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

net/publication/327150345

A novel method for the inclusion of pipe roughness in the Hazen-Williams

equation

Article in FME Transaction · January 2015

DOI: 10.5937/fmet1501035J

CITATIONS READS

10 8,619

6 authors, including:

Nikola B Jaćimović Mirjana Stamenic

20 PUBLICATIONS 81 CITATIONS
University of Belgrade
39 PUBLICATIONS 135 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Petar Kolendić
University of Belgrade
7 PUBLICATIONS 154 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mirjana Stamenic on 05 April 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Nikola Jaćimović
Piping Project Engineer/Design Engineer
Danieli & C Officine Meccaniche SpA, Buttrio
Italy

Mirjana Stamenić A Novel Method for the Inclusion of

Teaching Assistant
University of Belgrade Pipe Roughness in the Hazen-
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
Williams Equation
Petar Kolendić
Research Assistant Accurate estimation of friction losses in pipes is an important
University of Belgrade
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering engineering task. Due to their simplicity, empirical equations are often
used for determining pressure drops in pipes. One of the most widely
Dimitrije Đorđević used empirical equations for calculation of pressure drops in straight
Managing Director pipes is Hazen-Williams equation. In this paper, the authors have
Termoenergetika
Lučani, Serbia established a simple method of the inclusion of pipe roughness in Hazen-
Williams equation by comparison with a widely accepted Darcy-
Branka Radanov Weisbach method coupled with Colebrook friction factor formula for
Coordinator for Testing and Supervision of developed turbulent flow.
Pre-packaged Products
Directorate of Measures and Precious Metals
Belgrade, Serbia Keywords: Hazen-Williams equation, pressure drop, pipe roughness,
turbulent flow.
Ljubiša Vladić
Maintenance Department Manager
District Heating Company Beogradske
Elektrane
Belgrade, Serbia

1. INTRODUCTION However, utilization of such calculation procedures

inherently has its pitfalls, mainly due to the number of
Pressure drop calculation is one of the essential tasks in limitations and approximations set forth by using a
plant engineering. Pumps, fans, blowers and other simplified approach. In some literature sources users are
machinery are dimensioned based on pressure drop even advised against using this type of equations [1].
calculations. If these energy losses are underestimated, Two such empirical approaches commonly met in fluid
the plant might not work properly (i.e. not enough fluid mechanics are Hazen-Williams [2] and Manning
will reach the end user). On the other hand, if these equations [3].
losses are overestimated, they will result in an It needs to be stressed that the discussed topic is
economically unjustifiable plant operation due to high very elaborate and vast, and that Hazen-Williams
energy consumption (motors will be grossly oversized). equation is merely one of the available equations for
Therefore, accurate estimation of pressure losses is calculation of pressure drop in water filled pipelines.
important, even in the starting phases of any project. Other equations, such as previously mentioned
Calculation of pressure losses is usually not a simple Colebrook equation or equations published in various
task, but quite the contrary. In the early phases of the literature sources (e.g. [4], [5], [6], etc.) may provide
project there are a lot of unknowns which render the more accurate results, but are also requiring more
task of determining the pressure losses all the more detailed input data and more calculation effort. A
complicated. To make the matter even more complex,
comprehensive overview of most commonly used
the formulae which are usually used for pressure drop
equations for calculation friction factor is given in [7].
estimation, such as Colebrook equation coupled with
Darcy-Weisbach equation, are not always explicit. 2. HAZEN-WILLIAMS EQUATION AND ITS
Consequently, these equations more often than not need LIMITATIONS
to be solved by employing some more or less complex
mathematical apparatus. When pressure drop estimations in water-carrying pipes
In order to overcome the mathematical complexities, are observed, one of the most widely used empirical
roughness estimates and Reynolds number equations for pressure drop is Hazen-Williams equation,
dependencies, simplified equations are often used. which is written in the form [8]
These are mainly based on empirical data and provide
engineers with directly and easily obtained solutions. p f 10.67  L  Q1,852
h f   (1)
g C1,852  D 4,87
Received: March 2014, Accepted: May 2014
Correspondence to: Nikola Jaćimović While this equation is widely used, and even
Danieli & C Officine Meccaniche SpA referenced in some codes [9], being an empirical
Via Nazionale, 41 33042 Buttrio (UD) Italy equation it has some obvious drawbacks. Its main
E-mail: [email protected] limitation is that it does not depend directly on pipe
doi:10.5937/fmet1501040S
© Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Belgrade. All rights reserved FME Transactions (2015) 43, 35-39 35
roughness, but Hazen-Williams parameter C is defined calculation methods (i.e. Darcy-Weisbach equation with
as a constant value, depending only on pipe material, as Colebrook friction factor). These values are used to
shown in Table 1. extract a correlation equation between the C factor and
However, it is a well documented fact that roughness relative pipe roughness.
of any one material can vary significantly over the The Darcy-Weisbach equation states that
course of its lifetime. For instance, according to [10],
absolute roughness of seamless carbon steel pipes can L   w2 (2)
p f  f  
vary from 0.04 to more than 1.5mm, depending on D 2
several parameters, but mainly on the conveyed fluid
and age of piping (for water lines even values in excess where friction factor depends on the Reynolds number
of 5mm are mentioned). The same is true for many and pipe roughness.
other materials referenced in Table 1. In this case, the value of Hazen-Williams coefficient
can be expressed by combining equations (1) and (2) as
If influence of all other variables, such as
dependency of water viscosity on its temperature (note 1
that equation (1) is completely independent on fluid  1 2 g  10.67  Q1,852  1.852
viscosity), is disregarded, it makes sense to investigate C   2  
(3)
 f w D 3,87 
in some manner the dependency of Hazen-Williams  
constant C on pipe roughness. An apparent way for this
or
is to compare the results obtained by Hazen-Williams
equation with the ones obtained by utilizing the well- 1
established Darcy-Weisbach equation coupled with  D 0.13  1.852
Colebrook friction factor, as explained in further text. C  129  (4)
 f  Q 0.148 

