Laminar and Turbulent Flow in Pipes

06-363 Transport Processes Laboratory

Carnegie Mellon University

Department of Chemical Engineering
10 th April 2006

Team3
Yuyan Chow
Apiradee Honglawan
Wendy Hui Shang Kho
Calvin Ng
James Tsui

Table of Contents:

Section Page Number

Abstract 0

Introduction 2
Experimental Setup 2-4

Procedures 4

Background and Theory 5-7

Results 8-12

Discussion 12-15

Conclusions and Recommendation 16

Nomenclature 17

References 18

Appendix 19

Introduction:
The transportation of fluids is important in efficient and safe operation of chemical process and chemical plants. We as
chemical engineers must understand the phenomena within these pipes qualitatively and qualitatively in order to monitor and
control the entire system. For more complicated problems involving both compressible and incompressible liquid under
non-steady state, Computational Fluid Dynamics via computer simulation may be used to solve the problem.
One of the factors that must be taken into consideration is the friction between the fluid and the pipe. Friction changes
according to the velocity of flow in a given pipe and may be qualitatively represented by relating the Reynolds number N Re to a
f
friction factor . One representation is called the Fanning-friction factor . Data collected from this experiment, will be used to
f
develop a qualitative relationship between the friction factor and Reynolds number N Re . We will compare the data with the
literature values and analyze the difference between frictional loss in laminar and turbulent flow qualitatively. The next section
describes the equipment to be used in this experiment.

Experimental Setup:

2
 Figure 1. Laminar and turbulent flow system. (Adapted from lab manual)
Liquid water is recycled through a parallel arrangement of pipes of different diameters. The flow rate of the stream for
any given pipe is controlled by adjusting a recycle bypass stream or a control valve at the outlet of each pipe. On each pipe, a
u-tube manometer is allowed to be tapped into four points to measure flow rates through an orifice plate and to measure the
pressure drop across each pipe. The first two points are located in the beginning of the piping slightly passed the elbow turns
and 10ft down the pipe respectively link to diagram. The other two points are located towards the outlet of the pipe across an
orifice. In addition, a resistance temperature detector (RTD) is in the reservation for monitoring the temperature of water
throughout the experiment.

Figure 2. Pitot tube system in 2”Plexiglas pipe. (Adapted from lab manual.)

A pitot tube system installed to the 2” Plexiglas pipe has a movable impact tube which can be positioned from the
bottom of the inner pipe wall to the top by micrometer. The pressure difference at various depths can be read off from the
3
manometer connected to it and the velocity at each position calculated.

Equipment:
-U-tube differential manometer with mercury (SG 13.6 g/cm3) fluid
- U-tube differential manometer with brominated hydrocarbon (SG 1.75 g/cm3) fluid
- “Big Blue” apparatus (schematic diagram Figure 1)
- 10 ft long Copper pipe 1.025 inches internal diameter with control valve
- 10 ft long Brass pipe 0.125 inches internal diameter with control valve
- 10 ft long Plexiglas pipe 2.036 inches internal diameter with control valve
- High-pressure pump for turbulent flow
- Low-pressure pump for laminar flow
- Orifice plate with coefficient 0.440 m2.5 /s
- Orifice plate with coefficient 0.0182 m 2.5 /s
- Graduated cylinder for volumetric flow measurement for laminar flow
- Digital thermocouple (RTD Thermistor)
- Two pressure taps per pipe for pressure drop measurement
- Two pressure taps for each orifice plate
- Meter stick
- Timer

Procedures:
At the start of the experiment, trapped bubbles in the pipes and the manometers are purged. This step is carried out to
ensure that there would be no bubbles trapped within the apparatus as the presence of bubbles will affect the reading of the
manometer. In order to investigate the effects on Fanning friction factor at turbulent flow, a brominated hydrocarbon (1.75 g/cm
3
) filled U-tube manometer is connected down the 2” Plexiglas pipe in order to measure the change in pressure across it.
Simultaneously, a mercury filled U-tube manometer measures the pressure drop across the orifice in order to determine the
volumetric flow rate.
Similarly for laminar flow, the pressure drop across the 1/8” brass pipe is measured. The volumetric flow rate is
determined with a graduated cylinder where a given volume of water is collected in a set amount of time.
In addition, a velocity profile of both high flow and low flow is compiled using the data collected from the Pitot tube
apparatus setup in the 2” Plexiglas pipe shown in Figure 2. The pressure drop is read at 0.100” intervals from the center in the
turbulent core and 0.050” or 0.025” intervals as the probe nears the wall. 30 to 60 seconds is allowed for the new delta P to
come to equilibrium. Since the pump raises the water temperature during the course of the experiment, the fluid temperature is
measured periodically.

