See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251486588

New correlations of single-phase friction factor

for turbulent pipe flow and evaluation of
existing single-phase friction...

Article in Nuclear Engineering and Design · March 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.12.019

CITATIONS READS

53 2,390

3 authors, including:

XD Fang Yu Xu
Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronau… Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronau…
65 PUBLICATIONS 562 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 145 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Yu Xu on 04 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 897–902

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes

New correlations of single-phase friction factor for turbulent pipe flow and
evaluation of existing single-phase friction factor correlations
Xiande Fang ∗ , Yu Xu, Zhanru Zhou
Institute of Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 29 Yudao St., Nanjing 210016, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The determination of single-phase friction factor of pipe flow is essential to a variety of industrial applica-
Received 13 August 2010 tions, such as single-phase flow systems, two-phase flow systems and supercritical flow systems. There
Received in revised form are a number of correlations for the single-phase friction factor. It still remains an issue to examine
22 November 2010
similarities and differences between them to avoid misusing. This paper evaluates the correlations for
Accepted 21 December 2010
the single-phase friction factor against the Nikuradse equation and the Colebrook equation, respectively.
These two equations are the base for the turbulent portion of the Moody diagram, and are deemed as
the standard to test the explicit counterparts. The widely used correlations for smooth pipes, the Bla-
sius correlation and the Filonenko correlation, have big errors in some Re ranges. Simpler forms of the
single-phase friction factor covering large ranges are needed. For this reason, two new correlations of
single-phase friction factor for turbulent flow are proposed, one for smooth pipes and the other for
both smooth and rough pipes. Compared with the Nikuradse equation, the new correlation for smooth
pipes has the mean absolute relative error of 0.022%, with the maximum relative error of −0.045% in
the Reynolds number (Re) range from 3000 through 108 . It is an idea replacement of the correlations
of Blasius and Filonenko. The new correlation for both smooth and rough pipes has the mean absolute
relative error of 0.16% and the maximum relative error of 0.50% compared with the Colebrook equation
in the range of Re = 3000–108 and Rr = 0.0–0.05, which is the most simplest correlation in that error band.

© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Methods for predicting two-phase friction pressure drop in

In-pipe (including channel) pressure drop calculations are
important for designing a variety of industrial thermo-fluid
equipment and systems, such as tubes, ducts, heat exchangers,
hydraulic systems, nuclear, chemical and petroleum processes,
various renewable energy systems, and heating, ventilation, air-
conditioning and refrigerating systems, etc.
The single-phase friction factor of pipe flow is not only the base
for determining single-phase friction pressure drop, but also the
foundation for pressure drop calculations of supercritical flow and
two-phase flow. For nuclear industries and systems with CO2 as the
refrigerant or coolant, pressure drop of supercritical flow has been
an important issue to be explored. The flow pattern under supercrit-
ical pressures is somewhat similar to the conventional single-phase
flow, which results in the practice to develop supercritical friction
factor correlations based on single-phase friction factor equations
(Petrov and Popov, 1988; Pioro et al., 2004; Yamshita et al., 2003).
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 25 8489 6381; fax: +86 25 8489 6381.
E-mail address: xd fang@yahoo.com (X. Fang).
pipes can be classified as two categories: Homogeneous and sep-
arated flow approaches. The former treats two-phase flow as a
pseudo single-phase flow characterized by suitably averaged prop-
erties of the liquid and vapor phase (Chen et al., 2001; Shannak,
2008). The latter considers a two-phase flow to be artificially sepa-
rated into two streams, each flowing in its own pipe (Cavallini et al.,
2009; Chisholm, 1967; Dalkilic et al., 2010; Friedel, 1979; Lockhart
and Martinelli, 1949; Lee and Mudawar, 2005; Sun and Mishima,
2009; Zhang et al., 2010), and then chooses a single-phase friction
factor correlation to calculate the related friction pressure drops.
There are a number of correlations for the single-phase fric-
tion factor of pipe flow, whose ranges of validity were described
by the corresponding author(s). The criteria vary, however, from
author(s) to author(s). Therefore, a through evaluation is needed
to provide the guide to the users. Romeo et al. (2002) compared
the available correlations of the single-phase friction factor and
ranked them. However, he did not provide details of the errors
each correlation has. Yıldırım (2009) conducted the most compre-
hensive analysis of existing correlations for single-phase friction
factor. He provided the maximum and minimum errors each cor-
relation has in the ranges of 4000 ≤ Re ≤ 108 and 10−6 ≤ Rr ≤ 0.05,