Table 1. Values of Hazen-Williams constant from various
sources The Friction factor can be calculated using many
C-factor well established procedures [7]. In this case, the
Material Colebrook equation will be used for determination of
[8] [11] [9]
friction factor for fully developed turbulent flow.
Asbestos Cement - 140÷150 140
Formula proposed by Colebrook [12] is broadly
Brass - 120÷150 - accepted design formula for determination of turbulent
Black steel (dry systems) 130 100 100 friction factor in the range of Re=4000÷108 and
Black steel (wet systems) 130 120 120 ε=0÷0.05 and is given by equation
Cast iron - New unlined 130 120÷130 100
Cast iron - 10 years old 100 105÷75 - 1  2.51  
 2  log  (5)
Cast iron - 15 years old 100 100÷60 - f  Re  f 3.7 
 
Cast iron - 20 years old 80 95÷55 -
Cast iron - 30 years old 80 85÷45 - a  w D
where   r and Re  .
Cast iron - 50 years old 80 75÷40 - D 
Cast iron - Bitumen-lined - 140 - Correlation equations are derived based on 1300
Cast iron - Cement-lined 140 140 140 examined cases. In these test points absolute pipe
Concrete 120 85÷150 140 roughness has varied from 0.01mm to 1mm, pipe
Copper - 120÷150 150 diameters ranged from DN80 to DN500, and Reynolds
Fibre glass pipe - 150÷160 - numbers have varied in the range 66500÷680000. These
Fire hose (rubber) - 135 - limits are selected based on engineering judgment and
Galvanized steel - 120 120
authors’ experience. In addition, as it will be shown
later, the accuracy of Hazen-Williams equation with the
Lead - 130÷150 -
constant C factor diminishes with higher Reynolds
Polyethylene - 150 -
numbers, which is all the more reason to concentrate on
PVC and plastic pipe 150 150 150 higher Reynolds numbers.
Stainless steel - 150 150 Using equation (3), it can be shown that for
Steel new and unlined - 140÷150 - aforementioned absolute pipe roughness, diameter and
Steel, welded and seamless 130 100 - Reynolds number ranges, the Hazen-Williams C
Vitrified clays - 110 - coefficient changes roughly within the limits 90÷150.
Wood 120 - - All calculations are performed for thermo-physical
Clay, new riveted steel 110 - - properties of water at 4°C (i.e. density of 1000 kg/m3
and viscosity of 0.00153Pa·s).
2.1 More accurate determination of c factor The following equation provides the best fit for the
entire range of aforementioned 1300 test points
Basic idea behind the developed method was to vary
pipe diameter, absolute roughness and volumetric flow a 
C  50  10  ln( )  50  10  ln  r  (6)
rate of water in order to calculate the value of C factor D
predicted by using some of the more sophisticated

