Elsevier Editorial System(tm) for Nuclear Engineering and Design

Manuscript Draft

Manuscript Number: NED-D-11-00090R1

Title: New explicit correlations for turbulent flow friction factor

Article Type: Technical Note

Corresponding Author: Dr Dejan Brkic, PhD in Petroleum and Natural Gas Eng.

Corresponding Author's Institution:

First Author: Dejan Brkic, PhD in Petroleum and Natural Gas Eng.

Order of Authors: Dejan Brkic, PhD in Petroleum and Natural Gas Eng.

Abstract: Two new correlations of single-phase friction factor for turbulent pipe flow are shown in this
paper. These two formulas are actually explicit approximations of iterative Colebrook's relation for
calculation of flow friction factor. Calculated friction factor are valid for whole turbulent flow including
hydraulically smooth and rough pipes with special attention on transient zone of turbulence between
them. Hydraulically smooth regime of turbulence does not occur only in total absence of roughness of
inner pipe surface, but also, four new relations for this theoretical regime are presented. Some recent
formulas for turbulent flow friction calculation are also commented.
*Detailed Response to Reviewers DB

I wish to thank reviewer to his or her valuable comments.

1. Abstract is now changed. Two new explicit approximations to the Colebrook approximation are
shown. I did not see that Fang et al. favor their approximation for smooth pipes. In their paper is
equally important approximation to the Colebrook equation. Also as I explained, the Colebrook
equation is not only for “rough” pipes. It is for whole regime of turbulence which includes smooth
and rough law and transient zone between them. Smooth law is not only valuable in absence of
roughness and therefore equation of Fang et al. for smooth pipes has limited application as I
explain in my text.
2. I do not use anymore Zigrang and Sylvester method from 1985 to estimate the complexity of
approximations. But to be clear, Fang et al. approximation has few not simple power terms
(1.1007, 1.1105 and 1.0712). These are not simple input parameters for hand calculators.
3. I examined approximation in 740 points in my paper “Review of explicit approximations to the
Colebrook relation for flow friction”. My results can be compared with results by Gregory and
Fogarasi (1985) and Zigrang and Sylvester (1985). Both papers are in my reference list. Results by
Yıldırım (2009) are different and I have comments in my paper on this. Gregory and Fogarasi
(1985) and Zigrang and Sylvester (1985) are 25 years old research. My results with newly
developed approximations can be compared with results from S. Genić, I. Arandjelović, P.
Kolendić, M. Jarić, N. Budimir, V. Genić, A review of explicit approximations of Colebrook’s
equation, FME Transactions 39 (2011), 67-71. My analysis was done using MS Excel and I am
preparing new research in MATLAB with much more points than 740.
4. Moody diagram starts from 0 with laminar zone. Of course Colebrook’s equation is only for
turbulent zone. Turbulent zone is for Re>2300 or in the Moody chart for Re>4000. But laminar
zone can exist up to Re=104. To avoid any misunderstandings, my charts are for Re>104. For
example, from figure 1, for Fang et al. (2011) equation, it can be seen that relative error is up to
0.62% for Re>104 (or about 0.73% for Re=3000). I do not claim anymore that my analysis covers
the entire Re range of the Moody diagram. I do not have deeper comments on Haaland or Barr
approximation.
5. Colebrook paper is from Vol. 11, Issue 4 which was published in February 1939. Note that
previous Issue 3 is in Vol. 10 which was published in January 1939. Issue 2 in Vol. 10 is the last
from 1938. It is not usual practice, but this was in Journal of the ICE (Vol. 10 with issues 1 and 2
in 1938, Vol. 10 with issue 3 in 1939, Vol. 11 with issues 4, 5 and 6 in 1939, Vol. 12 with issue 7
and 8 in 1939)
6. My text is now with no informal expression. I hope that my English expression is now
improved.
*Title Page DB

New explicit correlations for turbulent flow friction factor

Dejan Brkić, Ph.D., Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineer, Strumička 88, 11050 Beograd, Serbia

Tel. +381642543668, e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Two new correlations of single-phase friction factor for turbulent pipe flow are shown

in this paper. These two formulas are actually explicit approximations of iterative Colebrook’s

relation for calculation of flow friction factor. Calculated friction factor are valid for whole

turbulent flow including hydraulically smooth and rough pipes with special attention on transient

zone of turbulence between them. Hydraulically smooth regime of turbulence does not occur

only in total absence of roughness of inner pipe surface, but also, four new relations for this

theoretical regime are presented. Some recent formulas for turbulent flow friction calculation are

also commented.