Background and Theory:

4
 Reynolds number, a dimensionless constant, is frequently used to distinguish between the turbulent flow and laminar
flow.
D⋅ v⋅ ρ
NRe
µ
(1)
For a straight circular pipe, Reynolds number less than 2100 corresponds to laminar flow and Reynolds number above 4000
corresponds to turbulent flow. In the transition region, (Reynolds number 2100-4000) the flow can be viscous or turbulent
(Geankoplis, pg 51).
In this experiment, the diameter of the pipe, the density and the viscosity of the fluid can be found from tables. To
calculate the velocity, the volumetric flow rate (Q) and the cross sectional area of the pipe (A) has to be measured.
Q
v
A
(2)
To obtain the volumetric flow rate for the turbulent flow, the pressure drop across the orifice is measured using the brominated
hydrocarbon (SG = 1.75 g/cm 3) and mercury manometer, depending on the diameter of pipe in used and type of flow. The
correlation between pressure drop across the orifice and the flow rate is given by the equation
1
2
Q k ⋅h (3)
Where k is the orifice coefficient given by the manufacturer and h is the pressure drop across the orifice plate.
A common parameter used in laminar and turbulent flow is the Fanning friction factor, f. The Fanning friction factor is
defined as shear stress, τ, at the surface divided by the product of density multiplied by the velocity head (Geankoplis, page
92). The general equation for the Fanning friction factor is
τ ∆P⋅ D
f
2 2
v 2⋅ ρ ⋅ l⋅ v
ρ⋅
2 (4)
where τ is the shear stress at the surface, ? P is the total pressure drop across the pipe and l is the pipe length. Friction factor
can also be expressed in terms of Reynolds number. In the laminar flow range (Reynolds number < 2100) the friction factor as
a function of Reynolds number derived from the Hagen-Poiseuille is
µ 16
f 16⋅
D⋅ v⋅ ρ NRe
(5)
For turbulent flow, the fanning friction can be expressed through different correlations based on the distinction on whether the
tube surface is smooth or rough. For our experiment, we assumed that the pipe is smooth. To calculate the friction factor for
turbulent flow, three different equations within reasonably accurate specific N Re ranges can be used. These equations are in the
form
b
f a+
n
NRe
where a, b and n are coefficients (6)

5
Table 1: Empirical equation coefficients for turbulent flow with N Re range (Jhon Fluid Mechanics 9-2)
Equation Name a b n NRe range

Blasius 0 0.079 0.25 4 x 10 3 < N Re < 10 5

Colburn 0 0.046 0.20 10 5 < N Re < 10 6

Koo 0.0014 0.125 0.32 4 x 10 3 < N Re < 3x10 6

The turbulent correlations described thus far are for smooth pipes but most pipes usually have some extent of surface
roughness (e) that can be associated with the material. Thus, the friction factor does not depend solely on the Reynolds
number but also the relative roughness (e/D) of the pipe. The Churchill Equation is among the many equations that relate
surface roughness (e) to the friction factor.

1
 0.27 ⋅ e  7  0.9
−4 log
 D +N  
f   Re   (7)
For the purpose of comparison, a graphical presentation of friction factor versus Reynolds number by Moody is attached in
Appendix.
When a fluid flows through a pipe, friction between the fluid and the wall causes a change in velocity with increasing
distance from the wall. Fluid closer to the wall moves slower than fluid in the center of the pipe. The resulting change in
velocity with position is called a velocity profile (Welty, pg 89). The velocity profile for a laminar flow is parabolic whereas the
velocity profile for a turbulent flow is squashed and flattened. To determine the velocity profile, a pitot tube is used to measure
the local velocity of the fluid in the pipe. The local velocity (v) is calculated using the equation
1
2
 2⋅ ∆P 
v Cp ⋅  
 ρ  (8)
where C p is a dimensionless constant ranging from 0.98 to 1.0 and ? P is the pressure drop from the location of the pitot tube to
the inner pipe wall (Perry). The velocity profile for a smooth pipe can also be defined as
1
n
v  y
 