36 ▪ VOL. 43, No 1, 2015 FME Transactions

 However, although equation (6) provides the best fit this data, and Figure 1 it can also be concluded that
for all data points, in some cases it may yield somewhat various constant values of the C factor can yield non-
underestimated pressure losses compared to those conservative (underestimated) pressure drop values,
obtained by using the Colebrook equation. For this thus potentially creating operating problems in a plant.
reason, the following equation has been extracted, Table 2. Comparison of results obtained by proposed
which yields conservative results for almost all equation and constant C values
examined points.
Eq (6) C=90 C=100 C=110
a  Max error, % 10.5 39.4 32.6 25.9
C  45  10  ln( )  45  10  ln  r  (7)
D No of cases in which
equation (6) yields 1283 1217 1056
n/a
2.2 Statistical parameters of evaluation better results than (98.7%) (93.6%) (81.2%)
constant

Statistical parameters used in deriving and examining C=120 C=130 C=140 C=150
equations (6) and (7) are as follows Max error, % 34 45.1 56.3 67.5
No of cases in which
equation (6) yields 1053 1108 1193 1290
a. correlation ratio better results than (81%) (85.2%) (91.8%) (99.2%)
constant
n
  yi  yic 
2
(8)
i 1
  1 n
  yi  yav 
2

i 1

b. standard deviation

2
n  y  yc 
  i y i 

i 1  i 
 av  (9)
n
where average value of variable yi for complete set of
Figure 1. Test points with correlation equation
input data is calculated as
n
 yi 2.3 Example

