COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPLICIT

APPROXIMATIONS OF COLEBROOK’S
EQUATION AND IMPLICIT COLEBROOK’S
EQUATION

[ALXANDRIA UNIVERCITY]
[FLUID MECHANICS]
Name ID
Osama Ayman Kamal Talis 18010297
Ali Ahamed Ali Mohamed 18011067
Hossam Gamal Mahmoud Khalil 18010553
Ali Al-Hussaini Ali El- Said 18011069
Hossam Ahmed Abdelshafi 18010550

1
CONTENTS
abstract.........................................................................................................3
1. Introduction..........................................................................................4
2.Developing Flow and Fully Developed Flow..............................................6
3. Friction Factor Correlations......................................................................8
2.1 Moody’s formula (1947)......................................................................8
2.2. Wood equation (1966).......................................................................8
2.3 Haaland (1983)...................................................................................9
4.Conclusions.............................................................................................30
5.References..............................................................................................31

2
ABSTRACT
The Darcy-Weisbach formula is widely used in many fields, like civil
engineering for calculation of water distribution systems and in all fields of
engineering where fluid flow can be occurred. In order to use this formula,
the Darcy friction factor should be known. The best approximation to the
Darcy friction factor for turbulent flow is given by the Colebrook-White
equation. This equation can only be solved by numerical root finding
methods as shown in Fig. 1. There are several other approximate formulas
since 1947 in order to simplify the computation of the friction factor, to
avoid the methods of the iterative procedures, and to alter the Colebrook-
white equation in practice but these formulas have some relative error
compared to the Colebrook-White equation. It was found that in some of
these correlations, the percentage error is so small that they can be used
directly in place of the Colebrook equation. In this repot, a review of three
friction factor correlations is performed.

Bisection

Fixed
False
point
Methods of position
iteration
solution of
equations
in one
variable

Newton Secant

• Fig. 1. Methods of solution of equations in one variable

3
 1. INTRODUCTION
Estimating head loss is an important task in the hydraulic engineer’s life
practice. Water supply network is prime example, where the implicit
Colebrook–White equation has been widely used to estimate the friction
factor for turbulent fluid-flow in Darcy–Weisbach equation. It is therefore no
surprise that it has attracted a lot of attention by both practitioners and
researchers over the past years. The Darcy–Weisbach model for steady,
uniformly distributed head losses reported in Eq. (1) probably represents
the
most well-known formula where the friction factor ‘‘f” is used to compute the
slope hydraulic grade line J (i.e. the head loss per unit length of a pipe [1]:
0.8 fl Q2
h L= (1)
g d5
hL: the hydraulic energy slope (m),
f: friction factor,
L: length of the pipe (m),
D: Intern pipe diameter (m)
Q: Flow (m /s)
3

The Darcy friction factor (f) depends on the flow regime. For a fully
developed laminar flow (Reynolds number Re < 2300) the friction factor
can be determined from the Hagen-Poiseuille equation as:
64
f= ℜ (2)

Where, Re is the Reynolds number. The definition of the Re number can

be given as follows:
ρvd
Re =
μ
(3)

Where ρ is the density and μ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid. In

equation (2) the friction factor changes inversely with the Reynolds number.
For the transition region (2300 ≤ Re ≤ 4000) and the turbulent region (Re ≥
4000) in smooth as well as rough pipe the friction factor can be described
by Colebrook-White equation (White 1998):
1 ϵ ∕ D 2 ⋅ 51
√f
=−2 log ( +
3 ⋅ 7 ℜ√ f ) (4)
To solve the Eq. (4), the iterative procedure is necessary and inevitable for
the first time, which involve evidently a huge time for the computation of the
4
friction factor and by the way the computation of all the physical
system where the friction values makes part.

For example:
1 ϵ ∕ D 2 ⋅51
√f
=−2 log ( +
3 ⋅7 ℜ √ f )
ϵ
1 2.51
Let x= d b=
√f a= Re
3⋅7

