CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

Skin friction
School of Chemical, Biological, and Materials Engineering and Sciences, Mapua University, Muralla St., Intramuors, Manila, Philippines 1002

Abstract
Analysis of Fanning friction factor is performed using different parameters, behavior of fluid flow, and the characteristics of the
conduit. In this experiment, the pressure drop and flow regime of fluid were calculated for the determination of Fanning friction
factor. The pressure drop of the fluid was determined by utilizing Carbon tetrachloride (CCl 4) as the manometric fluid to show a
height difference obtained from the manometer. An observed friction factor was calculated by the pressure drop parameter using the
concept of Mechanical energy balance. A relationship between pressure drop and volumetric flowrate was observed by varying
values of flowrate of the process fluid—water. Performing this experiment showed the direct proportionality between the pressure
drop and volumetric flowrate. Whereas the flow regime of fluid was based on its Reynolds number and was tested on pipes with
varying texture. The calculation on rough pipes produces the highest increasing values of friction factor. On the other hand, a
similarity between the friction factor calculated in relation to pressure drop and for smooth pipes was observed. Although these
characteristics showed different values of friction factor, the results gathered were all inversely proportional with the Reynolds
number. The comparison of different types of manometric fluid was also performed to determine their advantages and disadvantages
in performing this experiment.

Keywords: skin friction, incompressible flow in pipes, friction loss, Fanning friction factor, pressure drop

1. Introduction

The flow behavior of fluid is dependent on the properties of fluid and the characteristics of conduits such as its
diameter and length. When a fluid flows in a pipe, the velocities from various distances in the cross-section are
different. The fluid flow in the center of the pipe is faster than the flow adjacent to the walls of the pipe [1]. This is
because of the shear force that is experienced when the walls or surfaces of pipe are in contact with the flowing fluid.
This force exerted by the inside surface of pipes is called Skin friction.
Different velocities of fluid can be a deciding factor for the type of flow behavior [1]. The flow regime at low
velocities that has tendency to flow without lateral mixing is called laminar flow. On the other hand, flow regime at
higher velocities form eddies resulting to lateral mixing is called turbulent flow. A dimensionless number called
Reynolds number (Re) is used to classify the flow regime inside pipes where variables such as velocity, density and
viscosity of the fluid, and the pipe’s diameter are combined [2].
Duρ
ℜ=
μ
In flow in pipes, energy is required to overcome friction. The pressure drop (-ΔP) represents the mechanical energy
loss due to frictional resistances of the flowing fluid against the inside surface of pipes. [1]. Pressure drop due to
friction can be related to a parameter used in both laminar and turbulent flow called Fanning friction factor, f.

−ΔP u 2 4 fL
= ( )
ρ 2 gc D

This equation shows the direct relationship between Fanning friction factor and pressure drop due to friction. Skin
friction losses are determined by using the Fanning friction factor [1]. However, Fanning friction factor is dependent
on the flow regime or Reynolds number and pipes surface roughness. In laminar flow, the surface roughness of the
pipe has no effect thus can be neglected. On the other hand, both Reynolds number and pipe’s relative roughness must
be determined for turbulent flow. Relative roughness is the amount of surface present on the inside surface of pipes [2].
This variable is critical for determining the friction factor in turbulent flows because it greatly affects the shear stress at
the pipe’s wall causing an increase in friction and the formation of eddies.

In this study, using the given parameters, the researchers must be able to (1) compute for the Fanning friction factor
for a fluid flowing inside a pipe; and (2) determine the pressure drop for a fluid inside a pipe due to skin friction.
2. Methodology

1.1. Fluid flow set-up using the simulator

The length of the pipe connected to a rotameter was set to 10 meters and a nominal diameter of the pipe of 1 inch. A
U-tube manometer was connected to 2 different points of the pipe having the same elevation. Carbon tetrachloride
(CCl4) was used as the manometric fluid and Water as the fluid flowing through the pipes.
The rotameter containing 2 valves—main and bypass valve— is connected to a pump and a reservoir where the
process fluid is located. The virtual set-up is shown in Figure 1.

Fig 1. Fluid flow in pipes set-up

1.2. Trial runs

Prior to the experiment, initial properties were observed first. As shown in Figure 1, the manometric fluid had the
same elevation indicating that it has the same pressure in both points. Moreover, the float was observed to be resting
freely at the bottom of the rotameter.
The volumetric flowrate of fluid flow was adjusted by rotating the main valve of the rotameter as the process fluid
started to be pumped upwards. On the first run, the flowrate was set to 1L/min, the height difference of the manometric
fluid was measured and recorded as it was needed for the calculation of Fanning friction factor.
Figure 2 shows the run for 1L/min flowrate with the difference in height of the manometric fluid, CCl 4. This
procedure was repeated for 6 different increasing values of Volumetric flowrate (calculations are shown in Appendix
B). The height difference in each run was observed and recorded.
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

Fig 2. Manometric reading for 1L/min volumetric flowrate

1.3. Change of Manometric fluid

A different manometric fluid, Mercury, was then utilized and compared its height difference with the gathered data
on the previous runs where CCl4 was used. Still, water was the process fluid.

With the same values of volumetric flowrates, the difference in height of Mercury shown from the manometer were
observed and compared from former runs. This procedure was done to determine and compare the change of the height
difference when the property and type of manometric fluids varies.

3. Results and Discussion

1.4. Pressure Drop

The relation between Pressure drop and the Volumetric flowrate of the process fluid is shown in Figure 3. With the
increasing value of Volumetric flowrate, the graph shows a direct proportion to the pressure drop. The pressure loss
from the two points, connected to the manometer, is dependent on the shear stress that is exerted by the pipe’s inside
surface to the flowing fluid. Accordingly, the velocity of the fluid proportionally increases with shear stress due to the
amount of momentum transfer. Hence, increasing the velocity or volumetric flowrate of the fluid will also result to a
greater pressure drop because of the increasing pressure loss as it approaches point 1.