vmax  R
(9)
Where y is the distant from the pitot tube to the wall, R is the radius of the pipe, n is the slowly varying function of the Reynolds
number which ranges from 6 to 10 as Reynolds number increases from 4000 to 3200000 (Welty, pg 177). To evaluate the
turbulent velocity profile, the universal velocity distribution equation
u+ = B + A ln (y +) (10)
where u+ and y + are dimensionless velocity and artificial Reynolds number respectively. The equations for both the
dimensionless groups and how they are related are given as

6
 vx

f
vb ⋅
u+ = 2 (11)

f
NRe ( y) ⋅
y+ = 2 (12)

u+= A + B ln(y +) where A and B are experimentally determined constant.. For y + > 30, A and B are 5.5 and 2.5 respectively.

Results:
I. Relationship between Reynolds numbers and the friction factors

Experimental data examining the relationship between the relationship between Reynolds number and the friction
factors for laminar (N Re < 2100) and turbulent (N Re > 4000) flow are summarized in Figure 3 and 4 respectively.
In Figure 3, the experimental data is compared against the Hagen-Poisseuile equation. The relationship of the
107.10
f
1.3
experimental friction factor and the Reynolds number expressed in power form is Re whereas the theoretical Hagen
16
f
Re
Poisseuile’s equation gives . Generally, the graphical representation of our data follows the trend of the Hagen Poisseuile
equation but, on average, the experimental friction factor deviates 15.4% from the expected Hagen Poisseuile values.

Fanning Friction Factor VS NRe (Laminar)

0.06

0.05

0.04

Experimental data
0.03 Hagen
Log. (Hagen)

Fanning
0.02 Factor

0.01

0.00
0.00 500.00 1000.00 1500.00 2000.00 2500.00
NRe

Figure 3: Comparison of Theoretical and Experimental data. This graph shows the experimental friction factors
7
obtained for the laminar fluid flow in the 1/8” brass pipe and the expected theoretical friction factors. The error bar
accounts for 15.4% error of the average value of the experimental friction factor to the expected value.

8
Figure 4 summarizes the experimental data for turbulent flow in the 2” Plexiglas and compares it with three other theoretical
equations; Blasius, Colburn and Koo based on their specific Reynolds number ranges (Table 1 in Theory). The relationship of
324.85
f
0.95
the experimental friction factor and the Reynolds number expressed in power form is Re whereas the Blasius, Colburn
Blasius Eq
0.079 0.046 0.125
f f f 0.0014 +
0.25 0.20 0.32
and Koo equations give Re , Re and Re respectively When comparing the average experimental
value of the friction to the Blasius, Colburn and Koo equations, the percentage errors are 46.2%, 22.0% and 24.8%
respectively.

Fanning Friction Factor vs NRe (Turbulent)

1.60E-02

1.40E-02

1.20E-02
Balsius
1.00E-02 Colburn
Koo
8.00E-03 Experimental data
Log. (Koo)
F a 6n.n0i0nEg- 0F3a c t o r Expon. (Colburn)
Log. (Balsius)
4.00E-03

2.00E-03

0.00E+00
4000.00 54000.00 104000.00 154000.00
NRe

Figure 4: Comparison of Theoretical and Experimental data. This graph shows the experimental friction factors
obtained for the turbulent fluid flow in the 2” Plexiglas pipe and the expected theoretical friction factors. The error
bar accounts for 46.2%, 22.0%, and 24.8% error of the average value of the experimental friction factor to Blasius,
Colburn and Koo correlations respectively.

II. Velocity Profile of Turbulent Flow:

9
 High flow rate
Overall Velocity Profile (Re=1.969E+04)
Low Flow Rate
(Re=6.743E+03)
1.2

1.1

1
v/vmax

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
y/r

Figure 5: Overall velocity profile from the bottom of the 2” Plexiglas pipe to the top of it for both high and low flow
rate. The velocity profile is noted to be asymmetric about the center of the pipe.