X =−2 log ( a+bx )

g( x )=x +2 log ⁡(a+ b x)=0

Using Newton method

∂g b
=g ' =1+
∂x a+bx

∂g
g ( x n )= Δ x ⋅
∂x |x=xn

¿ ( x n−x n+1 ) . g '|x=x n

g ( x n)
x n +1=x n−
g'|x=x n

This equation is required to be solved iteratively. In order to solve the

equation, an initial guess is needed. If the value of the first guess diverges
from the exact value, the equation may converge very slowly or may not
converge at all.
x n+ 2 log ⁡( a+b x n )
x n+1=x n −
( 1+
2b
a+b x n )
x n+1=2b x n−2 ⋅(a+b x n)⋅ log ⁡( a+b x n ¿ ¿
( a+b x n +2 b )
Iteration equation
5
Initial guess from Moody chart
 1
x initial=
√ 0.1

for

ϵ
Re =5000 , =0.04
D

ϵ ∕ D 0.04
a= = =0.0108
3⋅7 3.7

2.51 2.51
b= ℜ = =5.02∗10−4
5000

xn x n+1
3.162 3.7705
3.7705 3.7836
3.7836 3.7846
3.7846 3.7846

1
f=
x2n+1

1
= = 0.0698
( 3⋅7846 )2

This method is very long and complicated and takes a lot of time, so
researchers resorted to finding an alternative method, and this is what we
will discuss later.

2.DEVELOPING FLOW AND FULLY DEVELOPED

FLOW
Flow in a conduit is classified as being developing flow or fully developed
flow. For example, consider laminar fluid entering a pipe from a reservoir as
shown in Fig. 10.2. As the fluid moves down the pipe, the velocity
distribution changes in the streamwise direction as viscous effects cause
the plug-type profile to gradually change into a parabolic profile. This region
of changing velocity profile is called developing flow. After the parabolic

6
distribution is achieved, the flow profile remains unchanged in the
streamwise direction, and flow is called fully developed flow. The distance
required for flow to develop is called the entrance length This length
depends on the shear stress that acts on the pipe wall. For laminar flow,
the wall shear stress distribution is shown in Fig. 10.2. Near the pipe
entrance, the radial velocity gradient (change in velocity with distance from
the wall) is high, so the shear stress is large. As the velocity profile
progresses to a parabolic shape, the velocity gradient and the wall shear
stress decrease until a constant value is achieved. The entry length is
defined as the distance at which the shear stress reaches to within 2% of
the fully developed value. Correlations for entry length are

Le
¿ =0.05 ℜ( laminar flow: ℜ≤ 2000)
D
L
¿ e =50( turbulent flow: ℜ≥ 3000)
D

Fig.2. In developing flow, the wall shear stress is changing. In

fully developed flow, the wall shear stress is constant.

3. FRICTION FACTOR CORRELATIONS

7
 The Eq. (4) is implicit which needs for the trial error methods
or a graphical solution, the Moody’s diagram is surprisingly a good solution
for Colebrook-white equation. In general the graphical solutions are not
accurate and are limited. For this reason many authors have proposed
approximate solutions for Colebrook- White equation from 1947 until
nowadays. In the following, we will discuss three of these equations:

2.1 Moody’s formula (1947)

In 1947 Moody has proposed a new form of Colebrook-white equation.

Moody is widely known by his diagram but not by this proposal to replace
the implicit equation which is the oldest explicit proposal:
1 /3
[
f =0.0055 1+ ( 2 ×104 (ε /D)+ ( 106 /R e ) ) ]
The validity range proposed by the author:
 4000 ≤ Re ≤ 108
6
 0 ≤ ≤ 10−2
D

2.2. Wood equation (1966)

Wood tried to gives a formula more simple than the Eq. (4). Wood
proposed to use the following formula:

f =0.53( ε / D)+ 0.094 ¿

The validity range proposed by the author:

 Re ≥ 10000
ε
 10−5 ≤ ≤ 0.04
D

Now we need to compare between the three explicit equations that

mentioned before and Colebrook-white equation graphically but this
prosses is so difficult to do it manually so we need to use a software like
Matlab.
2.3 Haaland (1983)

8
In 1983 Haaland published his explicit solution for Colebrook-white
equation as follows:
1.11
1
√f [ ( )]
=−1.8 log ⁡
ϵ ∕D
3.7
+
6.9
Re ]
The validity range proposed by the author:
 4.10 3 ≤ Re ≤ 108
6
 10−6 ≤ ≤5 ⋅ 10−2
D

