Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 897902

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 ow 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

Article history:
Received 13 August 2010
Received in revised form
22 November 2010
Accepted 21 December 2010

a b s t r a c t
The determination of single-phase friction factor of pipe ow is essential to a variety of industrial applications, such as single-phase ow systems, two-phase ow systems and supercritical ow systems. There
are a number of correlations for the single-phase friction factor. It still remains an issue to examine
similarities and differences between them to avoid misusing. This paper evaluates the correlations for
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 Blasius 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 ow 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 = 3000108 and Rr = 0.00.05, which is the most simplest correlation in that error band.
2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In-pipe (including channel) pressure drop calculations are
important for designing a variety of industrial thermo-uid
equipment and systems, such as tubes, ducts, heat exchangers,
hydraulic systems, nuclear, chemical and petroleum processes,
various renewable energy systems, and heating, ventilation, airconditioning and refrigerating systems, etc.
The single-phase friction factor of pipe ow is not only the base
for determining single-phase friction pressure drop, but also the
foundation for pressure drop calculations of supercritical ow and
two-phase ow. For nuclear industries and systems with CO2 as the
refrigerant or coolant, pressure drop of supercritical ow has been
an important issue to be explored. The ow pattern under supercritical pressures is somewhat similar to the conventional single-phase
ow, 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).
0029-5493/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2010.12.019

Methods for predicting two-phase friction pressure drop in

pipes can be classied as two categories: Homogeneous and separated ow approaches. The former treats two-phase ow as a
pseudo single-phase ow characterized by suitably averaged properties of the liquid and vapor phase (Chen et al., 2001; Shannak,
2008). The latter considers a two-phase ow to be articially separated into two streams, each owing 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 friction factor of pipe ow, 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. Yldrm (2009) conducted the most comprehensive analysis of existing correlations for single-phase friction
factor. He provided the maximum and minimum errors each correlation has in the ranges of 4000 Re 108 and 106 Rr 0.05,

898

X. Fang et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 897902

where Re is the Reynolds number and Rr is the relative roughness.

The standard data bank Yldrm used was generated by reading a Moody diagram (Moody, 1944) using Techdig 2.0 software.
This method can cause remarkable reading errors, which makes
the nding disputable. Our evaluation does not support Yldrms
error estimations because Yldrm greatly overestimated errors
and offered different accuracy-based rank order for the correlations
evaluated. For example, Yldrm 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 evaluation shows that the Chen correlation has a MRE of 0.5%, while
the ZigrangSylvester correlation has a MRE of 0.2%, which is
smaller than Chen s. Furthermore, both Romeo et al. and Yldrm
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 correlation, do not have good accuracy in the reported Re ranges, which
not only needs to redene their Re ranges of validity, but also needs
to develop new alternatives.
This work will evaluate the correlations of the single-phase friction factor for turbulent pipe ow so that the Re and Rr ranges
of validity of each correlation are identied to provide a clear
vision for users. The issue of single-phase friction factor correlations 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 ow
For
single-phase
fully
developed
internal
laminar
ow (Re 2000), the widely used equation is given by
HagenPoiseuille s law, which can be expressed as
f =

64
Re

(1)

For fully developed turbulent ow in smooth pipes, Nikuradse

(1933) proposed the following equation:
1

 = 2 log(Re
f

f ) 0.8

(2)

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 ow 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
f =

0.316
Re1/4

(3a)

For Re 2 104 , the Blasius equation is of the form

f =

0.184
Re1/5

(3b)

The Filonenko equation is of the form

f = (0.79 ln Re 1.64)2

(4)

Incropera and DeWitt (2001) gave the Filonenko equation applicable 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

 = A

1.73718A ln A
2.62122A(ln A)2
+
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 (19381939) developed the following equation that

combines experimental results of studies of turbulent ow in
smooth and rough pipes:

 = 2 log
f

2.51
Rr
+ 
3.7
Re f

(6)

