Practical Values of Friction Factors

Brian S. Prosser Keith G. Wallace

Mine Ventilation Services, Inc. Mine Ventilation Services, Inc.
4946 East Yale Ave., Suite 103 4946 East Yale Ave., Suite 103
Fresno, California 93727 Fresno, California 93727
USA USA

ABSTRACT

Over the past fifteen years, engineers from Mine Ventilation Services, Inc. (MVS) have measured numerous friction factors
at many different types of mining operations. The results of these measurements indicate that standardized friction factors
referenced in most ventilation textbooks are greater than those measured in the field for similar airway support systems.
Many referenced friction factors are still based on G. E. McElroy’s classic paper “Engineering Factors in the Ventilation of
Metal Mines” published in 1935. Most mechanized mines now incorporate airways that are larger, have more advanced
support systems, and more uniform openings. This paper describes the measurement techniques and results from friction
factor measurements taken during ventilation surveys at various mines with differing support systems. A comparison between
textbook and measured values is also presented.

KEYWORDS

friction factors, resistance, Atkinson.

INTRODUCTION Mine Ventilation Services, Inc. (MVS) engineers have been

involved in the measurement, classification and planning of
The Atkinson friction factor has long been a primary ventilation systems for over fifteen years and have
component in calculating airway resistance for ventilation consequently built a substantial library of measured friction
planning purposes. One of the original publications factors. A review of these measurements indicates that
concerning friction factors in mines was published in 1935 standardized friction factors referenced in many articles and
by the former U.S. Bureau of Mines (McElroy, 1935). textbooks on ventilation appear greater than those MVS has
Subsequently, numerous papers, articles, and texts have measured in the field for similar airway support systems. A
been published on friction factors including Kharkar et. al. comparison of friction factors is described in this paper for
(1974), Hall (1981), Wala (1991), McPherson (1992), and both hard rock and coal mining operation.
Hartman, et. al. (1997). Accurate values of friction factor
are critical in ventilation planning exercises. No computer
simulation is meaningful if the airway resistances GENERAL THEORY
throughout a mine are not accurately assessed. For
proposed underground airways, the only way to develop a The determination of frictional pressure drop (p) in mine
ventilation model for planning purposes is by the estimation airways may be obtained from the following relationship:
of friction factors. For existing underground mines, it is
recommended that a proper ventilation survey of the mine Per u 2
ventilation infrastructure be conducted prior to ventilation
Equation 1 p = fL ρ (Pa)
A 2
planning exercises. However, the reality is that many mines
lack both the time and resources to conduct these thorough f = coefficient of friction ρ = Air density (kg/m3)
investigations. This results in a reliance upon published (dimensionless)
friction factor data for estimation of airway resistances. Per = Airway perimeter (m) u = Air velocity (m/s)
A = Area (m2) L = Length (m)
This is a form of the Chezy-Darcy Equation, and is diameters. Hence, as the airway hydraulic mean diameter
applicable to circular and non-circular airways and ducts. increases, and all other conditions remain the same, both
The Chezy-Darcy coefficient of friction (dimensionless) the relative roughness and the Atkinson friction factor will
varies with respect to Reynolds Number, the trend of which decrease. However, this change in Atkinson friction factor
is plotted on the Moody diagram. The Chezy-Darcy is usually small, and is often not discernible in field
equation was adapted by Atkinson to give the following, measurements. For example, an airway with an average
commonly used, Atkinson Equation: asperity height of 50 mm (0.16 ft), and dimensions of 2 m
(6.6 ft) by 6 m (19.7 ft), the Atkinson friction factor at
Per 2 standard density is 0.0068 kg/m3 (36.7 lbfmin2/ft4 × 10-10).
Equation 2 p = kL u (Pa) If a second airway is considered which has the same surface
A
asperity height, but has dimensions of 3 m (9.8 ft) by 6 m
(19.7 ft), the Atkinson friction factor drops to 0.0061 kg/m3
The Atkinson friction factor (k) is a function of air (32.9 lbfmin2/ft4 × 10-10). Hence, for this example a 50%
density, and is computed as the product of the Chezy-Darcy increase in flow area results in only 10% change in the
coefficient of friction and the air density, divided by a Atkinson friction factor. It is difficult to measure this
factor of two. Since the Chezy-Darcy coefficient of friction difference in the field due to the numerous factors that are
is dimensionless, the Atkinson friction factor has the units required to compute friction factors. For this study,
of density (kg/m3). The Atkinson Equation may be variations in friction factor as a function of airway size
expressed in terms of the Atkinson resistance (R) for the were not considered due to the considerable scatter in the
airway, where: measured Atkinson friction factors for various entry types.