To compare between each equation and colebrook equation we write the

following code:

clc
clear all
close all
%colebrook equation
n=50
k=1
for eps=[0.01 0.025] % the relative pipe roughness
i=1
for Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
C=@(f1) (1 / sqrt(f1))+2*log10((eps / 3.7) + (2.51/(Re *
sqrt(f1))))
f1(i,k) = fsolve(C,0.004)
i=i+1
end
Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
a1=semilogx(Re,f1(:,k),'r','linewidth',1)
hold on
k=k+1
end
hold on
%Moody
k=1
for eps=[0.01 0.025] % the relative pipe roughness
i=1
for Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
M=@(f2) f2-0.0055*(1+((2*1E4*eps)+(1E6/Re))^(1/3))
f2(i,k) = fsolve(M,0.004)
i=i+1

9
 end
Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
a2=semilogx(Re,f2(:,k),'g','linewidth',1)
hold on
k=k+1
end
grid on
title ('COMPARISON BETWEEM COLEBROOK EQUATION AND MOODY
EQUATION')
xlabel('Reynolds number,Re')
ylabel('Darcy fraction factor,f')
legend([a1 a2],{'colebrook','Moody'})
figure
%colebrook equation
k=1
for eps=[0.01 0.05] % the relative pipe roughness
i=1
for Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
C=@(f1) (1 / sqrt(f1))+2*log10((eps / 3.7) + (2.51/(Re *
sqrt(f1))))
f1(i,k) = fsolve(C,0.004)
i=i+1
end
Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
a1=semilogx(Re,f1(:,k),'r','linewidth',1)
hold on
k=k+1
end
hold on
%Wood
k=1
for eps=[0.01 0.05] % the relative pipe roughness
i=1
for Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
a=0.53*(eps)+0.094*(eps)^(0.225)
b=88*(eps)^(0.44)
c=1.62*(eps)^(0.134)
W=@(f3) f3-a-b*(Re)^(-c)
f3(i,k) = fsolve(W,0.004)
i=i+1
end
Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
eps=[0.0006 0.01 0.03]
a3=semilogx(Re,f3(:,k),'k','linewidth',1)
hold on
k=k+1
end

10
grid on
title ('COMPARISON BETWEEM COLEBROOK EQUATION AND WOOD EQUATION')
xlabel('Reynolds number,Re')
ylabel('Darcy fraction factor,f')
legend([a1 a3],{'colebrook','Wood'})
figure
%colebrook equation
k=1
n=50
for eps=[0.01 0.03] % the relative pipe roughness
i=1
for Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
C=@(f1) (1 / sqrt(f1))+2*log10((eps / 3.7) + (2.51/(Re *
sqrt(f1))))
f1(i,k) = fsolve(C,0.004)
i=i+1
end
Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
a1=semilogx(Re,f1(:,k),'r','linewidth',1)
hold on
k=k+1
end

hold on
%haaland
k=1
for eps=[0.01 0.03] % the relative pipe roughness
i=1
for Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
H=@(f4)1/sqrt(f4)+1.8*log10((6.9/Re)+(eps/3.7)^1.11)
f4(i,k) = fsolve(H,0.004)
i=i+1
end
Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
a4=semilogx(Re,f4(:,k),'b','linewidth',1)
hold on
k=k+1
end
grid on
title ('COMPARISON BETWEEM COLEBROOK EQUATION AND HAALAND
EQUATION')
xlabel('Reynolds number,Re')
ylabel('Darcy fraction factor,f')
legend([a1 a4],{'colebrook','haaland'})
From previous code we get this results:

11
Fig. 3. COMPARISON BETWEEM COLEBROOK EQUATION AND MOODY EQUATION

A Statistical analysis is made to get the error between the two equation in
a valid range and in valid range.

We use matlab data and put it in excel to make this statistical analysis :

In the valid range:

• Max. Error = 2.924%

• Min. Error = 0.632%
• Average. Error = 0.953%

In the invalid range:

