of Concepts:
Through this experiment, we determined that the Reynolds number is
truly dependent on velocity. While we were not able to fully determine its
dependency on the other factors such as density of the water, diameter of
the pipe, or viscosity, we observed that the Reynolds number generally
increased with increasing velocity. This makes sense because the Reynolds
number maintains a linear relationship with velocity in the equation. Also,
the faster the liquid is moving, the higher tendency it will have to develop
turbulence.
Validity of Initial Hypothesis:
The experimental data determined that the mean critical Reynolds
number was 2289 with a standard deviation of 20.42. This means that
values falling anywhere within 20.44 above (for a total value of 2309.42) or
below 2289 (for a total value of 2268.58) is a valid estimate for the critical
Reynolds number. Since the widely accepted critical Reynolds Number of
2300 falls within the standard deviation range, it is indeed a transitional
Reynolds number.
Error Assessment:
There is some error in the experimentally calculated mean critical
Reynolds number due to a few parameters. One of these is solely human
error, which had the largest impact on our calculations. Our team found it
was difficult to carry out the data collection effectively with two people since
the they would have had to have impeccable synchronization in order to
produce the most accurate data. The problem was that the person operating
the timer was starting either a small amount of time before or after the liquid
collection actually began and ended. Another parameter of our errors was
that we were not constant with who the operators were throughout the
experiment. The inconsistency in reflexes and synchronization between
operators adds another variable to our experiment along with the time and
volume of the liquid. As with all correctly conducted experiments, all
variables other than the ones desired to be measured should be kept
constant as to isolate any changes occurring to the variables. This was one
factor that should have been considered prior to beginning the experiment.
One other factor to our error to consider is the fact that the volume data
collected was being read off of the bottom of the meniscus in a large, 1 liter
graduated cylinder with markers that were very spread out in terms of
significant figures. This error could have been avoided if the volume readings
7 | Page

were obtained by weighing the dry graduated cylinder and taring the scale,
performing the liquid collection, weighing the graduated cylinder with the
liquid and obtaining the mass of the collected liquid, and then dividing the
mass of the collected liquid by the density of the liquid (taking into account
the temperature of the liquid) to obtain the true volume of the collected
liquid with more significant figures. This method would have taken longer
than the original, but yielded more accurate results.

8 | Page

Appendix:

[1]

10000.0178 ( T C4 C )1.7 0.2

[2]

273 K
273 K
ln =1.7045.306
+ 7.003
0
TK
TK

[3]

Q= AV = d 2 V
4

[4]

V=

4Q
d2

[5]

Vd

9 | Page

Works Cited:
1. White, Frank M. Fluid Mechanics. Seventh ed. New York: McGraw-Hill,
2011. Print.

10 | P a g e