The validity of the Colebrook equation was reported in the range

of Re = 4000108 and Rr = 00.05. It should be mentioned that the
Colebrook equation was developed by Colebrook (19381939), but
the Colebrook and White paper (1937) is often erroneously cited as
the source of the equation.
The Colebrook (or ColebrookWhite) equation contributes the
rough portion of the Moody diagram. Due to its demonstrated applicability and Moodys work, the Colebrook equation has become the
acceptable standard for testing single-phase friction factor correlations in turbulent regimes. It is not convenient to use, however,
because its implicit expression in f requires iteration. For this reason, 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 = 4000108 and
Rr = 00.05. The rank, which is based on accuracy, is given in Table 1.
The detail accuracies are listed in Tables 27, where the relative
error (RE) is dened as
RE =

f (i)pred f (i)st
f (i)st

(7)

where f(i)pred is the single-phase friction factor predicted by the

individual approximate correlation, and f(i)st is the standard singlephase 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 27, the following measures
are taken:
(1) The correlations of Churchill (1973) and SwameeJain are omitted because they are very close to the Jain correlation both
in form and in prediction, with the Jain correlation performing 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 specied RE, it will not
appear in that table.
(3) If any of Serghides, ZigrangSylvester, Romeo et al., Chen, Barr
and SonnadGoudar correlations has higher degree accuracy
than the RE specied in a table, it will not appear in that table.
3.1. Summary of evaluation of the existing correlations covering
rough pipes
From Tables 27, it follows:

X. Fang et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 897902

899

Table 1
Single-phase friction factor correlations covering roughness: rank by accuracy in the range of Re = 4000108 and Rr = 00.05.
Rank

Model

Correlation

Serghides (1984)

1/

Range of validity
reported in the
original paper

f = A (B A) /(C 2B A),

Re > 2100

A = 2log(12/Re + Rr/3.7),
B = 2log(2.51A/Re + Rr/3.7)
C = 2log(2.51/Re + Rr/3.7)

0 Rr 0.05


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

Zigrang and Sylvester (1982)

1/

Romeo et al. (2002)

1/

f = 2 log(Rr/3.7065 5.0272/Re A)

Chen (1979)

1/

Barr (1981)

1/

Sonnad and Goudar (2006)


0.52
0.7
f = 2 log[Rr/3.7 + 4.518 log(Re/7)/Re(1 + Re Rr /29]

107 Rr 0.05

f = 2 log[Rr/3.7065 5.0452/Re log(Rr 1.1098 /2.8257 + 5.8506/Re0.8981 )]

1/

f = 0.8686 ln[0.4587Re/S

S/(S+1)

Manadilli (1997)

1/

Haaland (1983)

1/

4000 Re 108

106 Rr 0.05

Jain (1976)

1/

Swamee and Jain (1976)

1/

Churchill (1973)

1/

f = 2 log(Rr/3.7 + 95/Re0.983 96.82/Re)

5200 Re 108
0 Rr 0.05

1.11

f = 1.8 log[(Rr/3.7)

+ 6.9/Re]

4000 Re 108

106 Rr 0.05

4 105 Rr 0.05

106 Rr 0.05

f = 2 log(Rr/3.715 + 5.72/Re0.9 )

5000 Re 107

f = 2 log(Rr/3.7 + 5/74/Re0.9 )

5000 Re 108

f = 2 log[Rr/3.7 + (7/Re0.9 )]

f = 8[(8/Re)

Churchill (1977)

4000 Re 4 108
a

S = 0.124RrRe + ln(0.4587Re)
7

3000 Re 1.5 108

0 Rr 0.05

A = log{Rr/3.827 4.567/Re log[(Rr/7.7918)0.9924 + (5.3326/208.815 + Re)0.9345 ]}

12

+A

A = (37530/Re)

3/2

16

1/12

Any Re > 0

[2.457 ln((7/Re)

0.9

+ 0.27Rr)]

1/3

Moody (1947)

f = 0.0055 1 + (2 104 Rr + 106 /Re)

10

Wood (1966)

f = 0.53Rr + 0.094Rr 0.225 + 88Rr 0.44 Re1.62Rr

11

Round (1980)

1/

16

0 Rr 0.05
4000 Re 5 108
0 Rr 0.01
4000 Re 5 107
105 Rr 0.04

0.134

f = 1.8 log(0.135Rr + 6.5/Re)

4000 Re 4 108
0 Rr 0.05

Not explicitly specied.

(1) The correlations can be ranked as in Table 1.