• Max. Error =8.452 %

• Min. Error = 7.394%
• Average. Error = 7.514%

f11 eps=0.01 f12 eps=0.025 error eps=0.01

0.049082269 0.047647019 2.924%
0.04738444 0.04613625 2.634%
0.045911665 0.044819075 2.380%
0.044640524 0.043678792 2.154%
12
0.04354918 0.042698479 1.953%
0.042617222 0.041861304 1.774%
0.041825602 0.04115085 1.613%
 0.040594126 0.040048357 1.344%
0.040123233 0.039628136 1.234%
0.039730677 0.039278579 1.138%
0.039404635 0.038988858 1.055%
0.039134724 0.038749479 0.984%
0.038911916 0.038552221 0.924%
0.038728442 0.038390039 0.874%
0.038577675 0.038256949 0.831%
0.038454004 0.038147905 0.796%
f12 f22 0.038352711
error 0.03805868 0.767%
0.03826985 0.037985751 0.742%
eps=0.025 eps=0.025 eps=0.025
0.038202137 0.037926197 0.722%
0.06059238 0.05547081
0.03814685 0.037877601 0.706%
7 6
0.038101742
8.452%
0.03783797 0.692%
0.05931752 0.05441186
0.038064959 0.037805666 0.681%
5 9
0.03803498 8.270%
0.037779346 0.672%
0.05824419 0.05351553
0.038010555 0.037757909 0.665%
7 1
0.037990662 8.119%
0.037740453 0.659%
0.05734447 0.037974465 0.037726242 0.654%
2 0.05276106 7.993%
0.037961279 0.037714676 0.650%
0.05659333 0.05212919
0.037950547 0.037705263 0.646%
3 0.037941813
9 0.037697603
7.888% 0.644%
0.037934707
0.05160238 0.037691371 0.641%
0.05596857 0.037928924
6 0.0376863
7.801% 0.640%
0.05545065 0.03792422
0.05116488 0.037682175 0.638%
0.037920393 0.03767882 0.637%
4 1 7.729%
0.03791728 0.03767609 0.636%
0.05502258 0.05080277
0.037914748 0.03767387 0.635%
3 9 7.669%
0.037912688 0.037672064 0.635%
0.05466968 0.05050395
0.037911012 0.037670595 0.634%
3 7
0.037909649 7.620%
0.0376694 0.634%
0.05437940 0.05025796
0.037908541 0.037668429 0.633%
3 8
0.03790764 7.579%
0.037667638 0.633%
0.05414108 0.05005589
0.037906906 0.037666995 0.633%
5 5
0.03790631 7.545%
0.037666473 0.633%
0.05394574 0.04989018
0.037905825 0.037666047 0.633%
5 9
0.03790543 7.518%
0.037665702 0.632%
0.05378584 0.03790511
0.04975450 0.03766542 0.632%
8 0.037904849
4 0.037665192
7.495% 0.632%
0.05365511 0.037904636
0.04964353 0.037665006 0.632%
4 0.037904464
5 0.037664854
7.477% 0.632%
0.037904323 0.037664731 0.632%
0.05354832 0.04955287
2.924%
3 3 7.461%
0.632%
0.04947886
0.953%
0.05346116 1 7.449%
0.05339006 0.04941848
3 4 7.439%
0.05333210 0.04936925
2 8 7.431%
0.05328487 0.04932914 7.424%
0.05324639 0.04929645
5 9 7.418%
0.05321506 0.04926984
3 3 7.414%
0.05318955 0.04924817
4 3 7.410%

13
0.05316878 0.04923053
9 4 7.407%
0.04921617
0.05315189 7 7.405%
0.05313813 0.04920449
8 3 7.403%
0.05312694 0.04919498
8 7 7.401%
0.05311784 0.04918725
4 2 7.400%
0.05311043
8 0.04918096 7.399%
0.05310441 0.04917584
3 1 7.398%
0.05309951 0.04917167
1 7 7.397%
0.05309552
5 0.04916829 7.397%
0.05309228 0.04916553
2 4 7.396%
0.05308964 0.04916329
4 3 7.396%
0.05308749 0.04916147
9 1 7.395%
0.05308575 0.04915998
4 8 7.395%
0.05308433 0.04915878
5 2 7.395%
0.04915780
0.05308318 1 7.395%
0.05308224 0.04915700
1 4 7.395%
0.05308147 0.04915635
8 5 7.395%
0.05308085 0.04915582
7 7 7.394%
0.05308035 0.04915539
2 8 7.394%
0.05307994 0.04915504
1 9 7.394%
0.05307960 0.04915476
7 5 7.394%
0.05307933 0.04915453
5 5 7.394%
0.05307911 0.04915434
4 7 7.394%
0.05307893 0.04915419
4 4 7.394%

14
 0.05307878
8 0.04915407 7.394%
0.05307866 0.04915396
9 9 7.394%
0.05307857 0.04915388
3 7 7.394%
0.05307849
4 0.04915382 7.394%
8.452%
7.394%
7.514%

The Moody equation can be considered as a great result compared to the

means of those days (see Fig. 6).