0029-5493/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.12.019
898 X. Fang et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 897–902
where Re is the Reynolds number and Rr is the relative roughness.
The standard data bank Yıldırım used was generated by read-
ing a Moody diagram (Moody, 1944) using Techdig 2.0 software.
This method can cause remarkable reading errors, which makes
the finding disputable. Our evaluation does not support Yıldırım’s
error estimations because Yıldırım greatly overestimated errors
and offered different accuracy-based rank order for the correlations
evaluated. For example, Yıldırım gave maximum relative errors
(MREs) of ±3.76% and ±3.96 to the Chen (1979) and the Zigrang
and Sylvester (1982) correlations, respectively. However, our eval-
uation shows that the Chen correlation has a MRE of ±0.5%, while
the Zigrang–Sylvester correlation has a MRE of ±0.2%, which is
smaller than Chen s. Furthermore, both Romeo et al. and Yıldırım
did not pay attention to correlations for smooth pipes. It is the
single-phase friction factor correlations for smooth pipes that are
used most widely. Unfortunately, the widely used correlations for
smooth pipes, the Blasius correlation and the Filonenko correla-
tion, do not have good accuracy in the reported Re ranges, which
not only needs to redefine their Re ranges of validity, but also needs
to develop new alternatives.
This work will evaluate the correlations of the single-phase fric-
tion factor for turbulent pipe flow so that the Re and Rr ranges
of validity of each correlation are identified to provide a clear
vision for users. The issue of single-phase friction factor correla-
tions for smooth pipes is also addressed. New compact accurate
correlations of the single-phase friction factor for smooth pipes
and covering both smooth and rough pipes will be proposed,
respectively.
2. Brief review of single-phase friction factor correlations
for pipe flow
For single-phase fully developed internal laminar
flow (Re ≤ 2000), the widely used equation is given by
Hagen–Poiseuille s law, which can be expressed as
64
f = (1)
Re
For fully developed turbulent flow in smooth pipes, Nikuradse
(1933) proposed the following equation:
1 
 = 2 log(Re f ) − 0.8 (2)
f individual approximate correlation, and f(i)st is the standard single-
The Nikuradse equation is the base for the turbulent smooth portion
of the Moody diagram (Moody, 1944). However, it is implicit for
f, thus needs iteration that is not convenient. Consequently, the
Blasius equation and the Filonenko equation are widely used for
calculating turbulent flow in smooth pipes (Dang and Hihara, 2004;
Huai et al., 2005; Incropera and DeWitt, 2001; Son and Park, 2006;
Yoon et al., 2003). For Re ≤ 2 × 104 , the Blasius equation is of the
form
0.316
f = (3a)
Re1/4
For Re ≥ 2 × 104 , the Blasius equation is of the form
0.184
f = (3b)
Re1/5
The Filonenko equation is of the form
f = (0.79 ln Re − 1.64)−2 (4)
Incropera and DeWitt (2001) gave the Filonenko equation appli-
cable Re range of 3000 ≤ Re ≤ 5 × 106 .
Danish et al. (2011) proposed the following correlation for
smooth pipes both in laminar and in turbulent regimes:
1 1.73718A ln A 2.62122A(ln A)2
 = A− +
2 f 1.73718 + A (1.73718 + A)3
3.03568A(ln A)3
+ (5a)
(1.73718 + A)4
A = 4 log Re − 0.4 (5b)
Colebrook (1938–1939) developed the following equation that
combines experimental results of studies of turbulent flow in
smooth and rough pipes:
 