Velocity Profile

0.9

0.8

0.7
v/vmax

0.6

0.5 High flow rate

(Re=1.969E+04)
0.4
Low Flow Rate
0.3 (Re=6.743E+03)
0.2 Theory

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
y/r

Figure 6: Comparison of Theoretical and Experimental data. This graph shoes the velocity profile for high
flow rate and low flow rate obtained from Pitot tube measurements in 2”Plexiglas pipe and the theoretical prediction
based on the Power Rule. The theoretical data lies between the low and high flow rate.

Compilation of experimental data exhibits a binomial distribution shaped velocity profile for turbulent flow (Figure 5 and
6). Local velocities were calculated using equation 8 from theory section. The average experimental n calculated from equation
9 for the high flow rate (Reynolds number = 1.97 x 10 4) is n =17.15 while low flow rate (Reynolds number = 6.74 x 10 3) gives
n = 5.83. Theoretical value of the “Power Rule” gives n =7. These are shown in figure 7
With the integration of the local velocities (Equation 9 from theory section), the average/bulk velocity, volumetric flow
rate Q and Reynolds number Re were obtained for both the high and low flow rate. Volumetric flow rates were then compared
to the values calculated from orifice plate measurements. The results are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Comparison of orifice plate and Pitot tube results of n, volumetric flow rate Q, average (bulk) velocity v b,
and Reynolds’ number, Re.

10
 Data Source Q (m 3/s)

High Flow Rate Orifice Plate 3.11 x 10 3

(Re=1.425 x 10 4)
Pitot Tube 4.30 x 10 -3
(Re=1.969 x 10 4)
% Difference 27.63%

Low Flow Rate Orifice Plate 1.12 x 10 -3

(Re=5.587 x10 3)
Pitot Tube 1.47 x10 -3
(Re=6.743 x 10 3)
% Difference 17.16%

Log scale
y = 0.0583x
2
0 R = 0.998
-4 -3 -2 -1 0
-0.1
High Flow Rate

-0.2
ln(v/vmax)

Low Flow Rate

-0.3 Linear (Low Flow

Rate)
Linear (High Flow
-0.4
Rate)

-0.5
y = 0.1714x
-0.6 2
R = 0.9835
-0.7 Low Flow Rate
ln(y/r)

Figure 7: Plot of natural logs of velocity profile data for high and low flow rates.

Lastly, plots of the universal distributions were generated (Figure 8) for both the low and high flow rates. The
established universal equations based on equation 10 are:
High flow rate (Re=1.969 x 10 4), A = 0.872; B = 6.922; Hence,
u+ =0.872 lny + + 6.922
Low flow rate (Re=6.743 x 10 3), A =0.691; B = 0.553; Hence,
u+ =0.691 lny + + 0.553
whereas the theoretical universal velocity distribution equation gives
u+ = 2.5 ln(y + ) + 5.5 for y + > 30
The A value for high flow rate has a percent error of 65% and for B, 25.8%. For the low flow rate, A deviated by 72.3%
whereas B is off by 89.9%.

11
Figure 8: Universal velocity profile for high flow rate and low flow rate as well as the theoretical velocity profile u+ =
2.5 lny + +5.5.

Discussion:

I. Fanning friction factor and Reynolds Number

The results of our data in Figure 3 suggests that when Reynolds number increased, the friction factor decreases
exponentially as predicted by the theory. Nonetheless, our friction factors on average deviated from Hagen Poisseuile values by
15.4%.
Several source of error can be attributed to the deviation from the theoretical correlation. For instance, properties of fluid
flowing in the pipe used in the calculations assumed the properties of pure water, but during the experiment impurities such as
rust are observed in the bottom of the water reservoir and in the transparent Plexiglas pipe. These impurities can affect the
viscosity and the density of the water in circulation, thus causing a change in both the Reynolds number and the friction factor.
Fouling in the pipe can lead to decrease in its inner diameter, thereafter, decreasing the Reynolds number. Further investigation
is needed to find out whether its effect was small and can be neglected. Another source of error was the inaccuracy of data
measurements. Presence of impurities in manometers made it difficult to read the height of the minuscule and affect ? P
calculations. In addition, human error has to be taken into account when taking any experimental measurements.
The experimental data gathered for turbulent flow (Figure 4) do not show as strong a correlation between the friction
factor and Reynolds number as what Blasius, Colburn and Koo correlations predict them to be. Based on the data (See
Appendix VI) and Figure 4, omission of the two outliers (the first two points in Figure 4), allowed for a stronger correlations
between them. Table 2 summarizes the percentage of error with and without the omission of outliers.