Nomenclature:

λ-Darcy, Darcy-Weisbach or Moody friction factor (dimensionless),

Re-Reynolds number (dimensionless)

ε/D-Relative roughness of inner pipe surface (dimensionless)

Text DB

1. Introduction

Standard Colebrook’s equation (1) is implicit in flow friction factor.

1  2.51  
 2  log10   
  Re  3.71 D  (1)

Turbulent part of the famous Moody chart was drawn using Colebrook’s results (Colebrook,

1939; Moody, 1944). Colebrook’s formula can be used for whole turbulent regime including the

smooth and the rough zone of turbulence and also for the transient zone between them.

Colebrook’s formula has two parts which presents “smooth” and “rough” portion of turbulence.

Only “smooth” part presented by Prandtl’s formula (2) is implicit in friction factor.

1

 2.51 
 2  log10   
  2  log10 Re   0.8
 Re   (2)

“Rough” part in Colebrook’s formula is presented by von Karman’s formula (3) which is not

implicitly given.

1     
 2  log10    1.14  2  log10  
  3.71 D  D (3)

Prandtl’s and von Karman’s formula are also known as NPK (Nikuradse-Pandtl-von Karman)

formulas.

Using logarithmic rules, one can found that Colebrook’s formula is incorrect because

log(A)+log(B)≠log(A+B). But Colebrook’s equation solves not problem from mathematics, but

from hydraulics. Colebrook’s formula is empirical and make fine transitional curve between

smooth and rough turbulent law. NPK equations used separately for smooth law (Prandtl’s

1
equation) and for rough law (von Karman’s equation) do not make such transitional curve. NPK

equations represent only extremes of Colebrook formula. This is because the relative roughness

of inner pipe surface (ε/D) is not only physical characteristic of pipe surface. It also depends on

thickness of laminar boundary layer which occurs near pipe wall during the turbulent flow of

fluid. So one extreme of turbulence is smooth flow in total absence of roughness (ε/D=0)

covered by Prandtl’s equation while other extreme is rough flow where boundary layer does not

exist (ε/D→max for observed inner pipe surface) which is covered by von Karman’s equation.

Colebrook’s equation includes not only these two extremes presented by NPK equations but also

smooth law where relative roughness is very small (ε/D→0) with significant laminar boundary

layer and also rest of turbulent regime where relative roughness smoothly increases to its

physical maximum while thickness of laminar boundary layer decreases.

The Colebrook equation is also known under the Colebrook-White name, but this equation

should be quoted in a correct way from source Colebrook (1939). Although, White was not

actually a co-author of the paper in which considered equation was presented, Colebrook made a

special point of acknowledging important contribution of White to the development of the

equation based on his previous joint work (Colebrook and White, 1937). Paper of Colebrook is

from 1939 (as can be seen from doi: 10.1680/ijoti.1939.13150 of this paper) and not from 1938-

39 as often erroneously cited (volume 11 has only issues 4, 5 and 6 all from 1939).

Colebrook’s formula can be solved in iterative procedure since it contains implicitly given flow

friction factor. Also, numerous explicit approximations can be used to substitute implicit

Colebrook’s equation which cannot be solved for unknown flow friction factor with no

2
approximate calculus (Moody, 1947; Wood, 1966; Eck, 1973; Churchill, 1973; Swamee and

Jain, 1976; Jain, 1976; Churchill, 1977; Chen, 1979; Round, 1980; Barr, 1981; Zigrang and

Sylvester, 1982; Haaland, 1983; Serghides, 1984; Manadilli, 1997; Romeo et al. 2002; Sonnad

and Goudar, 2006; Buzzelli, 2008; Avci and Karagoz, 2009; Vatankhah and Kouchakzadeh,

2009; Papaevangelou et al., 2010; Brkić, 2011a,b; Fang et al. 2011; Ghanbari et al., 2011). Two

novel explicit approximations to the Colebrook’s formula will be shown in further text.