15
Fig. 4. COMPARISON BETWEEM COLEBROOK EQUATION AND WOOD EQUATION

f11 f31 error

eps=0.01 eps=0.01 eps=0.01
0.04908226 0.04689870
9 4 4.449%
0.04553598
0.04738444 1 3.901%
0.04591166 0.04439845
5 3 3.296%
0.04464052 0.04344890
4 6 2.669%
0.04265627
0.04354918 5 2.050%
0.04261722 0.04199462
2 9 1.461%
0.04182560 0.04144232
2 3 0.916%

16
0.04115665 0.04098128
3 7 0.426%
0.04059412 0.04059643
6 9 -0.006%
0.04012323 0.04027518
3 9 -0.379%
0.03973067 0.04000702
7 7 -0.696%
0.03940463 0.03978317
5 9 -0.961%
0.03913472 0.03959632
4 3 -1.180%
0.03891191 0.03944034
6 6 -1.358%
0.03872844 0.03931014
2 5 -1.502%
0.03857767
5 0.03920146 -1.617%
0.03845400 0.03911073
4 5 -1.708%
0.03835271 0.03903500
1 3 -1.779%
0.03897178
0.03826985 6 -1.834%
0.03820213 0.03891901
7 6 -1.877%
0.03887496
0.03814685 7 -1.909%
0.03810174 0.03883819
2 6 -1.933%
0.03806495 0.03880750
9 2 -1.951%
0.03878188
0.03803498 1 -1.964%
0.03801055 0.03876049
5 3 -1.973%
0.03799066
2 0.03874264 -1.979%
0.03797446 0.03872773
5 7 -1.984%
0.03796127 0.03871529
9 7 -1.986%
0.03795054 0.03870491
7 3 -1.988%
0.03794181 0.03869624
3 5 -1.988%
0.03793470 0.03868900
7 9 -1.988%

17
0.03792892 0.03868296
4 9 -1.988%
0.03867792
0.03792422 7 -1.987%
0.03792039 0.03867371
3 8 -1.987%
0.03867020
0.03791728 5 -1.986%
0.03791474 0.03866727
8 2 -1.985%
0.03791268 0.03866482
8 4 -1.984%
0.03791101 0.03866278
2 1 -1.983%
0.03790964 0.03866107
9 5 -1.982%
0.03790854 0.03865965
1 1 -1.981%
0.03865846
0.03790764 3 -1.981%
0.03790690
6 0.03865747 -1.980%
0.03865664
0.03790631 2 -1.979%
0.03790582 0.03865595
5 1 -1.979%
0.03865537
0.03790543 4 -1.978%
0.03865489
0.03790511 2 -1.978%
0.03790484
9 0.03865449 -1.978%
0.03790463 0.03865415
6 4 -1.977%
0.03790446 0.03865387
4 4 -1.977%
0.03790432
3 0.03865364 -1.977%
4.449%
-1.988%
-1.100%

f12 f32 error

eps=0.05 eps=0.05 eps=0.05
0.07698683 0.07733129
5 5 -0.447%

18
0.07601752 0.07674413
1 1 -0.956%
0.07521502
9 0.07627485 -1.409%
0.07455245 0.07589978
5 5 -1.807%
0.07400670
9 0.07560002 -2.153%
0.07355811 0.07536043
9 8 -2.450%
0.07319004 0.07516895
5 6 -2.704%
0.07501591
0.07288849 7 -2.919%
0.07264174 0.07489360
6 3 -3.100%
0.07244006 0.07479584
6 6 -3.252%
0.07227536 0.07471771
5 5 -3.379%
0.07214096 0.07465527
4 1 -3.485%
0.07203135 0.07460536
3 3 -3.573%
0.07194200 0.07456547
6 4 -3.647%
0.07186920 0.07453359
7 4 -3.707%
0.07450811
0.07180991 5 -3.757%
0.07176162 0.07448775
5 1 -3.799%
0.07172231 0.07447147
6 5 -3.833%
0.07445846
0.07169032 7 -3.861%
0.07166428 0.07444807
1 1 -3.884%
0.07164309 0.07443976
2 2 -3.904%
0.07162585 0.07443312
1 1 -3.919%
0.07161182 0.07442781
4 3 -3.932%
0.07160041 0.07442357
3 1 -3.943%
0.07159113 0.07442018 -3.952%
0.07158357 0.07441747 -3.959%
19
 9 1
0.07157743 0.07441530
7 5 -3.965%
0.07157244 0.07441357
1 4 -3.970%
0.07156837 0.07441219
8 1 -3.974%
0.07156507 0.07441108
2 5 -3.977%
0.07156238 0.07441020
4 1 -3.979%
0.07156019 0.07440949
8 5 -3.982%
0.07155841
9 0.07440893 -3.983%
0.07155697 0.07440847
3 9 -3.985%
0.07155579 0.07440811
7 9 -3.986%
0.07440783
0.07155484 1 -3.987%
0.07155406
2 0.0744076 -3.988%
0.07155342 0.07440741
9 6 -3.989%
0.07155291 0.07440726
4 9 -3.989%
0.07155249 0.07440715
6 1 -3.990%
0.07155215 0.07440705
5 7 -3.990%
0.07155187 0.07440698
8 2 -3.990%
0.07155165 0.07440692
3 2 -3.991%
0.07440687
0.07155147 4 -3.991%
0.07155132 0.07440683
1 6 -3.991%
0.07440680
0.0715512 5 -3.991%
0.07155110 0.07440678
1 1 -3.991%
0.07155102 0.07440676
1 1 -3.991%
0.07155095 0.07440674
6 6 -3.991%
0.07155090 0.07440673 -3.991%
20
3 3
-0.447%
-3.991%
-3.548%