p Per FRICTION FACTOR MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

Equation 3 R = = kL 3 (Ns2/m8)
Q2 A The friction factors measured by MVS were conducted
during the course of ventilation surveys at numerous mining
The first part of this equation, relating frictional pressure operations. For each mine, measured frictional pressure
drop and quantity to resistance, is known as the Square drops and airflow data were used to develop ventilation
Law. This important relationship is used to establish networks. To determine accurate friction factors, airways
resistance from measured pressure and quantity data. The were selected which minimized shock losses. The air
second part of the equation is used to determine resistance quantities were measured by determining the mean air
from typical Atkinson friction factors, and known or velocities and airway cross-sectional areas at predetermined
proposed airway geometry. It should be noted that the locations in the airways of interest. Rotating vane
frictional pressure drop term in the Square Law is directly anemometers attached to extendible rods were used to
proportional to air density, as is the Atkinson friction factor. traverse the airways for measurement of the mean air
Hence, the Atkinson friction factor that is applied must be velocities. Traverses were repeated until two readings were
adjusted for actual mine air density. obtained within ±5%. The airway cross-sectional areas were
measured using steel tapes. The air quantities at each station
When using the Atkinson friction factor it is important were computed as the product of the air velocity and the
to remember that the factor is not constant for a given airway cross-sectional area.
airway, but varies with Reynold’s Number. However, in
mine ventilation it is normal to assume that the Atkinson Frictional pressure drops through the airway were
friction factor is relatively constant, regardless of the flow determined using the gauge-and-tube technique. The gauge-
regime. This is because for fully turbulent flow (which is and-tube (or trailing hose) method allows direct
typically the case in mine ventilation) the friction factor is a measurement of frictional pressure differentials using a
function only of the relative roughness of the airway. digital manometer connected to a length of tubing, the ends
Roughness can be defined as the height of the airway of which were connected to the total pressure ports of pitot-
aspiraties (e) divided by the hydraulic mean diameter (d = static tubes. Psychrometric properties of the air were also
4A/Per). The Von Kármán equation gives the relationship measured in the airways in order to determine the air
for Atkinson friction factor and relative roughness for fully densities so that friction factors could be reported on a
turbulent flow: standardized basis.

Equation 4 2k 1 The calculation of Atkinson friction factor (k) is

f = =
ρ   d 
2 conducted by re-writing the Atkinson resistance equation so
4 2 log10   + 1.14 that:
  e 
A3
From this equation, it is apparent that the Atkinson friction Equation 5 k=R (kg/m3)
factor will vary for airways with the same surface LPer
roughness (asperity height), but different hydraulic mean Where R is determined by the square law, R = p/Q2.
Airway lengths were evaluated either from the known (49 lbfmin2/ft4 × 10-10). However, it is important to note that
length of the pressure tube, or were measured with a nylon the standard deviation for this average is 0.00239 kg/m3
tape. The cross-sectional area and perimeter used in this (12.9 lbfmin2/ft4 × 10-10). This gives a statistical range of
equation were averaged from two to four measurements 0.0066 kg/m3 (36 lbfmin2/ft4 × 10-10) to 0.011 kg/m3 (62
taken along the length of drift used in computing the lbfmin2/ft4 × 10-10). Because of the statistical scatter in the
friction factor. When measurements are taken in the field readings (particularly in the upper range), it is
they are measured and recorded at the actual mine air recommended that for design purposes a friction factor of
density. When reporting friction factors against published approximately 0.010 kg/m3 (60 lbfmin2/ft4 × 10-10) be used.
information they must be calculated on a standardized basis This value should provide some conservatism in the design.
as follows: Table 1 shows friction factor measurements for other types
of airways in a metal mine.
ρstd
Equation 6 k std = k act (kg/m3)
ρact 7

kstd = Standardized friction factor (kg/m3) Average Value = 0.00879 kg/m

3

kact = Actual friction factor (kg/m3) 6

ρact = Actual air density (kg/m3)