2. Some recent explicit formulas for turbulent flow friction

There are many different explicit formulas developed to substitute implicit Colebrook’s relation.

Most recent formula is by Fang et al. (2011). Fang et al. (2011) estimated very accurately

maximal relative error up to 0.5% for their approximation of Colebrook’s formula. From figure

1, it can be seen that this error is slightly bigger, up to 0.62% for Re>104 (or about 0.73% for

Re=3000). This is very accurate which means that their approximation is in first ten sorted by

accuracy (Brkić, 2011c).

Figure 1. Distribution of estimated relative error of approximation by Fang et al. (2011) compared with iterative

solution of implicit Colebrook equation

Also, approximations proposed by Romeo et al. (2002), Buzzelli (2008), more complex form of

approximation by Serghides (1984), more complex form of approximation by Zigrang and

Sylvester (1982) and approximation by Vatankhah and Kouchakzadeh (2009) will always give

more accurate results than those calculated by approximations proposed by Fang et al. (2011) as

shown in figure 2. On the other hand as shown in figure 3, inconclusive conclusion of accuracy

3
in general can be found by using of approximation by Barr (1981), simpler form of

approximation by Serghides (1984), approximation by Chen (1979), Sonnad and Goudar (2006),

Papaevangelou et al. (2010) and by using simpler form of approximations by Zigrang and

Sylvester (1982), all versus approximation by Fang et al. (2011). Approximation proposed by

Fang et al. (2011) will give better prediction of implicit Colebrook equation compared with other

approximations from Brkić (2011c).

Figure 2. Approximation of Fang et al. (2011) compared with the most accurate approximations

Figure 3. Approximation of Fang et al. (2011) compared with moderate accurate approximations

Relative error of certain approximations to the Colebrook equation was also presented in

Gregory and Fogarasi (1985) and Zigrang and Sylvester (1985). As noted by Fang et al. (2011),

Yıldırım (2009) conducted comprehensive analysis of existing correlations for single-phase

friction but he used Techdig 2.0 software which caused remarkable reading errors factor.

Findings by Brkić (2011c) as well as findings by Fang et al. (2011) do not support Yıldırım’s

error estimations because he greatly overestimated errors and offered different accuracy-based

rank order for the correlations evaluated than in Fang et al. (2011) or in Brkić (2011c). One can

be always aware that Moody diagram was constructed using Colebrook’s equation and not

opposite (Colebrook, 1939; Moody, 1944). It is not acceptable to replace cause and its

consequence such was done by reading of points from Moody diagram using Techdig 2.0

software. Ghanbari et al. (2011) also made their approximation of Colebrook’s equation based on

4
data which was obtained by digitizing the Moody’s diagram. This approach produces

approximation with error up to 3% as can be seen from figure 4.

Figure 4. Distribution of estimated relative error of approximation by Ghanbari et al. (2011) compared with iterative

solution of implicit Colebrook equation

Use of input data in model proposed by Ghanbari et al. (2011) obtained by iterative solution of

Colebrook’s equation instead of the data from Moody’s diagram would almost certain produce

more accurate approximation.

3. New explicit approximations to the Colebrook’s formula

In some recent papers, few new explicit approximations of Prantdl’s relation were shown (Fang

et al., 2011; Li et al., 2011; Danish et al., 2011). As noted before, Prantdl’s relation is actually

Colebrook’s equation in the case of total absence of relative roughness (ε/D). Approximations to

the Prandtl equation by Fang et al. (2011) and Li et al. (2011) are suitable for transformation in

approximations to the Colebrook equation. Approximations to the Prandtl equation given in

suitable form (with its smooth part “x” transformed in explicitly given form) can be easily

transformed in approximation to the Colebrook equation (4).