21
Fig. 5. COMPARISON BETWEEM COLEBROOK EQUATION AND HAALAND
EQUATION

f11 f12 error

eps=0.01 eps=0.01 eps=0.01
0.04908226 0.04923577
9 2 -0.313%
0.04738444 0.04743525 -0.107%
0.04591166 0.04589512
5 7 0.036%
0.04464052 0.04458354
4 5 0.128%
0.04347168
0.04354918 3 0.178%
0.04261722 0.04253343
2 3 0.197%
0.04182560
2 0.0417452 0.192%
0.04115665 0.04108578
3 3 0.172%
0.04059412 0.04053628
6 1 0.142%
0.04012323 0.04007999
3 3 0.108%
0.03973067 0.03970230
7 2 0.071%
0.03940463 0.03939053
5 9 0.036%
0.03913472 0.03913381
4 5 0.002%
0.03891191 0.03892285
6 1 -0.028%
0.03872844 0.03874979
2 6 -0.055%
0.03857767 0.03860804
5 9 -0.079%
0.03845400
4 0.03849209 -0.099%
0.03835271 0.03839732
1 6 -0.116%
0.03831995
0.03826985 1 -0.131%
0.03820213 0.03825681
7 7 -0.143%
0.03820533
0.03814685 5 -0.153%
0.03810174 0.03816337 -0.162%

22
 2 5
0.03806495 0.03812918
9 8 -0.169%
0.03810134
0.03803498 4 -0.174%
0.03801055 0.03807867
5 2 -0.179%
0.03799066 0.03806021
2 5 -0.183%
0.03797446 0.03804519
5 3 -0.186%
0.03796127 0.03803296
9 8 -0.189%
0.03795054
7 0.03802302 -0.191%
0.03794181 0.03801492
3 6 -0.193%
0.03793470 0.03800834
7 1 -0.194%
0.03792892 0.03800298
4 4 -0.195%
0.03799862
0.03792422 6 -0.196%
0.03792039 0.03799508
3 1 -0.197%
0.03799219
0.03791728 8 -0.198%
0.03791474 0.03798985
8 2 -0.198%
0.03791268 0.03798794
8 5 -0.199%
0.03791101 0.03798639
2 3 -0.199%
0.03790964 0.03798513
9 1 -0.199%
0.03790854 0.03798410
1 5 -0.199%
0.03790764 0.03798327 -0.200%
0.03790690 0.03798259
6 1 -0.200%
0.03798203
0.03790631 9 -0.200%
0.03790582
5 0.03798159 -0.200%
0.03798122
0.03790543 4 -0.200%
0.03798092
0.03790511 7 -0.200%
23
0.03790484 0.03798068
9 6 -0.200%
0.03790463 0.03798048
6 9 -0.200%
0.03790446 0.03798032
4 9 -0.200%
0.03790432 0.03798019
3 9 -0.200%
0.197%
-0.313%
-0.111%

f21 f22 error

eps=0.03 eps=0.03 eps=0.03
0.06407760 0.06452110
2 6 -0.692%
0.06288764 0.06323822
5 3 -0.557%
0.06189089 0.06217451
3 4 -0.458%
0.06105927 0.06129491
3 5 -0.386%
0.06036793 0.06056933
7 9 -0.334%
0.05979509 0.05997212
1 1 -0.296%
0.05932179 0.05948149
4 1 -0.269%
0.05893173 0.05907909
2 3 -0.250%
0.05861096 0.05874952
7 6 -0.236%
0.05834767 0.05847993
8 2 -0.227%
0.05813190
7 0.05825962 -0.220%
0.05795531 0.05807973
3 3 -0.215%
0.05781094 0.05793295
4 7 -0.211%
0.05769302 0.05781326
7 8 -0.208%
0.05771571
0.05759679 3 -0.206%
0.05751829 0.05763623
7 1 -0.205%