Number of Measurements
5

ρact = Standard Air density (kg/m3)

4

All measurements presented in this paper are reported at 3

a standardized density of 1.2 kg/m3 (0.075 lb/ft3). When

2
standardized friction factors are used in future ventilation
modeling, it is imperative that they be corrected for the air 1

density expected at the mine. For example, a proposed mine

0
at 1,830 m (6,000 ft) above sea level may have an air

3
00

00

00

00

00

01

01

01

01
density of 0.960 kg/m3 (0.060 lb/ft3). If a friction factor of
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
4-

5-

6-

7-

8-

9-

0-

1-

2-
00

00

00

00

00

00

01

01

01
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
0.0093 kg/m3 (50 lbfmin2/ft4 × 10-10) was selected from a Friction Factor Span (kg/m3)

standardized reference table, then for computer modeling a

corrected friction factor of 0.0074 kg/m3 (40 lbfmin2/ft4 × Figure 1: Metal Mine General Level Drift Data
10-10) should be used.
The measurements taken for conveyor drifts, alimak
FRICTION FACTOR MEASUREMENTS IN METAL raises, bored raises and ramps show a relatively wide range
MINES of values. This spread is mainly due to the way each
individual airway is constructed and any shock losses
Measurements of airway friction factors were obtained present due to entry or exit losses and constrictions or
during ventilation surveys of thirteen metal mines around expansions. For example, the friction factor for a ramp is
the world. The majority of these mines employed traditional directly dependant on how tightly spiraled the ramp is
jumbo drill and blast development techniques to drive the constructed. The measurements given in the table all take
main airways for which these friction factors are into account the shock losses encountered in the airway due
representative. Friction factor data were taken wherever to bends (airway spiral). For each airway type listed on
possible for varying airway sizes, ramps, and bored and Table 1, it is important to note the standard deviation
alimak raises. Figure 1 shows the measured k-factors taken computed for the range of data presented. The data suggests
in a number of metal mines along a straight level drift. In that it is probably prudent to use the mean values presented
general, these drifts were arched with rock bolts and mesh. plus one half to one standard deviation in order to be
The results indicate that for the 40 measurements taken of conservative.
friction factor for a level airway mined by drill and blast
techniques, the mean value is approximately 0.009 kg/m3

Table 1: Standardized Friction Factors for Metal Mine Airways

Level Drift Ramp Alimak Raise Bored Raise Beltway TBM Drift
Average Value 0.00879 (47.4) 0.01158 (62.4) 0.01126 (60.7) 0.00466 (25.1) 0.01399 (75.4) 0.00440 (23.7)
Maximum Value 0.01284 (69.2) 0.01739 (93.7) 0.01579 (85.1) 0.00698 (37.6) 0.01664 (89.7) 0.00560 (30.2)
Minimum Value 0.00468 (25.5) 0.00698 (37.6) 0.00874 (47.1) 0.00230 (12.4) 0.01228 (66.2) 0.00341 (18.4)
Std. Deviation 0.00239 (12.9) 0.00310 (16.7) 0.00330 (17.8) 0.00152 (8.2) 0.00184 (9.9) 0.00111 (6.0)
# of Measurements 40 20 5 10 5 3
Note: Atkinson’s Friction Factor in kg/m3 (lbfmin2/ft4 × 10-10)
FRICTION FACTOR MEASUREMENTS IN COAL AND friction factor is very dependent on the geometry and size
SOFT ROCK MINES of the conveyor belt, and on the cribbing material and
spacing.
Measurements of airway friction factors were obtained
during the ventilation surveys of fourteen coal and soft rock
mines from both the east and west coast regions of the
6
United States. Sufficient data were measured to determine
characteristic friction factors for both intake and return 5