1 Rr 2.51
 = −2 log +  (6)
f 3.7 Re f
The validity of the Colebrook equation was reported in the range
of Re = 4000–108 and Rr = 0–0.05. It should be mentioned that the
Colebrook equation was developed by Colebrook (1938–1939), but
the Colebrook and White paper (1937) is often erroneously cited as
the source of the equation.
The Colebrook (or Colebrook–White) equation contributes the
rough portion of the Moody diagram. Due to its demonstrated appli-
cability and Moody’s work, the Colebrook equation has become the
acceptable standard for testing single-phase friction factor corre-
lations in turbulent regimes. It is not convenient to use, however,
because its implicit expression in f requires iteration. For this rea-
son, a number of approximate explicit counterparts have been
proposed (Table 1).
3. Evaluation of the existing correlations
Based on the above review, we evaluate the explicit correlations
against the Colebrook equation in the range of Re = 4000–108 and
Rr = 0–0.05. The rank, which is based on accuracy, is given in Table 1.
The detail accuracies are listed in Tables 2–7, where the relative
error (RE) is defined as
f (i)pred − f (i)st
RE = (7)
f (i)st
where f(i)pred is the single-phase friction factor predicted by the
phase friction factor value calculated with the Colebrook equation
for the turbulent rough region and the Nikuradse equation for the
turbulent smooth portion.
To reduce the complexity of Tables 2–7, the following measures
are taken:
(1) The correlations of Churchill (1973) and Swamee–Jain are omit-
ted because they are very close to the Jain correlation both
in form and in prediction, with the Jain correlation perform-
ing a little better, so that the Jain correlation is chosen as the
representative.
(2) If any of Haaland, Moody, Wood and Round correlations does
not have considerable Re range in the specified RE, it will not
appear in that table.
(3) If any of Serghides, Zigrang–Sylvester, Romeo et al., Chen, Barr
and Sonnad–Goudar correlations has higher degree accuracy
than the RE specified in a table, it will not appear in that table.
3.1. Summary of evaluation of the existing correlations covering
rough pipes
From Tables 2–7, it follows:
 X. Fang et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 897–902 899

Table 1
Single-phase friction factor correlations covering roughness: rank by accuracy in the range of Re = 4000–108 and Rr = 0–0.05.

Rank Model Correlation Range of validity

reported in the
original paper
 2
1 Serghides (1984) 1/ f = A − (B − A) /(C − 2B − A), Re > 2100
A = − 2log(12/Re + Rr/3.7), 0 ≤ Rr ≤ 0.05
B = − 2log(2.51A/Re + Rr/3.7)

C = − 2log(2.51/Re + Rr/3.7)

f = −2 log{Rr/3.7 − 5.02/Re log[Rr/3.7 − 5.02/Re log(Rr/3.7 + 13/Re)]}

a
2 Zigrang and Sylvester (1982) 1/
3 Romeo et al. (2002) 1/ f = −2 log(Rr/3.7065 − 5.0272/Re A) 3000 ≤ Re ≤ 1.5 × 108


A = log{Rr/3.827 − 4.567/Re log[(Rr/7.7918)0.9924 + (5.3326/208.815 + Re)0.9345 ]} 0 ≤ Rr ≤ 0.05
4 Chen (1979) 1/ f = −2 log[Rr/3.7065 − 5.0452/Re log(Rr 1.1098 /2.8257 + 5.8506/Re0.8981 )] 4000 ≤ Re ≤ 4 × 108
10−7 ≤ Rr ≤ 0.05

f = −2 log[Rr/3.7 + 4.518 log(Re/7)/Re(1 + Re Rr /29]
0.52 0.7 a
5 Barr (1981) 1/
6 Sonnad and Goudar (2006) 1/ f = 0.8686 ln[0.4587Re/S S/(S+1)
] 4000 ≤ Re ≤ 108
10−6 ≤ Rr ≤ 0.05

S = 0.124RrRe + ln(0.4587Re)
7 Manadilli (1997) 1/ f = −2 log(Rr/3.7 + 95/Re0.983 − 96.82/Re) 5200 ≤ Re ≤ 108

 1.11
0 ≤ Rr ≤ 0.05
8 Haaland (1983) 1/ f = −1.8 log[(Rr/3.7) + 6.9/Re] 4000 ≤ Re ≤ 108
10−6 ≤ Rr ≤ 0.05

Jain (1976) 1/ f = −2 log(Rr/3.715 + 5.72/Re0.9 ) 5000 ≤ Re ≤ 107
4 × 10−5 ≤ Rr ≤ 0.05

Swamee and Jain (1976) 1/ f = −2 log(Rr/3.7 + 5/74/Re0.9 ) 5000 ≤ Re ≤ 108
10−6 ≤ Rr ≤ 0.05

Churchill (1973) 1/ f = −2 log[Rr/3.7 + (7/Re0.9 )] a

12 1/12
−3/2
Churchill (1977) f = 8[(8/Re) +A ] Any Re > 0
16 0.9 16
A = (37530/Re) − [2.457 ln((7/Re) + 0.27Rr)] 0 ≤ Rr ≤ 0.05
 1/3

9 Moody (1947) f = 0.0055 1 + (2 × 104 Rr + 106 /Re) 4000 ≤ Re ≤ 5 × 108
0 ≤ Rr ≤ 0.01
0.134
10 Wood (1966) f = 0.53Rr + 0.094Rr 0.225 + 88Rr 0.44 Re−1.62Rr 4000 ≤ Re ≤ 5 × 107
10−5 ≤ Rr ≤ 0.04