  
 2  log10 x  
1 1
 2  log10  x  
   3.71  D  (4)

Using approximations to the Prandtl equation proposed in Fang et al. (2011), new approximation

to the Colebrook equation can be obtained (5).

1  150.39 152.66  
 2  log10  0.98865  
  Re Re 3.71  D  (5)
5
After few simple transformations new approximation to the Colebrook equation (6) can be

obtained from approximations to the Prandtl equation proposed in Li et al. (2011).

 
 
1  1.25603  
 2  log10  
  0.0015702 0.3942031 2.5341533 3.71 D 
 Re    (6)
   2
  3
  
 ln Re ln Re ln Re 

Distribution of relative error for both presented approximations (marked as new in figure 6) to

the Colebrook equation can be seen in figure 5.

Figure 5. Distribution of estimated relative error of two new approximations compared with iterative solution of

implicit Colebrook equation

Presented equations with relative error up to 2% can be used to substitute implicit Colebrook’s

equation. This error is comparable with other available approximations as can be seen from

figure 6.

Figure 6. Two new approximations compared with some other available approximations to the Colebrook equation

Both equations are presented in figure 6 are presented with one line “new” since they produce

identical error. The Colebrook equation is empirical and therefore error of 2% can be neglected.

4. New explicit approximations to the Prandtl’s formula

6
Hydraulically smooth regime of turbulence does not occur only in total absence of roughness of

inner pipe surface (Brkić, 2011d), but also, four new relations for this theoretical regime are

presented. As noted before, Colebrook’s equation in total absence of relative roughness is

actually Prandtl’s equation, and vice versa. These four approximations to the Prandtl equation

was developed using inverse procedure from previous section, i.e. from appropriate

approximations to the Colebrook formula, “rough” part was simply removed (Table 1).

Table 1: Equations for hydraulically smooth regime developed for total absence of roughness (when ε/D=0)

Approximations to the Prandtl equation (new 1-4) were developed using approximations to the

Colebrook formula shown in Romeo et al. (2002), Zigrang and Sylvester (1982), Manadilli

(1997), and Serghides (1984), respectively (new 1-4).

Comparison of presented approximations of Prandtl’s relation is given in figure 7.

Figure 7. Accuracy of some approximations to the Prandtl equation

With relative error of up to 0.15% to the Prandl equation, all approximations from table 1 can be

used instead of implicit form of Prandtl’s equation (or Colebrook’s when ε/D=0).

5. Conclusion

Two new explicit approximations to the standard implicit Colebrook equation are shown. Their

relative error over the entire practical domain of Reynolds number and relative roughness are up

7
to 2%. Since the Colebrook equation is empirical this is good results. In that way, main goal

which is avoiding of iterative procedure is fulfilled. Also, there are many explicit approximations

to the implicit Prandtl equation in literature. The Prandtl equation is actually the Colebrook

equation in total absence of inner pipe roughness. In some cases, an explicit approximation to the

Colebrook equation can be easily used to develop an explicit approximation to the Prandtl

equation. Procedure for this is explained in text, and vice versa, using some of the explicit

approximations to the Colebrook equation known from literature, for new explicit

approximations to the Prandtl equation were developed. With relative error of no more than

0.15%, these for equations are very accurate.

References:

Avci, A., Karagoz, I. 2009. A novel explicit equation for friction factor in smooth and rough

pipes. J. Fluid. Eng. ASME 131(6), 061203 (1-4).

Barr, D.I.H. 1981. Solutions of the Colebrook-White function for resistance to uniform turbulent

flow. Proc. Inst. Civil. Eng. 71(2), 529–536.

Brkić, D. 2011a. An explicit approximation of the Colebrook equation for fluid flow friction

factor. Petrol. Sci. Tech. 29(15), 1596-1602.

Brkić, D. 2011b. W solutions of the CW equation for flow friction. Appl. Math. Lett. 24(8),

1379-1383.

Brkić, D. 2011c. Review of explicit approximations to the Colebrook relation for flow friction. J.

