Mass Flow Rate - Alternative Equations

Alternative Equations

Mass flow rate can also be calculated by:

where:

  • ρ = mass density of the fluid,
  • v = velocity field of the mass elements flowing,
  • A = cross-sectional vector area/surface,
  • Q = volumetric flow rate,
  • jm = mass flux.

The above equation is only true for a flat, plane area. In general, including cases where the area is curved, the equation becomes a surface integral:

The area required to calculate the mass flow rate is real or imaginary, flat or curved, either as a cross-sectional area or a surface. E.g. for substances passing through a filter or a membrane, the real surface is the (generally curved) surface area of the filter, macroscopically - ignoring the area spanned by the holes in the filter/membrane. The spaces would be cross-sectional areas. For liquids passing through a pipe, the area is the cross-section of the pipe, at the section considered. The vector area is a combination of the magnitude of the area through which the mass passes through, A, and a unit vector normal to the area, . The relation is .

The reason for the dot product is as follows. The only mass flowing through the cross-section is the amount normal to the area, i.e. parallel to the unit normal. This amount is:

where θ is the angle between the unit normal and the velocity of mass elements. The amount passing through the cross-section is reduced by the factor, as θ increases less mass passes through. All mass which passes in tangential directions to the area, that is perpendicular to the unit normal, doesn't actually pass through the area, so the mass passing through the area is zero. This occurs when θ = π/2:

These results are equivalent to the equation containing the dot product. Sometimes these equations are used to define the mass flow rate.

Read more about this topic:  Mass Flow Rate

Famous quotes containing the word alternative:

    Our mother gives us our earliest lessons in love—and its partner, hate. Our father—our “second other”Melaborates on them. Offering us an alternative to the mother-baby relationship . . . presenting a masculine model which can supplement and contrast with the feminine. And providing us with further and perhaps quite different meanings of lovable and loving and being loved.
    Judith Viorst (20th century)