11 Round (1980) 1/ f = −1.8 log(0.135Rr + 6.5/Re) 4000 ≤ Re ≤ 4 × 108
0 ≤ Rr ≤ 0.05
a
Not explicitly specified.

(1) The correlations can be ranked as in Table 1.
(2) In the range of Re = 4000–108 and Rr = 0–0.05, the Serghides
correlation has accuracy of ±0.1%, the Zigrang–Sylvester corre-
lation and the Romeo et al. correlation have accuracies of ±0.2%,
the Chen correlation has accuracy of ±0.5%, the Barr correlation
and the Goudar–Sonnad correlation have accuracies of ±1%, the
Haaland correlation has the accuracy of ±2%, and all others have
errors exceed ±2%.
(3) The correlations of Haaland, Jain and Churchill (1977) are
closely tied in accuracies. The Haaland correlation has the accu-
racy of ±2%, while it does not have considerable Re range under
accuracy of ±0.1%.
(4) The Churchill (1977) correlation is the only one covering all flow
regimes. However, its accuracy is compromised.
(5) The Manadilli correlation has the simplest form in the error of
±1% and Rr ≤ 0.0005.
(6) The correlation which has high accuracy usually has compli-
cated form. The compact and accurate correlation covering
large ranges is still wanted.

Table 2
Re range for given relative roughness under RE of ±0.1%.

Model Rr

0.000001 0.000005 0.00001 0.00005 0.0001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05

Serghides 4E3–1E8a
Zigrang–Sylvester 4E3–9E3 4E3–9E3 4E3–9E3 4E3–1E4 4E3–1E4 4E3–1E8
3E6–1E8 2E6–1E8 8E5–1E8 3E5–1E8 2E5–1E8
Romeo et al. 3E4–1E8 2E4–1E8 2E4–1E8 2E4–1E8 2E4–1E8 9E3–1E8 5E3–1E8 4E3–1E8 4E3–4E5 –b
Chen 1E4–4E7 1E4–2E6 1E4–3E5 9E3–4E4 6E6–1E8 1E6–1E8 5E5–1E8 6E4–1E8 2E4–2E6 –
6E7–1E8 2E7–1E8
Barr 2E4–1E8 2E4–1E8 2E4–1E8 3E4–1E8 2E5–1E8 6E4–1E8 4E4–1E8 8E3–1E5 2E4–7E4 4E5–1E8
2E6–1E8 2E6–1E8
Sonnad–Goudar 7E7–1E8 2E7–1E8 2E7–1E8 3E6–1E8 2E6–1E8 4E5–1E8 2E5–1E8 5E4–1E8 3E4–1E8 7E3–1E8
Manadilli 4E3–2E6 4E3–7E5 4E3–3E5 4E3–6E4 4E3–2E4 2E7–1E8 7E6–1E8 2E6–1E8 1E6–1E8 3E5–1E8
6E7–1E8
Jain – – – – 4E7–1E8 7E6–1E8 4E6–1E8 7E5–4E6 4E5–1E6 –
Churchill (1977) – – – – 5E7–1E8 1E7–1E8 5E6–1E8 2E6–1E8 6E5–1E8 2E5–3E6
a
Bold value covers the Rr range in the whole box it occupies. This also applies to Tables 3–7.
b
Symbol – denotes not applicable. This also applies to Tables 3–7.
900 X. Fang et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 897–902

Table 3
Re range for given relative roughness under RE of ±0.2%.

Model Rr

0.000001 0.000005 0.00001 0.00005 0.0001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05