Number of Measurements
3
airways, however, a lack of data for belt and cribbed entries Mean Value = 0.00753 kg/m
4
was noted. In most coal mines the airflow in beltways is
kept to a minimum which results in difficult conditions for 3
the measurement of frictional pressure differentials. The
variance in resistance encountered in the cribbed drifts was 2

extreme. The friction factor for these drifts will vary based
1
upon the cribbing spacing, construction, layout in the drift,
and the aerodynamic properties of the construction. There 0

were insufficient field data recorded to adequately describe

2
00

00

00

00

00

01

01

01
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
4-

5-

6-

7-

8-

9-

0-

1-
these factors for cribbed entries. In general the mean

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

01
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
3
friction factor for return entries appears to be higher than Friction Factor Span (kg/m )

that of intake entries for the same roof support type. This is
due to the intake entries being better maintained and Figure 2: Coal and Soft Rock Intake Airway Data
generally cleaner than the return entries. For this paper an
intake airway is defined as a clean rectangular entry with
roof bolts and limited mesh lining. A return airway is
described as a rectangular airway with some irregularities 5

(sloughing), roof bolts, and limited mesh. Mean Value = 0.00872 kg/m
3

4
Number of Measurements

Figures 2 and 3 show the measurements taken in coal

3
and soft rock mines for both typical intake and return
airways. Table 2 shows the friction factor data for intake,
2
return, conveyor and cribbed airways. In general, the
airways measured were rectangular. The results of these 1
measurements show that the mean value of friction factor
computed for intake and return airways is a reasonable 0
value to use for future ventilation planning purposes. The
6

2
00

00

00

00

01

01

01
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
standard deviation is not too significant for these types of
5-

6-

7-

8-

9-

0-

1-
00

00

00

00

00

01

01
0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
airways and the data does not appear to be skewed above or Friction Factor Span(kg/m )
3

below the average. However, there is a significant spread of

data for conveyor and cribbed airways. For these airways it Figure 3: Coal and Soft Rock Return Airway Data
is suggested that care be used in implementing these data in
a design. It may be prudent to use the average value
presented plus one half standard deviation to provide some
conservatism in the design. The reason for this is that the

Table 2: Standardized Friction Factors for Coal Mine Airways

Intake Drift Return Drift Belt Drift Cribbed Drift

Average Value 0.00753 (40.6) 0.00872 (47.0) 0.01058 (57.0) 0.06781 (365.5)
Maximum Value 0.01148 (61.9) 0.01133 (61.1) 0.01757 (94.7) 0.14409 (776.6)
Minimum Value 0.00482 (26.0) 0.00566 (30.5) 0.00459 (24.3) 0.04522 (243.7)
Std. Deviation 0.00219 (11.8) 0.00176 (9.5) 0.00636 (34.3) 0.02516 (135.6)
# of Measurements 23 15 5 7
Note: Atkinson’s Friction Factor in kg/m3 (lbfmin2/ft4 × 10-10)
CONCLUSIONS AND COMPARISONS WITH for a larger, smoother, and more regular airway, which
VENTILATION TEXTS would consequently have a lower friction factor. MVS did
not measure a single friction factor as high as those
The mean and recommended standardized friction factors referenced by McElroy (1935). It can be seen that if
presented in this paper were compared with standardized McElroy’s values of friction factor are used for mine
friction factors for similarly described airways in several planning, an unnecessarily high mine resistance will be
articles and ventilation texts. This comparison is shown on built into the design. This could result in over sizing main
Table 3. It was noted that a number of ventilation textbooks fans and possibly result in unnecessary developments.
reference metal mine friction factor data originally Comparison of the MVS recommended friction factors with
computed by McElroy (1935). These texts include; “Mine McPherson (1993) showed reasonably close results.
Ventilation and Air Conditioning” Hartman (1997),
“Mining Engineering Handbook” Hartman (1992), and In reviewing engineering work conducted by others,
“Mine Ventilation Engineering” Hall (1981). Table 3 only MVS personnel have observed that a common mistake is
lists “Mine Ventilation and Air Conditioning” by Hartman made by not adjusting the friction factor for actual mine
et. al. (1997) since the other texts reference the same source density. As mentioned previously, certain operations where
for metal mine friction factors. This text also references the air density is significantly higher or lower than standard
Kharkar et. al. (1974) for coal mine entries. In general, the air density not adjusting the friction factor could have a
recommended MVS values are consistently lower than the significant impact on the total mine resistance.
values quoted in the ventilation texts. For coal mines, the
friction factors listed by McPherson, 1993 and Hartman et. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
al. (1997), are very close to the factors measured by MVS.
However, friction factors based on McElroy’s work for The authors would like to acknowledge the help and
airways driven in igneous rocks (metal mine airways) are dedication of both Dr. Malcolm J McPherson, and Mr. Ian J
over 100% higher than what was measured by MVS. One Duckworth for both presenting ideas, and providing
possible explanation for this discrepancy is the modern valuable insight and critique of this paper.
techniques and equipment used to drive drifts in metal
mines today. These modern mining techniques may provide