24
0.05745430 0.05757149
9 5 -0.204%
0.05740216 0.05751878
9 3 -0.203%
0.05735969 0.05747587
7 1 -0.203%
0.05732511 0.05744094
1 4 -0.202%
0.05729695 0.05741251
4 9 -0.202%
0.05727403
4 0.05738939 -0.201%
0.05737057
0.05725538 1 -0.201%
0.05724020
1 0.05735526 -0.201%
0.05722785 0.05734280
1 5 -0.201%
0.05721780 0.05733267
2 2 -0.201%
0.05720962
7 0.05732443 -0.201%
0.05720297 0.05731772
7 6 -0.201%
0.05719756 0.05731227
7 3 -0.201%
0.05719316 0.05730783
7 7 -0.200%
0.05718958
8 0.05730423 -0.200%
0.05718667 0.05730129
7 5 -0.200%
0.05718430 0.05729890
9 9 -0.200%
0.05718238 0.05729696
3 8 -0.200%
0.05718081 0.05729538
6 9 -0.200%
0.05717954 0.05729410
2 5 -0.200%
0.05717850 0.05729306
6 1 -0.200%
0.05717766 0.05729221
3 1 -0.200%
0.05717697 0.05729152
8 1 -0.200%
0.05729095
0.05717642 9 -0.200%

25
0.05717596 0.05729050
7 2 -0.200%
0.05717559
8 0.05729013 -0.200%
0.05717529 0.05728982
8 8 -0.200%
0.05717505 0.05728958
5 2 -0.200%
0.05717485 0.05728938
6 3 -0.200%
0.05717469
5 0.05728922 -0.200%
0.05717456 0.05728908
4 8 -0.200%
0.05717445
7 0.05728898 -0.200%
0.05728889
0.05717437 3 -0.200%
0.05728882
0.0571743 2 -0.200%
-0.200%
-0.692%
-0.236%

26
Max. Error = 0.682%

Haaland has succeed to get a good approximation, where the maximum

deviation is almost 1% .

27
Fig. 6. The maximum deviation (in percent) for versus different
relative roughness Values of the Authors: Moody, Wood, Eck, Chen.

28
let's take an applied example :

A pump takes gasoline from a tank in which the level is 50 cm above pump
level, through a 0.5 cm diameter smooth pipe 100 cm long. What is the
pressure just before the pump when 13.5 cm 3 /s of gasoline is flowing
through the pipe ?.
Given that, γ =gasoline = 0.57, µ =gasoline = 0.0055 poise.

Z1

Fig. 7. A pump takes gasoline from a tank.

Givens:

Z1=50 cm , d=0.5 cm , l=100 cm , Q=13.5 cm3 /s , γ =0.57 , µ=0.0055 poise

ϵ|cast iron=¿0.26 mm

Required:

P2

Solution:

Q 13.5∗10−6
V= = =0.688 m/s
A π( −2 2
0.5∗10 )
4

29
 ρvd 0.57∗103∗0.688× 0.5∗10−2
¿ Re ¿ = =3565>3200
μ 0.00055
¿
(Transient but assume it
turbulent)

Using colebrook equation

1 ϵ ∕ D 2 ⋅51
√f
=−2 log +
3 ⋅7 ℜ √ f ( )
f 1=0.0788

Using moody equation

1 /3
[
f =0.0055 1+ ( 2 ×104 (ε /D)+ ( 106 /R e ) ) ]
1/ 3
[
f =0.0055 1+ ( 2× 104 ( 0.052)+ ( 106 /3565 ) ) ]
f 2=0.0658

Using wood equation

f =0.53( ε / D)+ 0.094 ¿

f =0.53( 0.052)+0.094 ¿

f 3=¿0.0791

Using haaland equation

1.11
1
√f
=−1.8 log ⁡
[( ϵ ∕D
3.7 )] +
6.9
Re ]
30
 1.11
1 6.9 0.052
√f
=−1.8 log [
3565
+( 3.7 ) ]
f 4=0.0796