Zigrang–Sylvester 4E3–1E8
Romeo et al. 4E3–1E8
Chen 7E3–1E8 7E3–1E8 7E3–6E6 7E3–3E5 6E3–1E5 5E3–2E4 5E3–1E4 4E3–1E8 4E3–1E8 4E3–1E8
2E7–1E8 5E6–1E8 3E6–1E8 5E5–1E8 2E5–1E8
Barr 7E3–1E8 7E3–1E8 7E3–1E8 9E3–1E8 2E4–1E8 3E4–1E8 2E4–1E8 6E3–1E8 4E3–1E8 6E3–1E8
Sonnad–Goudar 1E7–1E8 5E6–1E8 3E6–1E8 2E6–1E8 7E5–1E8 2E5–1E8 2E5–1E8 3E4–1E8 2E4–1E8 5E3–1E8
Manadilli 4E3–8E6 4E3–2E6 4E3–1E6 4E3–1E5 4E3–5E4 6E6–1E8 4E6–1E8 9E5–1E8 5E5–1E8 2E5–1E8
4E7–1E8 3E7–1E8
Haaland 5E6–1E8 3E7–1E8 3E7–1E8 9E6–1E8 5E6–1E8 2E6–1E8 6E5–1E8 8E4–1E8 2E4–1E8 4E4–1E8
Jain – – – 4E7–1E8 2E7–1E8 4E6–1E8 2E6–1E8 5E5–1E8 3E5–1E8 7E4–1E6
Churchill (1977) – – – 5E7–1E8 3E7–1E8 5E6–1E8 3E6–1E8 6E5–1E8 4E5–1E8 1E5–1E8

Table 4
Re range for given relative roughness under RE of ±0.5%.

Model Rr

0.000001 0.000005 0.00001 0.00005 0.0001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05

Chen 4E3–1E8
Barr 4E3–1E8 5E3–1E8 5E3–1E8 4E3–1E8
Sonnad–Goudar 7E4–1E8 8E4–1E8 8E4–1E8 7E4–1E8 6E4–1E8 4E4–1E8 3E4–1E8 1E4–1E8 7E3–1E8 4E3–1E8
Manadilli 4E3–1E8 4E3–8E5 4E3–2E5 4E3–2E4 9E5–1E8 3E5–1E8 2E5–1E8 5E4–1E8
8E6–1E8 5E6–1E8 2E6–1E8
Haaland 2E6–1E8 6E6–1E8 9E6–1E8 4E6–1E8 3E6–1E8 6E5–1E8 3E5–1E8 3E4–1E8 4E3–1E8 7E3–1E8
Jain 7E5–1E7 6E5–7E6 5E5–5E6 2E5–2E6 8E3–1E8 1E4–2E5 5E5–1E8 2E5–1E8 1E5–1E8 4E4–1E8
7E6–1E8 7E5–1E8
Churchill (1977) 5E5–8E6 4E5–6E6 3E5–4E6 1E4–1E6 1E4–1E6 2E4–2E5 6E5–1E8 2E5–1E8 2E5–1E8 5E4–1E8
7E7–1E8 1E7–1E8 5E6–1E8 1E6–1E8
Moody – – – – – 2E4–1E5 – – – –
Wood – – – – 2E4–1E5 – – – – –

Table 5
Re range for given relative roughness under RE of ±1%.

Model Rr

0.000001 0.000005 0.00001 0.00005 0.0001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05

Barr 4E3–1E8
Sonnad–Goudar 4E3–1E8
Manadilli 4E3–1E8 4E3–1E4 9E4–1E8 6E4–1E8 3E4–1E8
2E5–1E8
Haaland 5E3–1E8 5E3–1E8 5E3–6E4 5E3–3E4 5E3–2E4 4E3–1E4 4E3–1E4 4E3–1E8
4E5–1E8 2E6–1E8 8E5–1E8 3E5–1E8 1E5–1E8
Jain 6E3–4E7 6E3–1E8 6E3–1E8 6E3–1E8 6E3–1E8 6E3–1E8 8E3–1E8 5E4–1E8 4E4–1E8 2E4–1E8
Churchill (1977) 7E3–3E7 7E3–1E8 7E3–1E8 7E3–1E8 7E3–1E8 8E3–1E8 1E4–1E8 6E4–1E8 5E4–1E8 2E4–1E8
Moody 4E3–2E4 4E3–2E4 4E3–2E4 4E3–2E4 4E3–3E4 4E3–1E5 4E3–3E4 5E3–2E4 6E4–1E8 –
Wood – 7E6–4E7 – 2E4–2E5 2E4–1E5 6E3–4E4 – – – –
5E7–1E8
Round 2E6–2E7 – – – – – – – – –

3.2. Summary of evaluation of the existing correlations for ±0.05% to ±2% are listed in Table 7. The details are summarized
smooth pipes below:

Both the correlations special for smooth pipes and the correla- (1) The Blasius equation does not have good accuracy. The calcu-
tions listed in Table 1 are evaluated against the Nikuradse equation lation shows that its error increases from −2.6% at Re = 2 × 106
in the range of Re = 4000–108 . The results for the RE range from to −22.2% at Re = 108 . Therefore, its usage should be limited to

Table 6
Re range for given relative roughness under RE of ±2%.

