ABSTRACT

This experiment aimed to investigate the transition between laminar, transitional, and turbulent
flow in a pipe using Osborne Reynolds’ dye injection method. A dye was introduced into water
flowing through a transparent pipe, and flow regimes were visually observed while discharge and
flow time were measured for different flow conditions. Using a pipe diameter of 0.0115 m and
kinematic viscosity of 9.344 × 10⁻⁷m2/s. Reynolds numbers were calculated for each regime:
laminar flow had a Reynolds number of 212.703, transitional flow had 1126.39, and turbulent
flow had 12467.87. The results confirmed the theoretical classification of flow regimes, with
increasing velocity and discharge correlating with increasing turbulence. The experiment
concluded that the Reynolds number is an effective predictor of flow behavior, and visual
observations aligned closely with calculated flow characteristics.

INTRODUCTION

Understanding fluid flow regimes is crucial in many engineering applications such as water
treatment, pipeline transport, biomedical flow systems, and chemical process industries.
Accurately identifying whether flow is laminar, transitional, or turbulent helps engineers design
systems that minimize energy loss, improve efficiency, and ensure system stability (White,
2011). The Osborne Reynolds experiment provides a visual and quantitative method to classify
flow regimes, making it a fundamental teaching and diagnostic tool in fluid mechanics.

Previous studies have established that the Reynolds number, defined as the ratio of inertial to
viscous forces in a fluid, governs the transition between flow regimes. Laminar flow typically
occurs at Reynolds numbers below 2000, turbulent flow above 4000, and transitional flow
between these thresholds (Munson et al., 2013). Reynolds (1883) first demonstrated this
behavior by injecting dye into a glass pipe and observing the onset of turbulence as velocity
increased. Subsequent research has verified that disturbances in flow and environmental
conditions can affect the critical Reynolds number (Çengel and Cimbala, 2014), emphasizing the
importance of controlled experimental observation.
The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the transition of flow regimes in a pipe
through visual dye observation and Reynolds number calculation. Specific objectives were to
measure discharge and velocity at different flow rates, compute Reynolds numbers, visually
identify flow patterns, and correlate the observed behavior with theoretical thresholds. The
experiment also aimed to explore how slight variations in flow conditions influence flow regime
transitions and to assess the reliability of Reynolds number as a predictive tool

THEORY

The Reynolds number (Re) is a dimensionless quantity used in fluid mechanics to predict the
flow regime of a fluid inside a pipe or around an object. It expresses the balance between inertial
forces (which promote turbulence) and viscous forces (which resist motion). It is defined as:

ud
Re=
v

Where:

 u= average flow velocity (m/s)

 d= internal diameter of the pipe (m)
 ν = kinematic viscosity of the fluid (m²/s)

Depending on the Reynolds number:

 Laminar flow (Re < 2000): fluid flows in parallel layers with no disruption between
them. The dye stream remains intact and straight.
 Transitional flow (Re between 2000 and 4000): fluid flow is unstable and shows
intermittent mixing. The dye starts to waver and break up.
 Turbulent flow (Re > 4000): fluid motion becomes chaotic with significant mixing and
eddies. The dye disperses quickly and randomly.

In this experiment, the dye is injected at the entrance of a transparent pipe that is fed by a
constant head tank to maintain steady flow. By collecting the outflow over time, the volumetric
flow rate Q can be determined. The average velocity is then calculated as:
 Q
u=
A

2
πd
Where A= is the cross-sectional area of the pipe.
4

The kinematic viscosity ν\nu of water is temperature-dependent and must be obtained from
standard tables based on the recorded water temperature during the experiment. For example, at
25°C, ν≈0.8937×10−6 m2/s (Cengel & Cimbala, 2014).

This experiment combines theory, observation, and measurement to deepen the understanding of
internal fluid flow and the role of dimensionless analysis in engineering applications.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Materials

 F1-10 Hydraulics bench

 F1-20 Reynolds demonstration apparatus
 Dye reservoir and injector needle
 Transparent pipe with bell mouth entry (inner diameter: 0.0115 m)
 2000 mL measuring cylinder
 Stopwatch
 Thermometer
 Ruler or caliper

Experimental Procedure

1. The apparatus was set up on a stable, vibration-free bench.

2. Water was pumped into the head tank until the overflow level was reached.
3. Dye was loaded into the reservoir and injected using the needle centered at the bell
mouth.
4. The flow control valve was adjusted to produce low, medium, and high flow rates.
 5. At each flow setting:

 The volumetric flow rate was measured using a measuring cylinder and
stopwatch.
 Water temperature was recorded.
 Dye behavior was observed and classified as laminar, transitional, or
turbulent.

