Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Comment On "Gene Expression Programming Analysis of Implicit Colebrook-White Equation in Turbulent Flow Friction Factor Calculation
Comment On "Gene Expression Programming Analysis of Implicit Colebrook-White Equation in Turbulent Flow Friction Factor Calculation
art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Recently, it is investigated (Samadianfard, 2012) the potential of genetic programming based technique
Received 10 January 2013 in estimating flow friction factor in comparison with the most currently available explicit alternatives to
Accepted 1 December 2013 the Colebrook's equation.
Using iterative solution of the Colebrook's equation which is accurate to six significant digits, this
Keywords: discussion showed that the proposed approximation by the author for friction factor is not very accurate
explicit approximations (the errors increase up to 7.374%), thus it is proposed two new accurate approximations (with maximum
Colebrook friction factor error less than 0.022% and 0.008%) for estimating flow friction factor.
Darcy–Weisbach equation & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
turbulent flow
fixed point method
0920-4105/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2013.12.001
Please cite this article as: Vatankhah, A.R., Comment on “Gene expression programming analysis of implicit Colebrook–White equation
in turbulent flow friction factor calculation”. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2013.12.001i
2
Table 1
Accurate friction factor, f, computed with six significant digits for various values of log(Re), first column, and –log(ε/D), first row.
1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00 3.25 3.50 3.75 4.00 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 6.00
4.00 0.103130 0.077651 0.061236 0.050350 0.043099 0.038349 0.035332 0.033481 0.032378 0.031735 0.031366 0.031156 0.031037 0.030970 0.030932 0.030910 0.030898 0.030892 0.030888 0.030886 0.030884
4.05 0.102955 0.077424 0.060937 0.049958 0.042597 0.037735 0.034620 0.032692 0.031537 0.030861 0.030472 0.030250 0.030124 0.030053 0.030013 0.029990 0.029978 0.029971 0.029967 0.029964 0.029963
4.10 0.102799 0.077222 0.060668 0.049603 0.042139 0.037169 0.033954 0.031949 0.030740 0.030029 0.029619 0.029384 0.029251 0.029176 0.029134 0.029110 0.029096 0.029089 0.029084 0.029082 0.029081
4.15 0.102659 0.077040 0.060427 0.049282 0.041721 0.036646 0.033334 0.031250 0.029985 0.029237 0.028804 0.028556 0.028416 0.028336 0.028291 0.028266 0.028252 0.028243 0.028239 0.028236 0.028235
4.20 0.102534 0.076878 0.060210 0.048992 0.041341 0.036165 0.032757 0.030593 0.029270 0.028484 0.028027 0.027765 0.027616 0.027531 0.027484 0.027457 0.027442 0.027433 0.027429 0.027426 0.027424
4.25 0.102423 0.076732 0.060016 0.048731 0.040995 0.035724 0.032221 0.029977 0.028593 0.027767 0.027285 0.027007 0.026850 0.026760 0.026710 0.026681 0.026665 0.026656 0.026651 0.026648 0.026647
4.30 0.102324 0.076603 0.059842 0.048496 0.040681 0.035319 0.031723 0.029398 0.027953 0.027085 0.026576 0.026283 0.026116 0.026021 0.025967 0.025937 0.025920 0.025910 0.025905 0.025902 0.025900
4.35 0.102235 0.076487 0.059686 0.048285 0.040397 0.034948 0.031263 0.028857 0.027349 0.026437 0.025900 0.025590 0.025412 0.025312 0.025255 0.025223 0.025205 0.025194 0.025189 0.025186 0.025184
4.40 0.102156 0.076383 0.059547 0.048094 0.040140 0.034610 0.030837 0.028351 0.026779 0.025821 0.025255 0.024926 0.024738 0.024631 0.024571 0.024537 0.024518 0.024507 0.024501 0.024497 0.024495
4.45 0.102085 0.076291 0.059422 0.047924 0.039907 0.034301 0.030445 0.027880 0.026242 0.025237 0.024639 0.024291 0.024092 0.023978 0.023914 0.023878 0.023857 0.023846 0.023839 0.023836 0.023834
4.50 0.102022 0.076208 0.059310 0.047770 0.039697 0.034020 0.030084 0.027440 0.025736 0.024682 0.024052 0.023684 0.023472 0.023352 0.023283 0.023245 0.023223 0.023211 0.023204 0.023200 0.023198
author (Eq. (29)) compared with iterative solution of implicit Colebrook's equation.
Fig. 1. Distribution of relative error of proposed explicit approximation by the
less than 0.008% and thus this solution is a near exact one.
Table 1 is presented in Fig. 3. The maximum relative error of Eq. (4) is
δ¼
in which
f¼
36 times.
decreases from 0.800% to 0.022%. Indeed accuracy is improved
relative error of the approximation of Sonnad and Goudar
relative error of Eq. (2) is less than 0.022%. In this way maximum
accurate values of Table 1 is presented in Fig. 2. The maximum
G ¼ 0:124Reðε=DÞ þ lnð0:4599ReÞ
where G is
pffiffiffi ffi 0:8686 ln
and Goudar
2.1. Improved coefficients from the approximation of Sonnad
ðG 0:2753ÞG=G þ 0:9741
0:4599Re
þ
3:71
ε=D
2
!
ð5Þ
ð4Þ
ð3Þ
ð2Þ
3
4 A.R. Vatankhah / Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎
Acknowledgment
References
Fig. 2. Distribution of relative error of proposed explicit approximation (Eq. (2))
compared with iterative solution of implicit Colebrook's equation.
Brkic, D., 2011. Review of explicit approximations to the Colebrook relation for flow
friction. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 77 (1), 34–48.
Colebrook, C.F., 1938–1939. Turbulent flow in pipes, with particular reference to the
transition region between the smooth and rough pipe laws. J. Inst. Civ. Eng. 11
(4), 133–156.
PRWeb, 2013. Excel 2010 Solver Offers More Power for Optimization, More Help for
Users. See 〈http://www.prweb.com/releases/excel2010/solver/prweb4148834.
htm〉 Accessed 24.10.13.
Samadianfard, S., 2012. Gene expression programming analysis of implicit Coleb-
rook–White equation in turbulent flow friction factor calculation. J. Petrol. Sci.
Eng. 92, 48–55.
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.
Sonnad, J.R., Goudar, C.T., 2007. Explicit reformulation of the Colebrook–White
equation for turbulent flow friction factor calculation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 46
(8), 2593–2600.
Vatankhah, A.R., Kouchakzadeh, S., 2008. Discussion of “Turbulent flow friction
factor calculation using a mathematically exact alternative to the Colebrook–
White equation” by Jagadeesh R. Sonnad and Chetan T. Goudar. J. Hydraul. Eng.
(ASCE) 134 (8), 1187.
Vatankhah, A.R., Kouchakzadeh, S., 2009. Discussion: exact equations for pipeflow
problems, by P.K. Swamee and P.N. Rathie. J. Hydraul. Res. (IAHR) 47 (7),
537–538.
3. Conclusion
Please cite this article as: Vatankhah, A.R., Comment on “Gene expression programming analysis of implicit Colebrook–White equation
in turbulent flow friction factor calculation”. J. Petrol. Sci. Eng. (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2013.12.001i