Model Rr

0.000001 0.000005 0.00001 0.00005 0.0001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 0.01 0.05

Manadilli 4E3–1E8 1E4–1E8 7E3–1E8

Haaland 4E3–1E8
Jain 4E3–1E8 7E3–1E8 1E4–1E8 7E3–1E8
Churchill (1977) 4E3–1E8 9E3–1E8 2E4–1E8 8E3–1E8
Moody 4E3–2E4 4E3–2E4 4E3–2E4 4E3–2E4 4E3–3E4 4E3–1E5 4E3–3E4 5E3–2E4 6E4–1E8 –
Wood – 7E6–4E7 – 2E4–2E5 5E7–1E8 2E4–1E5 6E3–4E4 – – – –
Round 2E6–2E7 – – – – – – – – –
 X. Fang et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 897–902 901

Table 7
Re range for smooth portion under given RE.

Model RE%

±2 ±1 ±0.5 ±0.2 ±0.1 ±0.05

Danish et al. Laminar

region and
4E3–1E8
Filonenko 1E4–1E8 2E4–1E8 4E4–2E7 1E6–7E6 – –
Blasius 4E3–8E3 – – – – –
Serghides 4E3–1E8
Zigrang–Sylvester 4E3–1E8 2E7–1E8 –
Romeo et al. 4E3–1E8 3E6–1E8
Chen 4E3–1E8 7E3–1E8 2E4–7E7 2E4–9E6
Barr 4E3–1E8 7E3–1E8 2E4–2E7 2E4–5E6
Sonnad–Goudar 4E3–1E8 7E4–1E8 – – –
Manadilli 4E3–1E8 4E3–8E7 4E3–7E6 9E3–2E6
Haaland 3E3–1E8 5E3–4E7 2E6–1E7 – – –
Jain 4E3–1E8 6E3–4E7 – – – –
Churchill (1977) 4E3–1E8 5E3–3E7 5E5–9E6 – – –
Moody 4E3–4E4 4E3–2E4 – – – –
Round 3E5–1E8 4E6–1E8 2E7–8E7 – – –