yav  i 1 (10) Let us consider the flow of 360m3/h of water in 100m

n
long DN250 (ø273x9.27mm) steel pipe. Absolute
In this case, the variable yi corresponds to the value roughness of pipe is assumed to equal 0.5mm, which is
reasonable assumption after couple of years of service.
of C factor calculated by using equation (3), while yic Water density is adopted as 1000 kg/m3 and dynamic
corresponds to the value of C factor calculated by using viscosity as 0.00153Pa·s.
equations (6) or (7). The value of n is the total number According to the Colebrook equation (5), the friction
of data points which have been examined, which is in factor in this example equals 0.0239. This yields the
this case 1300. pressure drop of 18226Pa.
Equation (6) yields maximum error of 10.46%, If the Hazen-Williams equation is used with constant
standard deviation of 3.52% and correlation ratio of C factor of 130 (refer to Table 1), the calculated
0.9349. This equation is presented alongside all pressure drop according to equation (1) would be
examined points in Figure 1. 14043Pa. This means an underestimate of pressure drop
Figure 1 also shows the equation (7) which yields by ~4180Pa, or ~23% compared to the Colebrook
conservative results for almost entire data set. For this equation.
equation standard deviation for the entire data set is On the other hand, if equation (6) is used to calculate
6.67%, while maximum error is 14.32%. the C factor of 112.3, then the pressure drop calculated
Results of the proposed equation are compared to by equation (1) would be 18408Pa, which is in good
various values of the Hazen-Williams constant shown in correlation with the results obtained by using the
Table 2. Values presented in Table 2 show in how many Colebrook equation.
of the total 1300 cases the C factor values calculated by Finally, if conservative equation (7) is used to
equation (6) yields smaller relative error than the determine the C factor of 109.3, then the pressure drop
relevant constant value when compared to the C factor determined by equation (1) would be 20028Pa, which is
values calculated by equation (3). ~9% greater value than the pressure drop calculated by
Based on Table 2 it can be concluded that no matter using the Colebrook equation.
which C factor constant value is selected, equation (6) For this particular example, the correspondence
yields better results in the majority of cases. Based on between the pressure drop calculated according to
FME Transactions VOL. 43, No 1, 2015 ▪ 37
Hazen-Williams equation using the C factor of 130 and [4] Haaland, S.E.: Simple and explicit formulas for the
the pressure drop calculated by using Colebrook friction factor in turbulent pipe flow, Transactions
equation would be for the absolute roughness of of the ASME, Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol.
0.14mm. In other words, for pipe absolute roughness 105, No. 1, pp. 89-90, 1983.
greater than 0.14mm, the Hazen-Williams equation with [5] Romeo, E., Royo, C. and Monzón, A.: Improved
the C factor of 130 would give erroneous explicit equations for estimation of the friction
(underestimated) results. factor in rough and smooth pipes, Chemical
Summary of the results is given in Table 3. Engineering Journal, Vol. 86, No. 3, pp. 369-374,
Table 3. Summary of example results 2002.
[6] Brkić, D.: Review of explicit approximations to the
Calculation method Error,
f C Δp, Pa Colebrook relation for flow friction, Journal of
%
Petroleum Science and Engineering, Vol. 77, No. 1,
Colebrook equation 0.0239 n/a 18226 n/a
pp. 34-48, 2011.
Hazen-Williams equation – n/a 130 14403 -26.5
constant C [7] Genić, S., Aranđelović, I., Kolendić, P., Jarić, M.,
Hazen-Williams equation – C n/a 112.3 18408 +1.0 Budimir, N and Genić, V.: A Review of Explicit
calculated with eq (6) Approximations of Colebrook’s Equation, FME
Hazen-Williams equation – C n/a 109.3 20028 +8.8 Transactions, Vol. 39, pp. 67-71, 2011.
calculated with eq (7)
[8] Larock, B.E., Jeppson, R.W. and Watters, G.Z.:
3. CONCLUSION Hydraulics of Pipeline Systems, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, 2000.
The Hazen-Williams equation is often used in real [9] National Fire Protection Association: NFPA 13 –
world problems mainly due to its simplicity. However, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems,
as it is shown, it can yield uncertain and, even more NFPA, Quincy, 2013.
importantly, non-conservative results, especially for
greater Reynolds numbers and relative roughness [10] Idelchik, I.E.: Handbook of Hydraulic Resistance,
values. For example, as shown in Figure 1, the C factor 3rd edition, Begell House, 1996.
value of 130 (cited for steel pipes), gives relatively [11] Sunrise systems, Ltd., Pipenet Vision software
conservative results only up to the relative roughness [12] Colebrook, C.F.: Turbulent flow in pipes, with
value of 0.8·10-3, and only for relatively small Reynolds particular reference to the transition region between
numbers. the smooth and rough pipe laws, Journal of the
Data presented in Figure 1 show that there is Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.
dependency of the Hazen-Williams C factor on pipe 133-156, 1939.
roughness, while data shown in Table 2 shows that if
proposed equation (6) is used for calculation of the NOMENCLATURE
Hazen-Williams C factor, in a vast majority of cases it ar, m absolute pipe roughness
yields better results than a constant value.
C C-factor (Hazen-Williams constant)
In addition, equation (7) is given, which still
D, m f hinternal
pipe i diameter
produces conservative, but more realistic results than
the constant, for almost all 1300 examined cases. f friction factor
It is not implied in the paper that the Hazen- 2 gravitational acceleration
g , m/s
Williams equation is the most accurate or even correct
Δh, m, head loss
choice for determining the pressure drop in water
carrying pipelines. It still has many drawbacks, and L, m pipe length
frequently falls short in accuracy in comparison to some n Number of examined data points
of the other equations, such as the Colebrook and p, Pa pressure drop
Darcy-Weisbach equations which have been used as a
benchmark in this paper. However, its sheer simplicity Q , m 3 /s water volumetric flow rate
renders it very useful when no detailed routing data Re Reznolds number
exists and quick and easy estimations are required. w, m/s fluid velocity
Equations presented in this paper are meant to be used
yi i-th value of variable
as a supplement of the original equation by including
the influence of pipe roughness, thus increasing its Greek symbols
accuracy without impeding its simplicity.
Δ standard deviation
REFERENCES ε relative pipe roughness
µ, Pa·s dynamic fluid viscosity
[1] White, F.M.: Fluid Mechanics, 4th edition,
McGraw-Hill, 2004. ρ, g/m3 water density
[2] Williams, G.S. and Hazen, A.: Hydraulic Tables, J. θ correlation ratio
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1909.
Superscripts
[3] Manning R.: On the flow of water in open channels
and pipes, Transactions of the Institution of Civil av average
Engineers of Ireland, Vol. 20, pp.161-207, 1891. f friction

38 ▪ VOL. 43, No 1, 2015 FME Transactions

 често налазе примену за прорачуне пада притиска у
цевоводима. Једна од најчешће коришћених
НОВИ МЕТОД ЗА УКЉУЧИВАЊЕ ЕФЕКАТА емпиријских једначина која се примењује у овој
ХРАПАВОСТИ ЦЕВИ У ХАЗЕН- области је Хазен-Вилијамсова једначина. У овом
ВИЛИЈАМСОВУ ЈЕДНАЧИНУ раду су аутори извели једноставан приступ који
може да се примени за укључивање ефеката
Никола Јаћимовић, Мирјана Стаменић, Петар храпавости цеви у Хазен-Вилијамсову једначину.
Колендић, Димитрије Ђорђевић, Бранка Приступ се састоји у поређењу наведене једначине
Раданов, Љубиша Владић са добро познатом Дарси-Вајсбахом једначином и
Колбруковом једначином за прорачун фактора
Прецизна процена пада притиска услед трења у трења за развијено турбулентно струјање.
цевоводима је веома битан инжењерски задатак. Пре
свега због једноставности, емпиријске једначине

FME Transactions VOL. 43, No 1, 2015 ▪ 39

View publication stats