(2) In the range of Re = 4000108 and Rr = 00.05, the Serghides
correlation has accuracy of 0.1%, the ZigrangSylvester correlation and the Romeo et al. correlation have accuracies of 0.2%,
the Chen correlation has accuracy of 0.5%, the Barr correlation
and the GoudarSonnad 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 ow
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 complicated 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

4E39E3
2E61E8
2E41E8
1E42E6

2E41E8

2E41E8

4E31E4
3E51E8
2E41E8
9E34E4
2E71E8
3E41E8

4E31E4
2E51E8
2E41E8
6E61E8

Barr

4E39E3
8E51E8
2E41E8
1E43E5
6E71E8
2E41E8

4E31E8

Romeo et al.
Chen

4E31E8a
4E39E3
3E61E8
3E41E8
1E44E7

SonnadGoudar
Manadilli

7E71E8
4E32E6

2E71E8
4E37E5

2E71E8
4E33E5

3E61E8
4E36E4

Jain
Churchill (1977)

Serghides
ZigrangSylvester

a
b

0.001

0.005

0.01

0.05

9E31E8
1E61E8

5E31E8
5E51E8

4E31E8
6E41E8

4E34E5
2E42E6

2E51E8

6E41E8

4E41E8

4E51E8
2E71E8

2E51E8
7E61E8

2E47E4
2E61E8
3E41E8
1E61E8

4E51E8

2E61E8
4E32E4
6E71E8
4E71E8
5E71E8

8E31E5
2E61E8
5E41E8
2E61E8

7E61E8
1E71E8

4E61E8
5E61E8

7E54E6
2E61E8

4E51E6
6E51E8

2E53E6

Bold value covers the Rr range in the whole box it occupies. This also applies to Tables 37.
Symbol denotes not applicable. This also applies to Tables 37.

7E31E8
3E51E8

900

X. Fang et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 897902

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

ZigrangSylvester
Romeo et al.
Chen

4E31E8
4E31E8
7E31E8

7E31E8

5E32E4
5E51E8
3E41E8
2E51E8
6E61E8

5E31E4
2E51E8
2E41E8
2E51E8
4E61E8

4E31E8

7E31E8
5E61E8
4E32E6

6E31E8
3E41E8
9E51E8

4E31E8
2E41E8
5E51E8

6E31E8
5E31E8
2E51E8

Haaland
Jain
Churchill (1977)

5E61E8

3E71E8

3E71E8

6E31E5
3E61E8
2E41E8
7E51E8
4E35E4
3E71E8
5E61E8
2E71E8
3E71E8

4E31E8

7E31E8
1E71E8
4E38E6

7E33E5
5E61E8
9E31E8
2E61E8
4E31E5
4E71E8
9E61E8
4E71E8
5E71E8

4E31E8

Barr
SonnadGoudar
Manadilli

7E36E6
2E71E8
7E31E8
3E61E8
4E31E6

2E61E8
4E61E8
5E61E8

6E51E8
2E61E8
3E61E8

8E41E8
5E51E8
6E51E8

2E41E8
3E51E8
4E51E8

4E41E8
7E41E6
1E51E8

0.0005

0.001

0.005

0.01

0.05

5E31E8
3E41E8
9E51E8

1E41E8
3E51E8

4E31E8
7E31E8
2E51E8

4E31E8
5E41E8

3E51E8
5E51E8

3E41E8
2E51E8

4E31E8
1E51E8

7E31E8
4E41E8

6E51E8

2E51E8

2E51E8

5E41E8

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

8E41E8

8E41E8

2E61E8
7E51E7

6E61E8
6E57E6

9E61E8
5E55E6

6E41E8
4E32E5
5E61E8
3E61E8
8E31E8

Churchill (1977)