Re = 2 × 106 . It is suggested to rewrite the Blasius equation as In the range of Re = 3000–108 , the new correlation has the mean
the following: absolute relative error (MARE) of 0.022% and the maximum RE of
−0.045% compared with the Nikuradse equation. Therefore, it has
0.316
f = (Re ≤ 2 × 104 ) (8a) equivalent accuracy to but much simpler form than the correlations
Re1/4 of Danish et al. and Serghides have, just one term more than the
0.184 Filonenko equation. The MARE is defined as
f = (2 × 104 ≤ Re ≤ 2 × 106 ) (8b)
Re1/5  
(2) For the given Re ranges above, both Eqs. (8a) and (8b) have the
maximum RE of −2.62%.
(3) The Filonenko equation has the maximum RE of 2% for
Re = 104 –108 . Therefore, it is recommended to rewrite the Filo-
nenko equation as the following:
f = (0.79 ln Re − 1.64)−2 (104 ≤ Re ≤ 108 )
(4) The correlations of Danish et al. and Serghides have the highest
accuracy, but they also are the most complicated ones, which
−2
impedes their applications.
(5) The new compact and accurate correlation of the single-phase
fraction factor for the turbulent smooth portion is needed.
4. New correlations of the single-phase friction factor for
turbulent pipe flow
New correlations of the single-phase friction factor for turbulent
pipe flow are developed based on computer analysis. A date bank
of Re (i) × Rr(j) = 44 × 24 = 1056 data points covering the regime of
Re = 3000–108 and Rr = 0.0–0.05 is generated with the Colebrook
equation and the Nikuradse equation.
Based on regression and optimization with software, two corre-
lations are proposed, one is for smooth pipes, and the other covers
both smooth and rough regions in the range of Rr = 0.0–0.05. The
former is developed considering that the single-phase friction fac-
tor for smooth pipes has more widely applications than those for
rough pipes have, and that the commonly used equations have big
errors and can not cover Re range of 4000–108 .
4.1. New correlation of the single-phase friction factor for
turbulent flow in smooth pipes
For turbulent flow in smooth pipes, the following correlation is
proposed:
  150.39
−2 maximum RE of 2%.
152.66
f = 0.25 log − (10)
Re0.98865 Re
1  f (i)pred − f (i)st 
N
MARE = (11)
N f (i)st
i=1
4.2. New correlation of the single-phase friction factor for
turbulent flow in both smooth and rough pipes
(9)
For turbulent flow in smooth pipes, the following correlation is
proposed:
  60.525 56.291
f = 1.613 ln 0.234Rr 1.1007 − + 1.0712 (13)
Re1.1105 Re
In the range of Re = 3000–108 and Rr = 0.0–0.05, the new correlation
has the MARE of 0.16% and the maximum RE of 0.50% compared
with the Colebrook equation. Compared with all existing correla-
tions, the new correlation is the simplest one with the maximum
RE of ±0.50% in the range of Re = 3000–108 and Rr = 0.0–0.05.
5. Conclusions and suggestions
Fifteen correlations for the single-phase friction factor of pipe
flow are reviewed and evaluated. According to accuracy, the corre-
lations covering rough portion are ranked in Table 1. In the range
of Re = 4000–108 and Rr = 0–0.05, the accuracies are, respectively,
±0.1% for the Serghides correlation, ±0.2% for the Zigrang–Sylvester
correlation and Romeo et al. correlation, ±0.5% for the Chen cor-
relation, ±1% for the Barr correlation and the Goudar–Sonnad
correlation, ±2% for the Haaland correlation, and greater than ±2%
for all other correlations listed in Table 1. The Churchill (1977)
correlation is the only one covering all flow regimes. Its accuracy,
however, is compromised.
The new applicable Re ranges for the Blasius equation and the
Filonenko equation are recommended, as shown in Eqs. (8) and
(9). Within the recommended Re range, the Blasius equation has
the maximum RE of −2.62%, and the Filonenko equation has the
Two new correlations of single-phase friction factor for turbu-
lent flow are proposed. One is for smooth pipes, and the other is for
902 X. Fang et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 897–902
both smooth and rough pipes. The former is the form of
  150.39 152.66
−2 102 (5), 674–677.
f = 0.25 log − for refrigeration cooling applications. Part I. Pressure drop characteristics. Int. J.
Re0.98865 Re
with the MARE of 0.022% and the maximum RE of −0.045% in the
range of Re = 3000–108 . The latter is the form of
  60.525 56.291
−2 Manadilli, G., 1997. Replace implicit equations with sigmoidal functions. Chem. Eng.
f = 1.613 ln 0.234Rr 1.1007 − + 1.0712
Re1.1105 Re
with the MARE of 0.16% and the maximum RE of 0.50% in the range
of Re = 3000–108 and Rr = 0.0–0.05.
Acknowledgment
This work was funded by AVIC Chengdu Aircraft Design &
Research institute, China.
References
Barr, D.I.H., 1981. Solutions of the Colebrook–White functions for resistance to uni-
form turbulent flows. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. 2, 71.
Cavallini, A., Col, D., Matkovic, M., Rossetto, L., 2009. Pressure drop during two-
phase flow of R134a and R32 in a single minichannel. ASME J. Heat Transfer 131,
033107-1–033107-8.
Chen, I.Y., Yang, K.S., Chang, Y.J., Wang, C.C., 2001. Two-phase pressure drop of
air–water and R-410a in small horizontal tubes. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 27,
1293–1299.
Chen, N.H., 1979. An explicit equation for friction factor in pipe. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Fundam. 18 (3), 296–297.
Chisholm, D., 1967. A theoretical basis for the Lockhart–Martinelli correlation for
two-phase flow. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 10, 1767–1778.
