Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Review of Explicit Approximations of Colebrooks
A Review of Explicit Approximations of Colebrooks
Associate Professor
University of Belgrade
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Petar Kolendić The most common explicit correlations for estimation of the friction factor
Research Assistant
in rough and smooth pipes are reviewed in this paper. Comparison of any
University of Belgrade friction factor equation with the Colebrook’s equation was expressed
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering trough the mean relative error, the maximal positive error, the maximal
negative error, correlation ratio and standard deviation. The statistical
Marko Jarić
comparison of different equations was also carried out using the “Model
Research Assistant
University of Belgrade selection criterion” and “Akaike Information Criterion”. It was found that
Innovation Center of Faculty of Mechanical the equation of Zigrang and Sylvester provides the most accurate value of
Engineering
friction factor, and that Haaland’s equation is most suitable for hand
Nikola Budimir calculations.
Research Assistant
University of Belgrade Keywords: Colebrook’s equation, friction factor, approximations, fluid
Innovation Center of Faculty of Mechanical mechanics, turbulent flow.
Engineering
Vojislav Genić
Head of Public Health Care and Mobility
Siemens IT Solutions and Services, Belgrade
© Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Belgrade. All rights reserved FME Transactions (2011) 39, 67-71 67
Table 1. Various approximations of the Colebrook’s equation
Eq. Authors
Equation Range Ref.
num. (year)
⎡ ⎛ 1/ 3 ⎤
⎢ 106 ⎞ ⎥ Re = 4000 – 5 · 108 Moody
(4) f = 0.0055 1 + ⎜ 20000ε + ⎟ [8]
⎢ ⎜ Re ⎟⎠ ⎥ ε = 0 – 0.01 (1947)
⎣ ⎝ ⎦
0.25
⎛ 68 ⎞ Altshul
(5) f = 0.11⎜ +ε ⎟ Not specified [9]
⎝ Re ⎠ (1952)
−2
⎡ ⎛ ε 7 ⎞⎤ Churchill
(7) f = ⎢ −2 log ⎜ + ⎟⎥ Not specified [11]
⎝ 3.7 Re0.9 ⎠ ⎦ (1973)
⎣
−2
⎡ ⎛ 21.25 ⎞ ⎤ Re = 5000 – 107 Jain
(8) f = ⎢1.14 − 2 log ⎜ ε + ⎟⎥ [12]
⎣ ⎝ Re0.9 ⎠ ⎦ ε = 0.00004 – 0.05 (1976)
−2 Swamee,
⎡ ⎛ ε 5.74 ⎞ ⎤ Re = 5000 – 108
(9) f = ⎢ −2 log ⎜ + ⎟⎥ [13] Jain
⎣ ⎝ 3.7 Re0.9 ⎠ ⎦ ε = 0.000001 – 0.05
(1976)
−2
⎧ ⎡ ε 5.0452 ⎛ ε 1.1098 5.8506 ⎞ ⎤ ⎫⎪ Chen
(10) f = ⎨−2 log ⎢ − log ⎜ + ⎟⎥ Re = 4000 – 4 · 108 [14]
⎩ ⎣ 3.7065 Re ⎜ 2.8257 Re0.8981 ⎟ ⎥ ⎬ (1979)
⎝ ⎠ ⎦ ⎭⎪
−2
⎡ ⎛ 6.5 ⎞ ⎤ Re = 4000 – 4 · 108 Round
(11) f = ⎢ −1.8log ⎜ 0.135ε + ⎟ [15]
⎣ ⎝ Re ⎠ ⎥⎦ ε = 0 – 0.05 (1980)
−2 Zigrang,
⎧ ⎡ ε 5.02 ⎛ 5.02 ⎛ ε 13 ⎞ ⎞ ⎤ ⎫⎪ Re = 4000 – 108