800
700
PRESSURE DROP, Pa

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
VOLUMETRIC FLOWRATE, L/min

Fig 3. Pressure drop vs Volumetric flowrate

1.5. Friction factors

For laminar flow (Re < 2100), the Fanning friction factor is only dependent on the Reynolds number parameter
because relative roughness can be neglected. Similarly, the friction factor for turbulent flow also depends on the
Reynolds number greater than 4000 [2]. These flow regimes—laminar and turbulent—in smooth pipes were expressed
by Hagen-Poiseuille and Blasius equation, respectively. In which both equations are only dependent to the Reynolds
number. Therefore, as shown in Figure 4, Reynolds number calculated is inversely proportional to the friction factor
for smooth pipes.
0.020
0.018
0.016
0.014
Friction factor

0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Re

Fig 4. Friction factor on smooth pipes vs Reynolds number

The relationship between Reynolds number and Fanning friction for rough pipes is shown in Figure 5. Similar to the
results for fluid flow in smooth pipes, these two parameters are inversely proportional for both fluid flow regimes.
However, relative roughness was utilized for this correlation as it affects the value of Fanning friction factor using the
Churchill equation.
0.020
0.018
0.016
0.014
Friction factor

0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Re
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory
Fig 5. Friction factor on rough pipes vs Reynolds number

The comparison of Fanning friction factors for smooth and rough pipes are shown in Table 1. Due to the existence
of surface roughness, the friction factors for rough pipes are relatively higher than for smooth pipes. Considering this
parameter, however, the relationship between Reynolds number for both pipe’s surface condition and Fanning friction
factor are still proportionally inverse.
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4
Calculated Friction factor
(1L/min) (2L/min) (4L/min) (6L/min)
Assuming smooth pipes 0.018 0.009 0.0102 0.0093

Assuming rough pipes 0.0177 0.0137 0.011 0.0098

Table 1. Comparison of calculated friction factors for smooth and rough pipes from 4 different runs

The skin friction factor can be calculated from the mechanical energy balance in relation to the Pressure drop and
velocity of the flowing fluid. Figure 6 shows the relation between the Reynolds number and the Fanning friction factor
which is labeled as Observed friction factor. As stated from the discussion on the relation of pressure drop and
volumetric flowrate, these two parameters are directly proportional. Whereas the friction factor decreases with higher
speed of flowing fluid. Thus, a higher Reynolds number (due to increasing velocity of fluid) will result to smaller value
of the observed friction factor.

0.020
0.018
Observed friction factor

0.016
0.014
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Re

Fig 6. Observed friction factor vs Reynolds number

4. Conclusions

The experiment has demonstrated the fluid flow in pipes considering the skin friction that arose from the shearing
forces exerted by the inside surface of pipe. Fanning friction factor can be determined by different parameters such as
Pressure drop and Reynolds number. Based on the results, the assumption for smooth and rough pipes showed a
difference compared to the observed friction factor. However, the calculated friction factor on smooth pipes were more
similar with the observed friction factor compared to the results on rough pipes. This is because of the relative
roughness that was considered on the inside surface of pipes resulting to a higher Fanning friction factor.
The use of different manometric fluid with various densities is essential for this experiment as it exhibits a
difference in accuracy on readings. Denser manometric fluids, like Mercury, showed more accurate readings when
exposed to higher pressures without overflowing the manometer whereas Carbon tetrachloride (CCl 4) displayed a much
clearer and greater manometric height difference at low pressures. For this experiment, CCl 4 is a more advisable
manometric fluid to use when water or kerosene is the process fluid as it produced more accurate readings.
References

[1] C. Geankoplis, “Transport-Processes-and-Unit-Operations-Geankoplis” p. 938, 1993.

[2] H. Belyadi, E. Fathi, and F. Belyadi, “Hydraulic fracturing chemical selection and design,” Hydraul. Fract. Unconv. Reserv., pp. 107–120,
2019, doi: 10.1016/b978-0-12-817665-8.00008-4.

Appendices

Appendix A. Final Data Sheet

A. Determination of friction factor

Type of liquid: water

Temperature: 25oC
Manometric fluid: Carbon tetrachloride
Length of pipe: 10 m
Pipe internal diameter: 2.66 cm
Fluid density: 996.09 kg/m3
Fluid viscosity: 0.0008964 Pa·s

Parameters Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4

Rotameter reading, 𝑄 (L/min) 1 2 4 6

Average velocity, u (m/s) 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.1799

Manometric reading, ∆ℎ (cm) 0.2 0.4 1.8 3.8

Pressure drop, −∆𝑃 (Pa) 11.849 23.697 106.638 225.126

Observed friction factor, 𝑓𝑜𝑏𝑠 0.0176 0.0088 0.0099 0.0093

Reynolds number 886.49 1772.981 3545.961 5318.942

Calculated friction factor assuming
0.018 0.009 0.0102 0.0093
smooth pipes, 𝑓𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐,𝑠𝑚𝑜𝑜𝑡ℎ
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory
Calculated friction factor assuming
0.0177 0.0137 0.011 0.0098
rough pipes, 𝑓𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐,𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ
% difference between observed and
2.582 2.582 3.416 0.348
smooth friction factor
% difference between observed and
0.87 43.709 10.678 5.83
rough friction factor
 CH141L – Chemical Engineering Laboratory

Appendix B. Spreadsheet for calculations (including other values of Volumetric Flowrate)