Pet. Sci. Eng. 77(1), 34–48.

Brkić, D. 2011d. Gas distribution network hydraulic problem from practice, Petrol. Sci. Tech.

29(4), 366-377.

8
Buzzelli, D. 2008. Calculating friction in one step. Mach. Des. 80(12), 54-55.

Chen, N.H. 1979. An explicit equation for friction factor in pipes. Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam.

18(3), 296–297.

Churchill, S.W. 1973. Empirical expressions for the shear stress in turbulent flow in commercial

pipe. AIChE J. 19(2), 375–376.

Churchill, S.W. 1977. Friction-factor equation spans all fluid flow regimes. Chem. Eng. 84(24),

91–92.

Colebrook, C.F. 1939. Turbulent flow in pipes with particular reference to the transition region

between the smooth and rough pipe laws. J. Inst. Civil. Eng. (London) 11(4), 133-156.

Colebrook, C.F., White C.M. 1937. Experiments with fluid friction in roughened pipes. Proc.

Roy. Soc. Ser. A Math. Phys. Sci. 161(906), 367-381.

Danish, M., Kumar, S., Kumar, S., 2011. Approximate explicit analytical expressions of friction

factor for flow of Bingham fluids in smooth pipes using Adomian decomposition method.

Commun. Nonlinear. Sci. Numer. Simulat. 16(1), 239–251.

Eck, B. 1973. Technische Stromungslehre; Springer: New York.

Fang, X., Xu, Y., Zhou, Z. 2011. New correlations of single-phase friction factor for turbulent

pipe flow and evaluation of existing single-phase friction factor correlations. Nucl. Eng. Des.

241(3), 897–902.

Ghanbari, A., Farshad, F.F., Rieke, H.H. 2011. Newly developed friction factor correlation for

pipe flow and flow assurance. J. Chem. Eng. Mater. Sci. 2(6), 83-86.

Gregory, G.A., Fogarasi, M. 1985. Alternate to standard friction factor equation. Oil. Gas. J.

83(13), 125–127, 120.

9
Haaland, S.E. 1983. Simple and explicit formulas for friction factor in turbulent pipe flow. J.

Fluid. Eng. ASME 105(1), 89-90.

Jain, A.K. 1976. Accurate explicit equation for friction factor. J. Hydraul. Div. ASCE 102(HY5),

674–677.

Li, P., Seem, J.E., Li, Y., 2011. A new explicit equation for accurate friction factor calculation of

smooth pipes. Int. J. Refrig. in press, doi.10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2011.03.018

Manadilli, G. 1997. Replace implicit equations with signomial functions. Chem. Eng. 104(8),

129–130.

Moody, L.F. 1944. Friction factors for pipe flow. Trans. ASME 66(8), 671-684.

Moody, L.F. 1947. An approximate formula for pipe friction factors. Trans. ASME 69(12),

1005–1011.

Papaevangelou G, Evangelides C, Tzimopoulos C. 2010. A new explicit equation for the friction

coefficient in the Darcy-Weisbach equation, Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Protection

and Restoration of the Environment: PRE10, July 6-9, 2010, Greece, Corfu, 166, pp. 1-7.

Romeo, E., Royo, C., Monzon, A. 2002. Improved explicit equation for estimation of the friction

factor in rough and smooth pipes. Chem. Eng. J. 86(3), 369–374.

Round, G.F. 1980. An explicit approximation for the friction factor-Reynolds number relation

for rough and smooth pipes. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 58(1), 122–123.

Serghides, T.K. 1984. Estimate friction factor accurately. Chem. Eng. 91(5), 63–64.

Sonnad, J.R., Goudar, C.T. 2006. Turbulent flow friction factor calculation using a

mathematically exact alternative to the Colebrook-White equation. J. Hydraul. Eng. ASCE

132(8), 863–867.

10
Swamee, P.K., Jain A.K. 1976. Explicit equations for pipe flow problems. J. Hydraul. Div.

ASCE 102(HY5), 657–664.