Churchill, S.W., 1973. Empirical expressions for the shear stressing 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. 7, 91–92.
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. Civil Eng. 11,
133.
Colebrook, C.F., White, C.M., 1937. Experiments with fluid friction roughened pipes.
In: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. A. Math. Phys. Sci. , pp. 367–381, 161 (906).
Dalkilic, A.S., Agra, O., Teke, I., Wongwises, S., 2010. Comparison of frictional pressure
drop models during annular flow condensation of R600a in a horizontal tube at
low mass flux and of R134a in a vertical tube at high mass flux. Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 53, 2052–2064.
Dang, C., Hihara, E., 2004. In-tube cooling heat transfer of supercritical carbon diox-
ide. Part 1. Experimental measurement. Int. J. Refrig. 27, 736–747.
Danish, M., Kumar, S., Kumar, S., 2011. Approximate explicit analytical expressions of
friction factor for flow of Bingham fluids in smooth pipes using Adomian decom-
position method. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat. 16 (1), 239–251.
Friedel, L., 1979. Improved friction pressure drop correlation for horizontal and
vertical two-phase pipe flow. Eur. Two-phase Flow Group Meet. Pap. E2 (18),
485–492.
Haaland, S.E., 1983. Simple and explicit formulas for friction factor in turbulent pipe
flow. Trans. ASME, J. Fluids Eng. 105, 89.
Huai, X.L., Koyama, S., Zhao, T.S., 2005. An experimental study of flow and heat trans-
fer of supercritical carbon dioxide in multi-port mini channels under cooling
conditions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 60, 3337–3345.
Incropera, F.P., DeWitt, D.P., 2001. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 5th ed.
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
View publication stats
Jain, A.K., 1976. Accurate explicit equations for friction factor. J. Hydraul. Div. ASCE
Lee, J., Mudawar, I., 2005. Two-phase flow in high-heat-flux micro-channel heat sink
Heat Mass Transfer 48, 928–940.
Lockhart, R.W., Martinelli, R.C., 1949. Proposed correlation of data for isother-
mal two-phase, two-component flow in pipes. Chem. Eng. Prog. 45 (1),
39–48.
J. 104 (8), 129–132.
Moody, L.F., 1947. An approximate formula for pipe friction factors. Trans. ASME 69,
1005.
Moody, L.F., 1944. Friction factors for pipe flow. Trans. ASME, 671–684.
Nikuradse, J., 1933. Stroemungsgesetze in rauhen Rohren. Ver. Dtsch. Ing. Forsch.
(361), 1–22.
Petrov, N.E., Popov, V.N., 1988. Heat transfer and hydraulic resistance with turbulent
flow in a tube of water under supercritical parameters of state. Thermal Eng. 35
(10), 577–580.
Pioro, I.L., Duffey, R.B., Dumouchel, T.J., 2004. Hydraulic resistance of fluids flowing
in channels at supercritical pressures (survey). Nucl. Eng. Des. 231, 187–197.
Romeo, E., Royo, C., Monzon, A., 2002. Improved explicit equations for estimation of
the friction factor in rough and smooth pipes. Chem. Eng. J. 86, 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, 122–123.
Serghides, T.K., 1984. Estimate friction factor accurately. Chem. Eng. 91, 63–64.
Shannak, B.A., 2008. Frictional pressure drop of gas liquid two-phase flow in pipes.
Nucl. Eng. Des. 238, 3277–3284.
Son, C.H., Park, S.-J., 2006. An experimental study on heat transfer and pressure drop
characteristics of carbon dioxide during gas cooling process in a horizontal tube.
Int. J. Refrig. 29, 539–546.
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.
Sun, L., Mishima, K., 2009. Evaluation analysis of prediction methods for two-phase
flow pressure drop in mini-channels. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 35, 47–54.
Swamee, P.K., Jain, A.K., 1976. Explicit equation for pipe flow problems. J. Hydraul.
Div. ASCE 102 (5), 657–664.
Wood, D.J., 1966. An explicit friction factor relationship. Civil Eng. 60 (12), 60–61.
Yamshita, T., Mori, H., Yoshida, S., Ohno, M., 2003. Heat transfer and pressure drop
of a supercritical pressure fluid flowing in a tube of small diameter. Mem. Fac.
Eng., Kyushu Univ. 63 (4), 227–243.
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, 1183–1190.
Yoon, S.H., Kim, J.H., Hwang, Y.W., Kim, M.S., Min, K., Kim, Y., 2003. Heat transfer
and pressure drop characteristics during the in-tube cooling process of carbon
dioxide in the supercritical region. Int. J. Refrig. 26, 857–864.
Zhang, W., Hibiki, T., Mishima, K., 2010. Correlations of two-phase frictional pressure
drop and void fraction in mini-channel. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 53, 453–465.
Zigrang, D.J., Sylvester, N.D., 1982. Explicit approximations to the Colebrook’s fric-
tion factor. AICHE J. 28 (3), 514–515.
Xiande Fang is a professor at the Institute of Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Nan-
jing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (NUAA), China. Ph.D. in Engineering
Thermophysics from University of Science and Technology of China. M.Sci.in Ther-
mal Engineering from Tsinghua University, China. B. Eng. in Environmental Control
Engineering from NUAA. His research areas are air conditioning and refrigeration,
thermo-fluid engineering, and environmental control engineering.
Yu Xu is a graduate student under the supervision of Prof. Xiande Fang. He received
his B. Eng. in Environmental Control Engineering from NUAA.
Zhanru Zhou is a graduate student under the supervision of Prof. Xiande Fang. She
received her B. Eng. in Environmental Control Engineering from NUAA.