Table 3: Comparison of Standardized MVS Measured k Factors with Published Data

Airway Type Mean MVS Suggested MVS McPherson Hartman et. al.
Measured Data Value (1993) (1997)
Rectangular Airway – Clean Airway 0.0075 (41) 0.0075 (41) 0.009 (49) 0.0080 (43)
(coal or soft rock with rock bolts limited
mesh)
Rectangular Airway – Some Irregularities 0.0087 (47) 0.0087 (47) 0.009 (49) 0.0091 (49)
(coal or soft rock with rock bolts limited
mesh)
Metal Mine Drift (arched and bolted with 0.0088 (47) 0.010 (60) 0.0120 (65) 0.0269 (145)
limited mesh)
Metal Mine Ramp (arched and bolted with 0.0116 (62) 0.013 (71) -n/a- 0.0297 (160)
limited mesh)
Metal Mine Beltway (large area, rock 0.0140 (75) 0.015 (80) -n/a- -n/a-
bolted with mesh)
Bored Circular Raise (contains entry/exit 0.0047 (25) 0.0050 (27) 0.004 (22) 0.0028 (15)
loss)
Rectangular Alimak Raise (un-timbered 0.01126 (61) 0.0129 (70) 0.014 (75) -n/a-
with rock bolt and mesh)
TBM Drift 0.0044 (24) 0.0050 (26) 0.0055 (30) 0.0037 (20)
(rock bolts with mesh)
Note: Atkinson’s Friction Factor in kg/m3 (lbfmin2/ft4 × 10-10). Bold indicates large discrepancy with MVS measured values.
REFERENCES

Duckworth, I.J., Prosser, B.P., 1997, “An Analysis of the

Data Obtained from Ventilation Studies of Longwall
Panels,” Proceedings of the sixth International Mine
Ventilation Symposium, Edited by Ramani, R.V., pp. 479-
485.

Hall, C.J., 1981, “Mine Ventilation Engineering,” Published

by The Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration,
Inc., pp. 62-72.

Hartman, H.L., Mutmansky, T.M., Ramani, R.V., and

Wang, W.J., 1997, “Mine Ventilation and Air
Conditioning,” Third Edition, Published by John Wiley &
Sons Publishing Company, pp. 155-157.

Hartman, H.L., 1992, editor, “SME Mining Engineering

Handbook,” Published by The Society for Mining,
Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., pp. 1052-1092.

Kharkar, R., Stefanko, R., and Ramani, R.V., 1974,

“Analysis of Leakage and Friction Factors in Coal Mine
Ventilation Systems,” Special Research Report Number
SR-99, Pennsylvania Department of Commerce.

McElroy, G.E., 1935, “Engineering Factors in the

Ventilation of Metal Mines,” U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, Bulletin Number 385.

McPherson, M. J., 1993, “Subsurface Ventilation and

Environmental Engineering,” Published by Chapman &
Hall, pp. 134-140.

Von Karman, T., 1939, Transactions ASME 61, p. 705.

Wala, A.M., 1991, “Studies of Friction Factor for

Kentucky’s Coal Mines,” Proceedings of the 5th U.S. Mine
Ventilation Symposium, Edited by Wang, Y.J., pp. 675-
684.