Back calculating surface roughness
Back calculating surface roughness
(OP)
thread378-220785: PVC pipe absolute roughness
I have read a number of posts on this site which mention "back calculating" to find the roughness of a pipe/hose (see link). I have a fabric duct used for HVAC which was sent to us for R&D purposes from the manufacturer. I am having trouble back calculating my test results to find the duct roughness. It's a simple fix surely -- can someone outline in detail their process for calculating epsilon?
Thanks in advance
I have read a number of posts on this site which mention "back calculating" to find the roughness of a pipe/hose (see link). I have a fabric duct used for HVAC which was sent to us for R&D purposes from the manufacturer. I am having trouble back calculating my test results to find the duct roughness. It's a simple fix surely -- can someone outline in detail their process for calculating epsilon?
Thanks in advance





RE: Back calculating surface roughness
Solving a Colebrook or similar fluid head loss equation for ε isn't on my priority list.
"We have a leadership style that is too directive and doesn't listen sufficiently well. The top of the organisation doesn't listen sufficiently to what the bottom is saying." Tony Hayward CEO, BP
**********************
"Being GREEN isn't easy" ..Kermit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpiIWMWWVco
http://vir
RE: Back calculating surface roughness
RE: Back calculating surface roughness
For flow in a duct the flow is probably fully turbulent and you can use the rough pipe law:
1/√f = 2Log (3.7D/ke) or
(1/2)1/√f = Log (3.7D/ke)
Take the anti log of both sides and get:
10(1/2)1/√f=(3.7D/ke)
Solve for ke:
ke=(3.7D/10(1/2)1/√f)
f is the Darcy friction factor
D is the pipe diameter
ke is the effective roughness
You can do the same for the Colebrook equation.
RE: Back calculating surface roughness
Thanks for the help! I iterated per the instructions of BigInch and received the results I needed.
The equation you provided gave me near exact results to those which I iterated. However, it is handy to have an equation which Excel can equate for large amounts of data.
In hind sight I should have tried to solve for the Colebrook equation rather than the Haaland equation since the Haaland equation is derived from the Colebrook equation.
Thanks again BigInch and vzeos.