6. The pipe diameter was measured to determine cross-sectional area.

7. Reynolds number was calculated for each trial.
8. The procedure was repeated for at least 8 trials across all three flow regimes.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Data collection
The table blow shows the data collection
Observed flow Volume(ml) Average time (s) temperature¿)
regime
Laminar (Formed a 100 51.193 23
smooth continuous
line with no mixing)
Turbulent (the 100 9.657 23
disperses and the
mixes randomly
throughout the fluids)
Transitional Initially 1oo 8.723 23
smooth dye line the
begins to breakup

Observed Discharge Velocity Kinematic Reynolds

flow regime Q(m3/s) (m/s) viscosity number
Laminar 1.953×10⁻6 0.0159 9.344 × 10⁻⁷ 212.703
−5
Transition 1.036×10 0.0842 9.347 × 10⁻⁷ 1126.39
Turbulent 1.146×10−4 0.932 9.347 × 10⁻⁷ 12467.87
 Velocity(m/s) Reynolds number
0.0159 212.703
0.0842 1126.39
0.932 12467.87

Reynolds number vs velocity

14000

12000

10000
reynold number

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4velocity (m/s)
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
 DISCUSSION

The Osborne Reynolds experiment demonstrated how fluid flow behavior changes with
increasing discharge and velocity. The results revealed a strong correlation between the visual
flow patterns and the calculated Reynolds numbers, confirming the theoretical flow regime
boundaries. The flow regimes were clearly observed: laminar flow exhibited a smooth and stable
dye stream; transitional flow showed intermittent disturbances; and turbulent flow caused the dye
to disperse rapidly. This pattern aligns with classical fluid dynamics theory, where the Reynolds
number serves as an indicator of flow regime.

Analysis of the data shows that as the discharge increased from 1.953×10⁻6 m3/s in the laminar
case to 1.146×10−4m3/s in the turbulent case, the velocity also increased significantly from
0.0159m/s to 0.932m/s. Correspondingly, the Reynolds number increased from 212.703 in the
laminar case to 12467.87 in the turbulent case. These values are in agreement with theoretical
expectations: laminar flow typically occurs at Re<2000\text{Re} < 2000, turbulent flow at
Re>4000\text{Re} > 4000, and transitional flow in between. Interestingly, the transitional flow
observed in this experiment had a Reynolds number of 1126.39, which is higher than the
expected transitional range. This deviation may be attributed to external disturbances or
experimental limitations that caused turbulence to develop earlier or persist longer.

Interpreting the results further, we observe that the flow velocity is the dominant factor affecting
the Reynolds number, as seen from the formula:

ud
Re=
v

where u is velocity, d is pipe diameter, and ν\nu is kinematic viscosity. Since the pipe diameter
and fluid viscosity remained constant, the variation in Re is primarily due to changes in velocity.
This confirms the theoretical relationship and emphasizes the importance of controlling flow rate
in practical fluid systems to avoid unwanted turbulence, which can cause energy losses and
system inefficiencies.

Despite the overall success of the experiment, certain errors and limitations may have affected
the accuracy of the results. The primary source of error was manual timing using a stopwatch,
which introduces human reaction delay and inconsistency. Additionally, the dye injection may
not have been perfectly aligned at the center of the flow, which could lead to premature
dispersion or distortion of the dye stream, especially during transitional flow. Small vibrations in
the apparatus or air bubbles in the pipe could also trigger turbulence at lower-than-expected
Reynolds numbers. Another limitation is the relatively small number of trials for each regime,
which may not fully capture the variability in flow behavior.

In conclusion, the experiment successfully demonstrated the transition between flow regimes
using both qualitative (dye pattern) and quantitative (Reynolds number) observations. The results
validated the theoretical framework of fluid mechanics, despite minor discrepancies likely
caused by experimental imperfections. The trends and relationships between discharge, velocity,
and Reynolds number were clearly established, confirming the practical reliability of the
Reynolds number in predicting flow regime behavior.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this experiment was to investigate the behavior of fluid flow within a pipe and to
classify it as laminar, transitional, or turbulent based on both visual observation and calculated
Reynolds numbers. The key findings confirmed that laminar flow occurred at low Reynolds
numbers (Re ≈212.703), while turbulent flow occurred at higher values (Re ≈12467.87), with
transitional flow observed in between (Re ≈ 1126.39). These results were consistent with
theoretical predictions, though minor deviations were observed due to experimental limitations.
A critical lesson learned is that the Reynolds number is a reliable indicator of flow regime, and
that small changes in flow rate or environmental conditions can significantly impact the
transition between regimes. Additionally, the experiment reinforced the importance of accurate
measurements and controlled conditions in fluid mechanics testing.

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Use Automated Timing Equipment: To reduce human error in stopwatch readings, future
experiments should incorporate electronic flow sensors or digital timers to measure flow
time more accurately.
2. Stabilize the Apparatus: Conduct the experiment on a vibration-free surface to prevent
unintended disturbances that may prematurely trigger turbulence, especially during
transitional flow conditions.
3. Improve Dye Injection Technique: Ensure that the dye is injected precisely at the center
of the pipe entrance using a fine, well-positioned needle to achieve a more accurate
representation of flow patterns.
4. Remove Air Bubbles Before Starting: Air bubbles within the pipe can cause irregularities
in flow. The apparatus should be flushed and checked before data collection to eliminate
entrapped air.
5. Conduct More Repeated Trials: Performing multiple readings for each flow regime and
averaging the results can reduce random errors and improve the reliability of calculated
parameters.
6. Calibrate Flow Rate Control Valves: Ensure that the flow rate control valves are
calibrated and adjusted smoothly to produce steady and consistent flow rates during each
trial.
7. Record Observations with High-Speed Camera: Using high-speed video recording for
dye flow behavior can improve post-experiment analysis and allow better identification
of transition points.