5E58E6

4E56E6

Moody
Wood

3E54E6
7E71E8

7E41E8
4E38E5
8E61E8
4E61E8
2E52E6
7E61E8
1E41E6
1E71E8

1E41E6
5E61E8

2E41E5

5E31E8
4E41E8
4E32E4
2E61E8
6E51E8
1E42E5
7E51E8
2E42E5
1E61E8
2E41E5

0.00001

0.00005

0.0001

0.0005

0.001

0.005

0.01

0.05

9E41E8

6E41E8

3E41E8

5E32E4
8E51E8
6E31E8
7E31E8
4E33E4
2E41E5

4E31E4
3E51E8
6E31E8
8E31E8
4E31E5
6E34E4

4E31E4
2E51E8
4E31E4
1E51E8
8E31E8
1E41E8
4E33E4

5E41E8
6E41E8
5E32E4

4E41E8
5E41E8
6E41E8

2E41E8
2E41E8

Chen
Barr
SonnadGoudar
Manadilli

4E31E8
4E31E8
7E41E8
4E31E8

Haaland
Jain

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

Rr
0.000001

0.000005

Barr
SonnadGoudar
Manadilli

4E31E8
4E31E8
4E31E8

Haaland

5E31E8

5E31E8

Jain
Churchill (1977)
Moody
Wood

6E34E7
7E33E7
4E32E4

6E31E8
7E31E8
4E32E4
7E64E7

5E36E4
4E51E8
6E31E8
7E31E8
4E32E4

Round

2E62E7

5E33E4
2E61E8
6E31E8
7E31E8
4E32E4
2E42E5
5E71E8

4E31E8

3.2. Summary of evaluation of the existing correlations for

smooth pipes

0.05% to 2% are listed in Table 7. The details are summarized

below:

Both the correlations special for smooth pipes and the correlations listed in Table 1 are evaluated against the Nikuradse equation
in the range of Re = 4000108 . The results for the RE range from

(1) The Blasius equation does not have good accuracy. The calculation shows that its error increases from 2.6% at Re = 2 106
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

Manadilli
Haaland
Jain
Churchill (1977)
Moody
Wood
Round

4E31E8
4E31E8
4E31E8
4E31E8
4E32E4

2E62E7

0.000005

4E32E4
7E64E7

0.00001

4E32E4

0.00005

4E32E4
2E42E5 5E71E8

0.0001

4E33E4
2E41E5

0.0005

4E31E5
6E34E4

0.001

4E33E4

0.005

7E31E8
9E31E8
5E32E4

0.01

0.05

1E41E8

7E31E8

1E41E8
2E41E8
6E41E8

7E31E8
8E31E8

X. Fang et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 897902

901

Table 7
Re range for smooth portion under given RE.
Model

RE%
2

Danish et al.

Laminar
region and
4E31E8
1E41E8
4E38E3
4E31E8
4E31E8
4E31E8
4E31E8
4E31E8
4E31E8
4E31E8
3E31E8
4E31E8
4E31E8
4E34E4
3E51E8

Filonenko
Blasius
Serghides
ZigrangSylvester
Romeo et al.
Chen
Barr
SonnadGoudar
Manadilli
Haaland
Jain
Churchill (1977)
Moody
Round

0.5

0.2

0.1

0.05

2E41E8

4E42E7

1E67E6

2E71E8

3E61E8
2E49E6
2E45E6

9E32E6

7E41E8
5E34E7
6E34E7
5E33E7
4E32E4
4E61E8

2E61E7

5E59E6

2E78E7

Re = 2 106 . It is suggested to rewrite the Blasius equation as

the following:
f =
f =

0.316
Re1/4
0.184
Re1/5

(Re 2 104 )

(8a)

(2 104 Re 2 106 )

(8b)

f = (0.79 ln Re 1.64)2

(104 Re 108 )

(9)

(4) The correlations of Danish et al. and Serghides have the highest
accuracy, but they also are the most complicated ones, which
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 ow
New correlations of the single-phase friction factor for turbulent
pipe ow are developed based on computer analysis. A date bank
of Re (i) Rr(j) = 44 24 = 1056 data points covering the regime of
Re = 3000108 and Rr = 0.00.05 is generated with the Colebrook
equation and the Nikuradse equation.
Based on regression and optimization with software, two correlations are proposed, one is for smooth pipes, and the other covers
both smooth and rough regions in the range of Rr = 0.00.05. The
former is developed considering that the single-phase friction factor 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 4000108 .
4.1. New correlation of the single-phase friction factor for
turbulent ow in smooth pipes
For turbulent ow in smooth pipes, the following correlation is
proposed:

 150.39
Re0.98865

152.66
Re

2
(10)