To show the difference graphically we use this code:

clc
clear all
close all
%colebrook equation
n=50
k=1
for eps=[0.052] % the relative pipe roughness
i=1
for Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
C=@(f1) (1 / sqrt(f1))+2*log10((eps / 3.7) + (2.51/(Re *
sqrt(f1))))
f1(i,k) = fsolve(C,0.004)
i=i+1
end
Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
a1=semilogx(Re,f1(:,k),'r','linewidth',1)
hold on
k=k+1
end
hold on
%Moody
k=1
for eps=[0.052] % the relative pipe roughness
i=1
for Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
M=@(f2) f2-0.0055*(1+((2*1E4*eps)+(1E6/Re))^(1/3))
f2(i,k) = fsolve(M,0.004)
i=i+1
end
Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
a2=semilogx(Re,f2(:,k),'g','linewidth',1)
hold on
k=k+1
end
hold on
%Wood
k=1
for eps=[0.052] % the relative pipe roughness

31
 i=1
for Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
a=0.53*(eps)+0.094*(eps)^(0.225)
b=88*(eps)^(0.44)
c=1.62*(eps)^(0.134)
W=@(f3) f3-a-b*(Re)^(-c)
f3(i,k) = fsolve(W,0.004)
i=i+1
end
Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
eps=[0.0006 0.01 0.03]
a3=semilogx(Re,f3(:,k),'k','linewidth',1)
hold on
k=k+1
end
hold on
%haaland
k=1
for eps=[0.052] % the relative pipe roughness
i=1
for Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
H=@(f4)1/sqrt(f4)+1.8*log10((6.9/Re)+(eps/3.7)^1.11)
f4(i,k) = fsolve(H,0.004)
i=i+1
end
Re=logspace(log10(4000),8,n)
a4=semilogx(Re,f4(:,k),'b','linewidth',1)
hold on
k=k+1
end
grid on
title ('COMPARISON BETWEEM COLEBROOK EQUATION, MOODY, WOOD AND
HAALAND EQUATION')
xlabel('Reynolds number,Re')
ylabel('Darcy fraction factor,f')
legend('colebrook','moody','wood','haaland')

32
Applying berrnolli equation (1&2)

P 1 v 21 P 2 v 22
+ +z = + +z +h
ρg 2g 1 ρg 2g 2 l

P2 V 22 2
l V2
Z1 = + +f
ρg 2g d 2g

P2 V 22 l
Z1 = +
ρg 2g [
1+ f
d ]
Using f 1

−2 P2
50∗10 = +¿¿
570∗9.8

P2 )1=532.025 Pa

Using f 2

P2
0.5= +0.0242 [ 1+ 0.0576∗200 ]
5586

33
P2 )2=878.834 Pa

Using f 3

P2
0.5= +0.0242 [ 1+ 0.0264∗200 ]
5586

P2 )3=519.252 Pa

Using f 4

P2
0.5= +0.0242 [ 1+ 0.0796∗200 ]
5586

P2 )2=505.734 Pa

878.834−532.025
error )1 =
532.825
¿=65.2 %

532.025−519.252
error )2 =
532.825
¿=2.4 %

532.025−505.734
error )3 =
532.825
¿=4.9 %

4.CONCLUSIONS
When a comparison is made according to the degree of the relative error,
the Haaland (1983) correlation with an error percentage 2% is very close to
the result obtained from the Colebrook-White equation. Because of the high
precision of the selected correlations, the need for using the Colebrook-
White iterative solution seems to be eliminated.

5.REFERENCES

34
(1)Matlab

(2)Explicit solutions for turbulent flow friction factor: A review, assessment

and approaches classification(Lotfi Zeghadnia a,⇑, Jean Loup Robert b, Bachir
Achour c)

(3)A review of non iterative friction factor correlations for the calculation of
pressure drop in pipes (Mustafa Asker, Oguz Emrah Turgut , Mustafa Turhan
Coban)

(4)Engineering Fluid Mechanics Ninth Edition(Clayton T. Crowe , Donald F.

Elger, Barbara C. Williams , John A. Roberson)

(5)Numerical Analysis NINTH EDITION (Richard L. Burden , J. Douglas Faires)

(6)A Review of Explicit Approximations of Colebrook’s Equation (Srbislav

Genić , Ivan Arandjelović , Petar Kolendić , Marko Jarić , Nikola Budimir ,
Vojislav Genić)

35