Vatankhah, A.R., Kouchakzadeh, S. 2009. Discussion: Exact equations for pipe-flow problems,

by P.K. Swamee and P.N. Rathie. J. Hydraul. Res. IAHR 47(7), 537-538.

Wood, D.J. 1966. An explicit friction factor relationship. Civil. Eng. 36(12), 60–61.

Yıldırım, G. 2009. Computer-based analysis of explicit approximations to the implicit

Colebrook–White equation in turbulent flow friction factor calculation. Adv. Eng. Softw. 40(11),

1183–1190.

Zigrang, D.J., Sylvester, N.D. 1982. Explicit approximations to the solution of Colebrook

friction factor equation. AIChE J. 28(3), 514–515.

Zigrang, D.J., Sylvester, N.D. 1985. A review of explicit friction factor equations. J. Energ.

Resour. ASME 107(2), 280–283.

Dejan Brkić (1975) received his PhD degree in petroleum and natural engineering from the University of Belgrade

(Serbia) in 2010. His PhD research was supported from the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of

Republic of Serbia during a scholarship program. He holds also MS degree in petroleum engineering (2002) and MS

degree in treatment and transport of fluids (2005), both from the University of Belgrade. He has also postgraduate

education in field of environmental protection. He published over 15 research papers in international journals. His

research interest includes hydraulics and natural gas. Brkić is currently finishing MS degree studies in mechanical

engineering at the University of Niš (Serbia).

11
List of tables:

Table 1: Equations for hydraulically smooth regime developed for total absence of roughness

(when ε/D=0)

12
List of figures:

Figure 1. Distribution of estimated relative error of approximation by Fang et al. (2011)

compared with iterative solution of implicit Colebrook equation

Figure 2. Approximation of Fang et al. (2011) compared with the most accurate approximations

Figure 3. Approximation of Fang et al. (2011) compared with moderate accurate approximations

Figure 4. Distribution of estimated relative error of approximation by Ghanbari et al. (2011)

compared with iterative solution of implicit Colebrook equation

Figure 5. Distribution of estimated relative error of two new approximations compared with

iterative solution of implicit Colebrook equation

Figure 6. Two new approximations compared with some other available approximations to the

Colebrook equation

Figure 7. Accuracy of some approximations to the Prandtl equation

13
Table 1 DB

Table 1: Equations for hydraulically smooth regime developed for total absence of roughness (when ε/D=0)
Equation Name
1  1.73718  Co  ln Co  2.62122  Co  ln Co  3.03568  Co  ln Co  
2 3
1
   Co    
 2  1.73718  Co 1.73718  Co 3 1.73718  Co 4  Danish et al. (2011)
Co  4  log10 Re  0.4
1   0.0015702 0.3942031 2.5341533 
 0.8685  ln  Re     0.198 Li et al. (2011)
  ln Re  ln 2 Re  ln 3 Re  
2
  150.39 152.66 
  0.25  log10  0.98865   Fang et al. (2011)
  Re Re 
 5.0272  4.567   5.3326 0.9345   
1 
 2  log10  
 log10   log10   
  Re  Re   208.815  Re   New 1
   
1  5.02  5.02  13   
 2  log10    log10    log10     New 2
  Re  Re  Re   
1  95 96.82 
 2  log10  0.983   New 3
  Re Re 
2

   S1 
S2  S1 2 
 S3  2  S2  S1 

 12 
S1  2  log10  
 Re  New 4
 2.51  S1 
S2  2  log10  
 Re 
 2.51  S2 
S3  2  log10  
 Re 
Figure 1 DB
Click here to download high resolution image
Figure 2 DB
Click here to download high resolution image
Figure 3 DB
Click here to download high resolution image
Figure 4 DB
Click here to download high resolution image
Figure 5 DB
Click here to download high resolution image
Figure 6 DB
Click here to download high resolution image
Figure 7 DB
Click here to download high resolution image
graphical abstract DB
Click here to download e-component: graph abstract DB.tif
research highliglight DB
Click here to download e-component: Research highlights DB.doc
Brkic
Click here to download e-component: Brkic.JPG