2E47E7
2E42E7

4E37E6

In the range of Re = 3000108 , the new correlation has the mean

absolute relative error (MARE) of 0.022% and the maximum RE of
0.045% compared with the Nikuradse equation. Therefore, it has
equivalent accuracy to but much simpler form than the correlations
of Danish et al. and Serghides have, just one term more than the
Filonenko equation. The MARE is dened as

1  f (i)pred f (i)st 
MARE =
N
f (i)st
N

(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 Filonenko equation as the following:

f = 0.25 log

7E31E8
7E31E8

4E38E7

(11)

i=1

4.2. New correlation of the single-phase friction factor for

turbulent ow in both smooth and rough pipes
For turbulent ow in smooth pipes, the following correlation is
proposed:

 

f = 1.613 ln 0.234Rr 1.1007

60.525
56.291
+ 1.0712
Re1.1105
Re

2
(13)

In the range of Re = 3000108 and Rr = 0.00.05, 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 correlations, the new correlation is the simplest one with the maximum
RE of 0.50% in the range of Re = 3000108 and Rr = 0.00.05.
5. Conclusions and suggestions
Fifteen correlations for the single-phase friction factor of pipe
ow are reviewed and evaluated. According to accuracy, the correlations covering rough portion are ranked in Table 1. In the range
of Re = 4000108 and Rr = 00.05, the accuracies are, respectively,
0.1% for the Serghides correlation, 0.2% for the ZigrangSylvester
correlation and Romeo et al. correlation, 0.5% for the Chen correlation, 1% for the Barr correlation and the GoudarSonnad
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 ow 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
maximum RE of 2%.
Two new correlations of single-phase friction factor for turbulent ow are proposed. One is for smooth pipes, and the other is for

902

X. Fang et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 241 (2011) 897902

both smooth and rough pipes. The former is the form of

f = 0.25 log

 150.39
Re0.98865

2
152.66
Re

with the MARE of 0.022% and the maximum RE of 0.045% in the

range of Re = 3000108 . The latter is the form of

 