Table 2: Comparison for error with and without omission of outliers

Error without omission of Error with omission
Theory Re range outliers of outliers

12
 Blasius 4x10 3< Re < 10 5 46.2% 21.3%
Colburn 105< Re < 10 6 22.0% 14.3%
Koo 4X103 < Re < 3X10 6 24.8% 15.4%

Omission of the outliers is also a valid assumption because those two points were the first two points we took for the
experiment. At that time, we were trying to get accustom to the equipment and might have made experimental errors and
measurements as we are unsure on what experimental values to expect.
Apart from that, the disagreement between experimental and theoretical data can also be related to the roughness of
pipe. Throughout the experiment, the pipe is assumed to be smooth whereas in reality there can be some extend of roughness
due to the material of the pipe as well as from fouling. From Perry’s Handbook, the Plexiglas used can be placed in the
category of drawn tubing with a relative roughness of e=1.526x10 -6 m. This value is relatively small and has little effect on the
flow, thus, our assumption that the pipe is smooth is valid and we can attribute the roughness due to fouling. Roughness also
have an impact on the velocity and thereafter, affecting the overall friction factor.
Another possible error is the pressure measurements taken across the orifice plate and the manometer. At smaller
Reynolds number, the pressure drop across the orifice plate was very small, ranging from 1-5 inches. In addition, the
manometer fluid is constantly fluctuating, making pressure measurements arduous and prone to errors. Inaccuracy of pressure
difference reading would influence the velocity and thus, the friction factor (Refer to equation 4 in theory section). In addition,
based on sensitivity analysis, the total pressure drop in the manometer accounts for an indeterminate error of about 5%
uncertainty. However, the uncertainty in all measurements only account for 2.3% of the aggregate error and will not justify the
systematic error.
Other causes of error include the accumulation of sediments in the orifice plate that will cause the measured velocity to
be higher than the actual velocity. Again, further investigate is needed to quantize the percentage of errors due to the
accumulated sediments.
II. Velocity Profiles in Turbulent Flow
The non-symmetry of the velocity profile can be explained by the way the pipes are setup in the apparatus. Referring
to Figure 1, the pumped fluid travels from the reservoir through two elbow bends before the fluid reaches the pipe inlet. As
fluid passes through the first 90o elbow, the fluid accelerates around the outer bend while the fluid loses velocity around the
inner bend. This phenomenon occurs because the fluid travels a shorter distance while around the inner bend and travels a
longer distance around the outer bend. The phenomenon is further exaggerated as the fluid passes through the T piping causing
the velocity of fluid in the upper part of the pipe to have a lower velocity when compared to the fluid flowing through the lower
part of the pipe. The non-symmetrical flow can be reduced simply by adding a mesh at the inlet of the pipe. Another way to
reduce the non-symmetrical velocity profile effect is to extend the pipe (approximately 20-30 x diameter of pipe in length) from
the T-elbow to where experimental data is collected.
Figure 7 shows the velocity profiles in the 2” Plexiglas pipe for experimental data of high and low flow rates alongside
with the theory. Three main characteristics of the graphs can be observed. Firstly, velocities in the central region of the pipe

13
were merely 20 to 45 % higher than the velocities at the wall. This feature indicates the presence of plug flow properties in
both of the two flow rates this explaining the shapes of the velocity profiles. Secondly, theory predicts that the velocity (or
velocity ratio) at the wall would sharply drop to zero. However, velocity ratios at the wall for both high and low flow rates
calculated from our experimental data are 0.8 and 0.55 respectively. This is because the Pitot tube has a certain thickness to it
that the pressure being measured was not exactly on the pipe wall but at a distance equals to the thickness of the Pitot tube.
This makes it closer to the turbulent core and hence, the non-zero values for velocity ratios. The third characteristics of the
graph is that most data points for low turbulent flow velocity profile fall on the theoretical curve suggesting that the theory
approximates low turbulent flow velocity profile better than at high turbulent flow.
In Figure 8, universal velocity profiles for high and low flow rate as well as the theoretical velocity profile are displayed
side by side. The A and B values for high flow rate (A = 0.8719; B = 6.9219) is significantly closer to that of the theoretical
velocity profile equation where A=2.5 and B=5.5 than low flow rate (A =0.691; B = 0.553). It shows that the theoretical
model for universal velocity distribution describes flow at high Reynolds number better than at low Reynolds number.
The volumetric flow rates calculated from orifice plate data and local velocities data are being compared on Table 3.
Percentage difference between the two in high flow rate (27.63%) is greater than in low flow rate (17.16%). The percentage
differences are in acceptable range indicating a certain degree of consistency between the two sources. However, further
investigation is needed to determine whether the orifice plate or Pitot tube measurements are more accurate.