(12) f = ⎨−2 log ⎢ − log ⎜ ε − log ⎜ + ⎟ ⎟⎥ ⎬ [16] Sylvester
⎩ ⎣ 3.7 Re ⎝ Re ⎝ 3.7 Re ⎠ ⎠ ⎦ ⎪⎭ ε = 0.00004 – 0.05
(1982)
−2
⎧⎪ ⎡⎛ ε ⎞1.11 6.9 ⎤ ⎫⎪ Re = 4000 – 108 Haaland
(13) f = ⎨−1.8log ⎢⎜ ⎟ + ⎥⎬ [17]
⎢⎣⎝ 3.7 ⎠ Re ⎥ ⎪ ε = 0.000001 – 0.05 (1983)
⎪⎩ ⎦⎭
0.25
⎛ 68 ⎞
A = 0.11⎜ +ε ⎟ Re = 4000 – 108 Tsal
(14) ⎝ Re ⎠ [18]
ε = 0 – 0.05 (1989)
If A ≥ 0.018 then f = A and if A < 0.018 then f = 0.0028 + 0.85 A
−2
⎡ ⎛ ε 95 96.82 ⎞ ⎤ Re = 4000 – 108 Manadilli
(15) f = ⎢ −2 log ⎜ + − ⎟⎥ [19]
⎣ ⎝ 3.70 Re 0.983 Re ⎠ ⎦ ε = 0 – 0.05 (1997)
⎧ ⎡ ε 4.567 ⎞ ⎞
⎪ 5.0272 ⎛ ε
f = ⎨−2 log ⎢ − log ⎜ − ⋅ ⎟ ⎟
⎪⎩ ⎢⎣ 3.7065 Re ⎝ 3.827 Re ⎠ ⎟⎠ Romeo,
Re = 3000 – 1.5 · 108 Rоyo,
(16) −2 [20]
ε = 0 – 0.05 Мonzon
⎛ ⎛ ε ⎞0.9924 ⎛ 5.3326 ⎞0.9345 ⎞ ⎞ ⎤ ⎫⎪
⋅ log ⎜ ⎜ +⎜ ⎟ ⎟⎥ (2002)
⎜ 7.79 ⎟⎠ ⎟
⎝ 208.82 + Re ⎠ ⎟⎟ ⎬
⎝⎝ ⎠ ⎠ ⎦⎥ ⎭⎪
−2
⎡ ⎛ 60.525 56.291 ⎞ ⎤ Re = 3000 – 108 Fang
(17) f = 1.613 ⎢ln ⎜ 0.234ε 1.1007 − + [21]
1.1105 1.0712 ⎟ ⎥ ε = 0 – 0.05 (2011)
⎣ ⎝ Re Re ⎠⎦
−2
β = ln
Re , f = ⎡⎢ −2 log ⎛⎜10−0.4343β + ε ⎞⎟ ⎤⎥
(18) ⎛ 1.1Re ⎞ ⎣ ⎝ 3.71 ⎠ ⎦ Not specified [7] Brkić (2011)
1.816 ln ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ ln (1 + 1.1Re ) ⎠
−2
β = ln
Re , f = ⎡⎢ −2 log ⎛⎜ 2.18β + ε ⎞⎟ ⎤⎥
(19) ⎛ 1.1Re ⎞ ⎣ ⎝ Re 3.71 ⎠ ⎦ Not specified [7] Brkić (2011)
1.816 ln ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ ln (1 + 1.1Re ) ⎠
Eq. num. meanRe [%] maxRe+ [%] maxRe– [%] Θ [%] ∆av [%] MSC AIC · 10–6 NP NC
(4) 7.517 15.90 – 12.532 84.22 8.853 – 29.92 3.493 4 5
(5) 16.42 46.83 – 2.622 30.26 18.34 – 30.72 4.864 3 4
(6) 3.647 100 – 6.241 99.02 10.37 – 1.040 7 11
(7) 0.0818 0 – 0.00121 100 0.685 – – 1.882 5 8
(8) 0.181 0.790 – 3.185 100 0.335 – 25.95 – 3.212 5 8
(9) 0.0406 0.708 – 3.358 100 0.315 – – 3.305 5 8
(10) 0.0676 0.316 – 0.324 100 0.0686 – 25.16 – 6.514 8 14
(11) 90.21 94.45 0 0 90.33 – 32.33 7.857 4 7
(12) 0.000612 0.114 – 0.0496 100 0.00615 – – 14.087 7 16
(13) 0.207 1.420 – 1.314 100 0.222 – – 4.393 5 8
(14) 16.16 27.30 – 2.622 30.26 17.99 – 30.71 4.864 4 5
(15) 0.0324 0.00404 – 2.729 100 0.245 – – 3.755 6 10
(16) 0.0680 0.0815 – 0.146 100 0.069 – 25.00 – 6.511 11 20
(17) 0.0550 0.441 – 0.491 100 0.077 – 22.96 – 6.769 8 11
(18) 0.118 3.374 – 1.655 100 0.220 – 25.37 – 4.590 9 16
(19) 0.123 0.124 – 2.856 100 0.280 – 25.33 – 3.530 9 16
⎢⎣ i =1
(
⎢ ∑ f C,i − f pred,i ) ⎥
⎥⎦
factor using 16 calculations to obtain the result;
• equation (13) of Haaland [17] provides
reasonably good statistical parameters but needs
where NP is the number of parameters in proposed only 8 calculations, which is more convenient for
equation. hand calculation.