REFERENCE

 CE 330 Lab Manual, 2023. Experiment 7: Osborne Reynolds Number. 4th ed. The
Copperbelt University: School of Mines and Mineral Sciences.
 White, F.M., 2011. Fluid Mechanics. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
 Munson, B.R., Young, D.F., Okiishi, T.H. and Huebsch, W.W., 2013. Fundamentals of
Fluid Mechanics. 7th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  Fox, R.W., McDonald, A.T. and Pritchard, P.J., 2011. Introduction to Fluid Mechanics.
8th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
 Çengel, Y.A. and Cimbala, J.M., 2014. Fluid Mechanics: Fundamentals and
Applications. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

APPENDIX

Calculations of Experimental Variables:

Volume collected = 1000ml = 0.001m3

Thickness of glass = 1mm= 0.001m

Pipe diameter = 1.35cm = 0.0135m

Diameter=0.0135m-0.001m=0.0125m

Kinematic viscosity at 25 °C = 9.344 × 10⁻⁷

Pipe Cross-Sectional Area:

2 2
π d π (0.0125)
A= = =1.23×10−4 m2
4 4

For laminar Flow:

Time taken 51.193

Discharge Velocity

0.0001
Q¿ =¿1.953×10⁻6
51.193
Velocity

Q 1.953× 10−6
V= = =0.0159
A 1.23 × 10−4

Reynolds Number

ud 0.0159 m/s ×0.0125

Re= = =212.703
v 9.344 ×10
−7

for transition flow

Time taken 9.657

Discharge

0.0001 −5
Q= =1.036 ×10
9.657

Velocity

−3
1.035× 10
V= −4
1.23 ×10

Reynolds Number

0.0842× 0.0125
Re= −7
9.344 ×10

For turbulent:

Time taken 8.723

Discharge

v 0.001
Q¿ = =1.146×10−4
t 8.723

Velocity

Q 1.146 ×10−4
V= = =0.932
A 1.23× 10−4 m2

Reynolds Number

ud 0.932 ×0.0125
Re= = =12467.89 J
v 9.344 ×10
−7

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Flow Regime Time Time Time

Laminar 49.88 50.00 49.26
Transitional 17.68 17.25 17.35
Turbulent 786 7.68 7.45

Laminar vs Transitional

Laminar:

 n1 =3
 Mean xˉ 1= 49.71
  Standard Deviation S1=0.391s

Transitional:

 n2 =3
 Mean xˉ 2 = 17.43
 Standard Deviation s2=0.218s

Hypotheses

 Null Hypothesis H ° : No significant difference in mean time → μ1= μ2

 Alternative Hypothesis H 1: There is a significant difference → μ1≠ μ2

T-statistic:

xˉ 1−xˉ 2 49 .71−17 . 43 32.28

= =124.1

√ √
t= 2 2
s s = 0.3912 0.218 2 0.260
1
+ 2
+
n1 n 2 3 3

Degrees of Freedom (Welch-Satterthwaite):

df≈3.3⇒use df = 2 for conservative estimate

Critical t-value (α = 0.05, two-tailed, df = 2):

t critical=4.303

Decision:

∣t calc∣=124.1≫4.303⇒Reject H °

Conclusion: The difference in average flow time between laminar and transitional flow is
statistically significant.
T-Test: Transitional vs Turbulent

Transitional:

 Mean = 17.43
 SD = 0.218

Turbulent:

 Mean = 7.663
 SD = 0.206

T-statistic:

17.43−7.663 9.767
= =56.4

√
t= 2
0.218 0.206
2 0.713
+
3 3

Critical t-value (df = 2): 4.303

Conclusion: Significant difference between transitional and turbulent flow times.

T-Test: Laminar vs Turbulent

Laminar Mean = 49.71, SD = 0.391

Turbulent Mean = 7.663, SD = 0.206

49 . 71−7 . 663
42.05
t=
√ 0.3912 0.206 2 = 0.259 =162.3
3
+
3

Conclusion: Highly significant difference between laminar and turbulent flow times.

Summary of Statistical Analysis

 Mean
Comparison t-Statistic t-Critical Conclusion
Difference
Significant
Laminar vs
32.28 s 124.1 4.303 difference (p <
Transitional
0.05)
Significant
Transitional vs
9.77 s 56.4 4.303 difference (p <
Turbulent
0.05)
Significant
Laminar vs
42.05 s 162.3 4.303 difference (p <
Turbulent
0.05)

Conclusion (Statistical Analysis)

All three t-tests showed statistically significant differences in flow time between the laminar,
transitional, and turbulent regimes. This supports the physical expectation that as flow becomes
more turbulent, fluid moves faster, reducing the time to fill a given volume. The data also
validates the observational classification of flow regimes based on time and dye pattern behavior.