Conclusion:

After analyzing the experimental data, we concluded that the friction factor decreased as the Reynolds number
increased for both laminar and turbulent flow. This trend is consistent with empirical models. The relationship of the
107.10
f
1.3
experimental friction factor and the Reynolds number expressed in power form is Re for the laminar flow in the 1/8”
324.85
f
0.95
brass pipe and Re for turbulent flow in the 2” Plexiglas. The experimental factor deviates from the theoretical Hagen
Poiseuille (Laminar flow), Blasius, Colburn and Koo (turbulent flow) by 15.4%, 46.2%, 22.0% and 24.8% respectively. The
average experimental n values for the velocity profiles are n =17.15 for high flow rates and n = 5.83 for low flow rates. The
universal velocity profile for high flow rate is u+ = 0.872lny + + 6.922 and u + = 0.691 lny + + 0.553 for low flow rates. As
discussed, fouling in pipe and human error are the two most likely reasons that led to deviation from theoretical correlations.

14
Future Recommendations:
In general, we can improve results by careful planning of our experiment. By allowing the system to run for a while
before taking the first set of data, some bubbles in the system can be purged and fouling can be reduced too as turbulent flow
can maintain solids in suspension. Also, by filling up the reservoir at the back of the system, we can reduce introduction of
extra bubbles when the recycle stream recycles water into the reservoir. As it is difficult to completely clean the pipes of fouling
products such as corrosion and dirt because of sharp bends and dead spots in the system, it is imperative that we include
fouling factor determination in our experiment.

Nomenclature:

Fanning friction factor [dimensionless] f

Constant of gravity [m/s2] gc
Height of a fluid [m, ft] h
Orifice plate coefficient [m2.5 /s] K
Constants [dimensionless] N
Density of fluid [g/m^3] P
Velocity [dimensionless] u+
Kinematic viscosity [m^2/s] Ν
Velocity of fluid [m/s, ft/s] V
Bulk velocity [m/s,ft/s] vb
Maximum velocity of a velocity profile [m/s, ft/s] vmax
Distance from pipe wall [in] y
Distance [dimensionless] y+
Universal Velocity Distribution Constants [dimensionless] A, B
Pitot tube coefficient [dimensionless] Cp
Length of tube [m, ft] L
Reynolds number [dimensionless] Nre
Pressure drop [N/m 2, inches of Hg, inches of Brominated Hydrocarbon] ?P

Volumetric flow rate [ft^3/s] Q

Radius of tube [m, ft] R

15
Roughness height [m, ft] ε
Viscosity of a fluid [Pa s] µ

References:
1. Baker, Brian; Gutowski, David; Smith, Alexander. Flow in Pipes: Daveloping a Relationship Between Fanning
Friction Factor and Reynolds Number. Carnegie Mellon University. March 14, 2002.

2. Garges, Justin; Gartner, Nicole; Haag, Amy; Lazur, Nathan; Melanko, Jessica. Laminar and Turbulent Flow in
Pipes. Carnegie Mellon University. March 19, 2004.

3. Geankoplis, Christie J. Tranpsort and Unit Operations, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1993.

4. Jhon, Myung. Fluid Mechanics. Carnegie Mellon University, 2002.

5. Perry, R.H., Green, D.W. Perry Chemical Engineers’ Handbook (7th Edition), McGraw-Hill, 1997.

6. Seykota, Ed. Friction Studies. 1999. http://www.seykota.com/rm/friction/friction.htm

7. Welty, James R., Wicks, Charles E., Wilson, Robert E., Rorrer, Gregory. Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat and
Mass Transfer. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 2001.

16