f = 1.613 ln 0.234Rr 1.1007

60.525
56.291
+ 1.0712
Re1.1105
Re

with the MARE of 0.16% and the maximum RE of 0.50% in the range
of Re = 3000108 and Rr = 0.00.05.
Acknowledgment
This work was funded by AVIC Chengdu Aircraft Design &
Research institute, China.
References
Barr, D.I.H., 1981. Solutions of the ColebrookWhite functions for resistance to uniform turbulent ows. Proc. Inst. Civil Eng. 2, 71.
Cavallini, A., Col, D., Matkovic, M., Rossetto, L., 2009. Pressure drop during twophase ow of R134a and R32 in a single minichannel. ASME J. Heat Transfer 131,
033107-1033107-8.
Chen, I.Y., Yang, K.S., Chang, Y.J., Wang, C.C., 2001. Two-phase pressure drop of
airwater and R-410a in small horizontal tubes. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 27,
12931299.
Chen, N.H., 1979. An explicit equation for friction factor in pipe. Ind. Eng. Chem.
Fundam. 18 (3), 296297.
Chisholm, D., 1967. A theoretical basis for the LockhartMartinelli correlation for
two-phase ow. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 10, 17671778.
Churchill, S.W., 1973. Empirical expressions for the shear stressing turbulent ow
in commercial pipe. AIChE J. 19 (2), 375376.
Churchill, S.W., 1977. Friction-factor equation spans all uid-ow regimes. Chem.
Eng. 7, 9192.
Colebrook, C.F., 19381939. Turbulent ow 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 uid friction roughened pipes.
In: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. Ser. A. Math. Phys. Sci. , pp. 367381, 161 (906).
Dalkilic, A.S., Agra, O., Teke, I., Wongwises, S., 2010. Comparison of frictional pressure
drop models during annular ow condensation of R600a in a horizontal tube at
low mass ux and of R134a in a vertical tube at high mass ux. Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 53, 20522064.
Dang, C., Hihara, E., 2004. In-tube cooling heat transfer of supercritical carbon dioxide. Part 1. Experimental measurement. Int. J. Refrig. 27, 736747.
Danish, M., Kumar, S., Kumar, S., 2011. Approximate explicit analytical expressions of
friction factor for ow of Bingham uids in smooth pipes using Adomian decomposition method. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat. 16 (1), 239251.
Friedel, L., 1979. Improved friction pressure drop correlation for horizontal and
vertical two-phase pipe ow. Eur. Two-phase Flow Group Meet. Pap. E2 (18),
485492.
Haaland, S.E., 1983. Simple and explicit formulas for friction factor in turbulent pipe
ow. Trans. ASME, J. Fluids Eng. 105, 89.
Huai, X.L., Koyama, S., Zhao, T.S., 2005. An experimental study of ow and heat transfer of supercritical carbon dioxide in multi-port mini channels under cooling
conditions. Chem. Eng. Sci. 60, 33373345.
Incropera, F.P., DeWitt, D.P., 2001. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 5th ed.
John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Jain, A.K., 1976. Accurate explicit equations for friction factor. J. Hydraul. Div. ASCE
102 (5), 674677.
Lee, J., Mudawar, I., 2005. Two-phase ow in high-heat-ux micro-channel heat sink
for refrigeration cooling applications. Part I. Pressure drop characteristics. Int. J.
Heat Mass Transfer 48, 928940.
Lockhart, R.W., Martinelli, R.C., 1949. Proposed correlation of data for isothermal two-phase, two-component ow in pipes. Chem. Eng. Prog. 45 (1),
3948.
Manadilli, G., 1997. Replace implicit equations with sigmoidal functions. Chem. Eng.
J. 104 (8), 129132.
Moody, L.F., 1947. An approximate formula for pipe friction factors. Trans. ASME 69,
1005.
Moody, L.F., 1944. Friction factors for pipe ow. Trans. ASME, 671684.
Nikuradse, J., 1933. Stroemungsgesetze in rauhen Rohren. Ver. Dtsch. Ing. Forsch.
(361), 122.
Petrov, N.E., Popov, V.N., 1988. Heat transfer and hydraulic resistance with turbulent
ow in a tube of water under supercritical parameters of state. Thermal Eng. 35
(10), 577580.
Pioro, I.L., Duffey, R.B., Dumouchel, T.J., 2004. Hydraulic resistance of uids owing
in channels at supercritical pressures (survey). Nucl. Eng. Des. 231, 187197.
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, 369374.
Round, G.F., 1980. An explicit approximation for the friction factor-Reynolds number
relation for rough and smooth pipes. Can. J. Chem. Eng. 58, 122123.
Serghides, T.K., 1984. Estimate friction factor accurately. Chem. Eng. 91, 6364.
Shannak, B.A., 2008. Frictional pressure drop of gas liquid two-phase ow in pipes.
Nucl. Eng. Des. 238, 32773284.
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, 539546.
Sonnad, J.R., Goudar, C.T., 2006. Turbulent ow friction factor calculation using a
mathematically exact alternative to the ColebrookWhite equation. J. Hydraul.
Eng. ASCE 132 (8), 863867.
Sun, L., Mishima, K., 2009. Evaluation analysis of prediction methods for two-phase
ow pressure drop in mini-channels. Int. J. Multiphase Flow 35, 4754.
Swamee, P.K., Jain, A.K., 1976. Explicit equation for pipe ow problems. J. Hydraul.
Div. ASCE 102 (5), 657664.
Wood, D.J., 1966. An explicit friction factor relationship. Civil Eng. 60 (12), 6061.
Yamshita, T., Mori, H., Yoshida, S., Ohno, M., 2003. Heat transfer and pressure drop
of a supercritical pressure uid owing in a tube of small diameter. Mem. Fac.
Eng., Kyushu Univ. 63 (4), 227243.
Yldrm, G., 2009. Computer-based analysis of explicit approximations to the
implicit ColebrookWhite equation in turbulent ow friction factor calculation.
Adv. Eng. Softw. 40, 11831190.
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, 857864.
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, 453465.
Zigrang, D.J., Sylvester, N.D., 1982. Explicit approximations to the Colebrooks friction factor. AICHE J. 28 (3), 514515.
Xiande Fang is a professor at the Institute of Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (NUAA), China. Ph.D. in Engineering
Thermophysics from University of Science and Technology of China. M.Sci.in Thermal Engineering from Tsinghua University, China. B. Eng. in Environmental Control
Engineering from NUAA. His research areas are air conditioning and refrigeration,
thermo-uid 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.