For this criterion, the most appropriate model will be Equations (4) – (6), (11) and (14) should be avoided
that with the largest MSC, because we want to maximize in engineering practice.
information content of the model.
AIC is defined by the following expression REFERENCES
⎡n 2⎤ [1] Nikuradse, J.: Strömungsgesetze in rauhen Rohren,
(
AIC = n ln ⎢ ∑ f C,i − f pred,i ) ⎥ + 2 NP . (27) VDI-Verlag, Berlin, 1933.
⎢⎣ i =1 ⎥⎦
[2] Colebrook, C.F.: Turbulent flow in pipes, with
The AIC as defined above is dependent on the particular reference to the transition region between
magnitude of the data points as well as the number of the smooth and rough pipe laws, Journal of the
observations. According to this criterion, the most Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.
appropriate model is the one with the smallest values of 133-156, 1939.
the AIC. Statistical comparison of equations (4) – (19) [3] Rouse, H.: Evaluation of boundary roughness, in:
with Colebrook’s equation (3) is given in Table 3, Proceedings of the 2nd Hydraulics Conference, 22-
where NC is the number of mathematical calculations in 26.06.1943, Lowa City, USA, Paper 27.
a given equation.
[4] Moody, L.F.: Friction factors for pipe flow,
The numbers from Table 3 speak for themselves.
Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 66, No. 8, pp. 671-
Equation (12) is the best one according to most
684, 1944.
important criterions ∆av and Θ, and maximal relative
errors are quite low. The only shortcoming of the (12) is [5] Yıldırım, G: Computer-based analysis of explicit
the number of calculations (mathematical operations) approximations to the implicit Colebrook-White
that have to be done in order to obtain the result. It is equation in turbulent flow friction factor
interesting to compare, for example, (10) and (16). They calculation, Advances in Engineering Software,
have almost the same standard ∆av and Θ, as well as Vol. 40, No. 11, pp. 1183-1190, 2009.
other statistical parameters. Equation (10) should be [6] Fang, X., Xua, Y. and Zhou, Z.: New correlations
given the advantage, in hand calculations, because it has of single-phase friction factor for turbulent pipe
much lesser NP and NC compared to (16). flow and evaluation of existing single-phase
Another interesting equation is (13). Although it is friction factor correlations, Nuclear Engineering
published 28 years ago, it provides very fine statistical and Design, Vol. 241, No. 3, pp. 897-902, 2011.
parameters and needs only NC = 8 mathematical [7] Brkić, D.: Review of explicit approximations to the
operations. Colebrook relation for flow friction, Journal of
Altshul’s equation (5) and Tsal’s correction (14) of Petroleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 77, No. 1,
Altshul’s equation is cited in one of the most significant pp. 34-48, 2011.
engineering handbooks [22]. The citation from [22] is
[8] Moody, L.F.: An approximate formula for pipe
interesting: “Friction factors obtained from the Altshul-
friction factors, Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 69,
Tsal equation are within 1.6 % of those obtained by
pp. 1005-1006, 1947.
Colebrook’s equation.”
Our analysis shows that both equations do not [9] Алтшуль, А.Д.: Обсбшенная формула
predict friction factor well. Maximal relative error of сопротивления трубопроводов, Гидравлические
(14) is 27.30 %, standard deviation is about 18 %. строительство, No. 6, 1952.
Alshul’s, equation shows even worse parameters: [10] Wood, D.J.: An explicit friction factor relationship,
maximal error 46.83 % is highly unacceptable. Civil Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 12, pp. 60-61, 1966.